The top story in today's L.A. Times is (surprise) more bad "news" for the Bush administration. You can find the story here.
A few quick comments:
1. The story is by Ronald Brownstein, who Bill Clinton described as his favorite journalist. We're still looking for a story by Brownstein that is somewhat favorable to the Bush administration. Heck, we'd even accept a story that's pretty fair to Bush.
2. Is this really news, or simply manipulation of an all-too-willing news organization (the Times) by left-of-center foreign policy types who know very well how to use the Times to get such a message out?
3. Apparently 26 "ex-diplomats and military leaders" signed a joint statement "arguing that President George W. Bush has damaged America's national security and should be defeated in November." A few of them seem to have held posts during the Bush I administration.
4. It is certainly no surprise that the tired old diplomats from the State Department, most of whom worked on the Middle East desk or in that part of the world, are horrified that Bush is abandoning so many of the articles of faith in which those people placed such fervent belief for so many years. As for the ex-military people in the group, all of us should bear in mind the "ex" part of their current status. There's a reason why they are no longer in the military, and it may have lots to do with their attitude now.
5. Speaking of the "ex" status of all these folks, we'd wager that many of them are hoping to change that status in a new Democrat administration. Most of the signers are probably, shall we say, "available" to serve a Kerry White House. Just look at that list of people involved, their backgrounds, and their current status.
6. All that said, there can be no doubt at this point that G.W. Bush has bet his presidency on Iraq. We are worried, but fervently hope he wins that bet.