and the Claude Rains Memorial Gambling Awareness Award goes to

Joe Klein, who is outraged to discover (for the very first time) that Our Fearless Leader is not behaving rationally

The first three months of the new Democratic Congress have been neither terrible nor transcendent. A Pew poll had it about right: a substantial majority of the public remains happy the Democrats won in 2006, but neither Nancy Pelosi nor Harry Reid has dominated the public consciousness as Newt Gingrich did when the Republicans came to power in 1995. There is a reason for that. A much bigger story is unfolding: the epic collapse of the Bush Administration.

The three big Bush stories of 2007--the decision to "surge" in Iraq, the scandalous treatment of wounded veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys for tawdry political reasons--precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history: arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys).

Iraq comes first, as always. From the start, it has been obvious that personal motives have skewed the President's judgment about the war. Saddam tried to kill his dad; his dad didn't try hard enough to kill Saddam. There was payback to be had. But never was Bush's adolescent petulance more obvious than in his decision to ignore the Baker-Hamilton report and move in the exact opposite direction: adding troops and employing counterinsurgency tactics inappropriate to the situation on the ground. "There was no way he was going to accept [its findings] once the press began to portray the report as Daddy's friends coming to the rescue," a member of the Baker-Hamilton commission told me. As with Bush's invasion of Iraq, the decision to surge was made unilaterally, without adequate respect for history or military doctrine. Iraq was invaded with insufficient troops and planning; the surge was attempted with too few troops (especially non-Kurdish, Arabic-speaking Iraqis), a purposely misleading time line ("progress" by September) and, most important, the absence of a reliable Iraqi government.

General David Petraeus has repeatedly said, "A military solution to Iraq is not possible." Translation: This thing fails unless there is a political deal among the Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds. There is no such deal on the horizon, largely because of the President's aversion to talking to people he doesn't like. And while some Baghdad neighborhoods may be more peaceful--temporarily--as a result of the increased U.S. military presence, the story two years from now is likely to resemble the recent headlines from Tall 'Afar: dueling Sunni and Shi'ite massacres have destroyed order in a city famously pacified by counterinsurgency tactics in 2005.

In the interest of balance, I should allow Joe Klein to respond here ( but wait... there's more )

a medley of extemporanea

Oh, alright, it's a link dump.

above the fold: via the Agonist, Monica Goodling (the lady from the Department of Justice who was concerned that discussing her job performance with Congress would lead to criminal penalties) has decided to resign.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' top aide, who refused to testify before Congress about her role in the politically charged firing of eight U.S. attorneys, abruptly quit her job Friday.

"I am hereby submitting my resignation to the office of attorney general," Monica M. Goodling said in a three-sentence letter. There was no immediate reason given for her departure, but Goodling's refusal to face Congress intensified a controversy that threatens Gonzales' job.

Asserting her right under the U.S. Constitution not to incriminate herself, Goodling rejected demands last month for a private interview with a House of Representatives committee investigating the firings.

Goodling was senior counsel to Gonzales and was the department's White House liaison before she took a leave amid the uproar over the prosecutors' ousters.

She was one of several aides closely involved in planning the firings, which raised a furor in Washington over their apparent political motivation.

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said her lawyer, John Dowd, on March 26 when he announced she would invoke her protections.

You know, it's generally a good time to reconsider the kind of stuff you've been doing at work when that's the case.

( but wait... there's more )