Iraq showdown

The President just finished a news conference in which he again warned of casualties in the ongoing battle for Iraq and got in a few shots at those in the Democrat Party who don't believe in a GWoT. The Congress today is also tackling a supplemental to fund troops through the summer, one that will not include timetables regardless of what the "idiot liberals" might demand. We've not seen a day with this much netroots chum for a long time.

For the first time the Commander Guy brought Iran's nuke program into the picture by trying to project a world with both Saddam and the Mullahs in a nuclear arms race, as follows:

"It would have been a really dangerous world if you'd had the Iranians trying to develop a nuclear weapon and Saddam Hussein competing for a nuclear weapon," said Bush. "You can imagine what the mentality of the Middle East would have been like."

This is the kind of logic that certainly figured into our initial plans to take down Saddam but for whatever reason has been avoided through the years. Detractors will call this a desperation play but they would do well to read "Allah's Bomb" by A.J. Ventor before casting stones and pretending Bushco invented all this stuff.

After Keith Olbermann's riot act last night, which castigated the entire government for "failing us", one has to wonder whether the far left activists will put up with a Congress that cannot muster the votes to override a Bush veto. In other words, could a riot act on TV translate into a riot act on the streets, ala the Vietnam era? We'll have to see how passionate the anti-war protesters are--my sense is they're not cohesive enough to produce much blood in the streets.

Regardless, it's a tad unnerving to see the divide present in this country grow even wider. As silly as it was, the meltdown on "The View" was a microcosm of the general argument going on everywhere. Terrorists worldwide are surely thrilled and amazed.

MORE 5/24/07

From reading the transcript Bush's press conference sounded somewhat productive but then again I've not seen the video (only the one where the bird pooped on his sleeve). His answers made some sense with the exception of one:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You say you want nothing short of victory, that leaving Iraq would be catastrophic; you once again mentioned al Qaeda. Does that mean that you are willing to leave American troops there, no matter what the Iraqi government does? I know this is a question we've asked before, but you can begin it with a "yes" or "no."

THE PRESIDENT: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.

Someone should have followed up a bit better. For example, if al-Sadr were to pressure the Shiite government to pass a measure calling for us to leave could we do so without jeopardizing national security? How can we leave a destabilized country and still avoid the gloom and doom scenarios that have been painted--presumably the reason we're still fighting? As someone who supports the notion that a hasty departure would have severe downline consequences this is rather puzzling.

There are several ways this comment can be interpreted. When combined with his numerous references to "Plan BH" (Baker-Hamilton) it could have been a hedge towards leaving if the surge fails. Also, it could have been the beginning construction of a scapegoat, ie, al-Maliki or the Shiite government. That way when things go south it's not our fault and we can later blame it on Iranian influence.

The most likely reason was because he had to--Iraq is sovereign--but the likelihood they'd do such a thing remains less than the Cubs winning the Series so there's no real harm.