Washington never fails to disappoint: even as George Bush finally utters the word "mistake" about the Iraqi adventure, and offers change that looks mostly like a gradual deepening of the same madness, and democrats who now control the majority in Congress promise at best a non binding resolution condemning the administration's policy.
Do they really think that will be a sufficient electoral insurance, by 2008, to absolve themselves of all responsibility for a disaster they had a chance to derail from its inception?
There will likely be investigations, denunciations, but no one seems to think the "thumping" message of november 2006 should be taken too seriously after all: action will have to wait. There might reasonable explanations for this lack of engagement. The situation has so deteriorated that no choice is satisfactory, and disaster is bound to fester a while longer no matter options are finally chosen. Yet, what could be the rationale for not starting immediately on a long-term solution? Does it really make sense to want to retake the White House, only with the certainty that the problem will be made even worse by 2 extra years of chest-pounding, and no decision-making? Would it not make sense to attack some of the most symbolic issues at hand - such as the closing of Guantanamo, now opened in legal limbo for 5 years? Or will whatever possible changes between now and 2008 be left to the old hands now arrived at the rescue of George Jr.- the veterans of Bush-the-father's cabinet and other ancient Reaganites? No wonder the comparisons with Vietnam, initially off target, suddenly seem appropriate.