It's over

As usual, the sinuosity of Christopher Hitchens' prose turns skeptics into moral blackguards if resisted. Although I agree with the bulk of this unhysterical and rather moving argument for remaining in Iraq as long as it takes, I cannot let the Bush administration off as airily as Hitchens does. The Hitchens who eviscerated George H.W. Bush, Henry Kissinger, Mother Teresa, Bill Clinton, monotheists of all kinds, and European and American apathy to the slaughter of Bosnian Serbs would not written this sentence:

Does the president deserve the benefit of the reserve of fortitude that I just mentioned? Only just, if at all. We need not argue about the failures and the mistakes and even the crimes, because these in some ways argue themselves.

But why not? Paul Berman, Andrew Sullivan, and, somewhat facetitiously, Dan Savage have all either reconsidered their positions or at least destroyed the manner in which the neocon cabal conned us - and no doubt itself. Digsbyblog, quoted by James Wolcott, shows no mercy:

"In March 2003 we already knew that the Republicans were mendacious enough to stage a phony impeachment and steal an election. And we also knew that the brand name in an empty suit they call a president was a fool and that the people who were backing the war had been wrong about every single big ticket foreign policy issue since the mid 70's. We knew that the Democratic Senators who voted for the war resolution were re-fighting Gulf War I where many Democrats were ignominiously shown to be losers when they voted against a war that we went on to gloriously win. They were scared of being on the wrong side again. (And they blew it --- again.)

Maybe if Bush fires Rumsfeld we'll get a chance. But I suspect it's too late.