Like, in Case There's Any Doubt We're Lead by Crazies... It's Not the World that Makes No Sense, it's Our Leaders....

I was about to say "But We're Okay". But of course with leaders like ours, we're not, no one is (vid Iraq, of course, for one).

But here goes....

Remember how the outing of Valerie Plame was no big thing because everybody knew that she was an undercover CIA operative? A CIA panel has declared that Plame can't even mention in her upcoming book that she worked for the CIA because she had "nonofficial cover" while there.

Oh.

Link.

One opportunistic scumbag with no idea what he's doing:

Think Progress finds one more American opposed to sending more troops to Iraq: George W. Bush, circa June 2005:

"Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don't you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders."

Link.

Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the new day-to-day commander of U.S. forces in Iraq[,] told reporters that, even after the U.S. sends a "surge" of additional troops into Baghdad, it's going to take "two or three years" for the United States to accomplish even its limited goals for Iraq. "The mission now is to defeat the ... insurgency and to train Iraqi security forces," Odierno said. "Over time, we can accomplish the mission. That time I put two or three years from now. The issue becomes, are we willing to wait two or three years or do we want to speed it up?"

From the context of his remarks, it's pretty clear that what Odierno meant by "speed it up" was not "send more troops" but "bring them home." "Unfortunately what we're starting to show some lack of is patience," he said. "I think it's too important not to have patience."

One could argue that the American people have shown a good deal of patience with the president and his war already. As the war began, Dick Cheney was telling folks that he expected it to last "weeks rather than months." Nearly four years and what seems like a lifetime of "critical next six months" later, it's a lot to ask anyone for another two or three years....

Which brings us back to the president's predicament. If his "surge" were really a "surge" -- a plan to send a force to Iraq so huge that victory would be inevitable and quick -- there's a chance that the American people might get behind it as some kind of last best hope. But that's not what Bush has in mind. Instead, the president is reportedly looking at sending something like 20,000 more troops. That's more than most Democrats -- or more Americans -- are interested in supporting, and it's probably not enough for a surge supporter like John McCain. Writing in the Washington Post over the weekend, McCain said: "The worst of all worlds would be a small, short surge of U.S. forces. We have tried small surges, and they have been ineffective because our commanders lacked the forces necessary to hold territory after it was cleared. Violence, which fell dramatically while U.S. forces were present, spiked as soon as they were gone. Any new surge needs to provide enough American troops to hold the areas on their own."

Link.

Thank God George W. Bush is president.

(I guess Rudy will be running on a platform solely on a continuation of "W's" policies....)