I don't think the Bush folks have a replacement lined up -- although at one time I would have ascribed such a Machiavellian plot to them (especially Cheney), now I fear that they're just too incompetent to effectively put something like that together. But we shall see. Maybe we haven't heard the last of Chalabi, who knows?

And I also, in my darker moments, fear you're right about what would happen after the chaos of the Maliki government falling. What the country needs, basically, is a neo-Saddam. Some strongarm type that could keep order and still keep the oil flowing might begin to appear to be a "best case" answer to the incompetents who got us into this mess. Call it "Saddam-lite" as we'd want him to be friendly to the US (of course) and allow the oil companies access.

In any case, you're right about it being interesting to see how it plays out. I just hope it won't be "interesting" in the context of the Oriental curse: "May you live in interesting times."

-CW

Look at this link...

Remember our email conversations about the Hadley memo? I wrote to you 13/3/06:

"When I read the Hadley memo online, I hadn't even found the Dreyfuss article. I found that later. But, as you mention in your email, almost every suggested course of action listed in the Hadley memo was either; a) not politically or militarily viable, or b) pure political suicide for Maliki. This led me to the conclusion that there was no way this memo could be an actual, viable, assessment. You see, professionals such as Mr. Hadley would not be *this* far off the mark. So, I naturally hit "investigator" mode trying to piece together viable scenario's. The only one that made sense was the leaked memo's purpose had to be deliberate with the sole intention of discrediting Maliki as a leader. Of course, that led me to the next question; why? It couldn't be that they just wanted to replace him, because nobody in Iraq who doesn't have "street cred" with the Iraqi citizens would fare any better, at least, not in the Iraqi government as it currently exists. Sherlock Holmes would say to Watson; "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" That leaves two possibilities; a) either they (Bush and Cheney) have a viable replacement with street cred, or b) they are trying to foment enough distrust that the Iraqi Parliament dissolves in chaos. So, of course, I went back and reread the words written in Mr. Hadley's memo. Not only were the suggestions not viable, but the implication in the memo is that a coup is coming, one way or another, and when Maliki is removed, as he surely will be now, there will be enough distrust between the factions that nobody will trust the other. This left me with the only solution that Bush wants the Shi'a, Sunni's and Kurds to break apart which will dissolve the Unity Government. With the current violence in Iraq, once the government dissolves, the new "leadership" will have little choice, and more then enough justification, to declare a state of emergency and martial law."

The distrust in the government is already there now... and now even Maliki is hinting that a coup may be forming against him.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, no?

(2) -- You're right. It doesn't give me any joy to be right about the situation. I never thought that January column would have as much "legs" as it has proven to. For an example of how I get things wrong, see my post on helicopter downings -- I feared it would escalate horribly, which hasn't happened. That's when it's a good thing I was wrong....

(3) -- Go to my HuffPost version of this article, and read my comments to find a link to Mahablog's article on the subject. He posits, and I somewhat agree, that if the money was cut off, Bush would just raid other funds to get the money because he's so stubborn. I don't know enough about federal budgeting to know how plausible this really would be, but it's a depressing possibility. Although I do agree with you that the public probably would easily see through the spin, and hold Bush responsible.

I think that, much like "only Nixon could go to China," that only Bush can get us out of this mess, and that towards the end of the summer he'll redefine "victory" in such a way that he can start drawing down troops. This way, he sees himself (and the surge) as vindicated, and he can declare victory and get the heck out of Dodge.

I'm heartened to hear more and more conservative Republicans saying that come September they're going to desert Bush's war. It remains to be seen whether enough of them do, but facing re-election does wonderful things sometimes....

-c

I've wanted to wait a bit before tackling this post as there is so much to it.

1) Whether it is Bush's fault for starting the war and the Republicans fault for giving unending support, the failure to stand up and fight lies squarely at the feet of the Democratic Party and those individuals who caved.

2) I grant that you foresaw this, but, that in and of itself isn't a good thing. If you remember our discussion about the leaked Hadley memo, I predicted that it would drive Maliki's credibility into the dirt. As you can read here in this After-action report it states, "The Maliki government has little credibility among the Shia populations from which it emerged. It is despised by the Sunni as a Persian surrogate. It is believed untrustworthy and incompetent by the Kurds." So, I too have predicted the outcome of an event. That didn't mean it was a good outcome.

3) The arguments. Let me rebut your rebuttals:

- The Democrats did not need a veto-proof majority to end the war. It is immaterial.

- Whether or not the same bill (with timelines) would have gotten out of Congress, much less been vetoed, is immaterial.

- This leaves us with the last argument: letting the funding run out. You state this would be bad and cite Gingrich. I disagree. Shutting down a government because of spending disagreements is different then shutting down a war that is now wildly unpopular and that the majority of Americans now want ended.

The majority of Americans didn't want CONGRESS to defund the war. But, forcing the President to defund his own war by veto isn't the same as Congress VOTING to defund the war. I believe that the American public understands this difference.

The problem here is that the "middle of the road" route of a planned, phased withdrawal is not viable. Bush and Republicans want all or nothing. That means the Democrat's could do one of the two things; give them all, or, nothing.

That is the game Bush pushed and the correct answer would have been to send the same bill (with timelines) until Bush realized the Democrat's wouldn't cave in. He would then have been forced to defund his own war or accept the terms. Period.

Citing political futures, the media, or any other peripheral issue is immaterial to the issue at hand; our soldiers are dying in a war that the majority of America now wants out of.

This has now driven some Dem supporters from the Democratic Party and given Independents no real reason to back the Democrat's in another election. THAT was political suicide.

Dem's are now whining about how people aren't supporting the Party, but why should they be supported? Dem's are whining how the next President might very well install another Supreme Court justice or 2, and if it is a Republican, then it will be worse. So what? If that happens, the Democrat's only have themselves to thank for it. Some Dem's are now whining about how voting for a 3rd Party candidate will hand the White House and Congress back to the Republicans. So what? Again, who is to thank for that except the Democratic Congressmen who were too spineless to fight for the will of the people and our soldiers.

The Democratic Party doesn't have the media outlets they cry. So, BUY THEM, just as Republicans did. The Democratic Party doesn't have the rabid supporters the Republicans have they cry. So, give them a reason TO be rabid supporters!

It is the battered-wife syndrome; always someone else's fault, always some excuse, always no way out. I know, I was a cop, I dealt with it; heard it. The Democrat's have it in spades.

So, the Democrat's send the same bill back, Bush vetoes it or it doesn't even get out of committee, the end result is the same; funding ends. Bush either brings the troops home or takes them hostage without the funding to back them. Who do you think the American people will view at fault if Bush refuses to bring the troops home after Generals have spoken out so forcibly on the war itself, and the resulting rebellion in the military would be as unprecedented at Bush's refusal to remove the troops as the speaking out itself? So, in '08, the Democrat's might lose some votes, but, the war would have ended.

The whole point is; what MIGHT happen as to what WOULD happen.

We KNOW that the military is at the point of rebellion. That is fact. I counted 14 Generals who spoke out to include the Joint Chiefs themselves. Bush tries to strand the military in Iraq without funding, the rebellion would be open and ugly, but it would happen.

Would it be "political suicide" for the Dem's in '08? No more then what they just did.