Misunderestimating Bush: take 32,457

What will the giddy columnists and lefty bloggers do if Rove and Libby don't get 22 indictments today? I'm guessing that they will easily deceive themselves into thinking that the two were indicted and found guilty and sentenced to the pokey. After all, the left's powers of self deception are remarkably advanced. Take Dan Simpson. He thinks we're losing in Iraq, that inflation is out of control and that the bird flu has pretty much doomed us all. And he still gets paid for his opinions! If only he was alone in those beliefs. Here he is talking about the perceived motives of a Syrian invasion:

The Bush administration would claim that it is expanding the war in Iraq into Syria to try to bring it to an end, the kind of screwy non-logic that kept us in Vietnam for a decade and cost 58,193 American lives in the end.

Others [Dan Simpson perhaps?] would see the attacks in Syria as a desperation political move on the part of an administration with its back against the wall, with a failed war, an economy plagued by inflation --1.2 percent in September, a 14.4 percent annual rate if it continues -- the weak response to Hurricane Katrina, grand jury and other investigatory attention to senior executive and legislative officials, and the bird flu flapping its wings toward us on the horizon. The idea, I suppose, is to distract us by an attack on Syria, now specifically targeted by U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad.

Of course, such an invasion would never have anything to do with winning the War on Terror. Why, that's just too absurd to even consider. Mr. Simpson even believes that the current state of Iraq is worse for Israel than when Saddam was hiding missile programs and cutting checks to the families of Palestinian self whackers:

Could anyone argue that Israel is made safer by a burning conflict in Iraq that has now attracted Islamic extremist fighters from across the Middle East, Europe and Asia? Saddam Hussein's regime was bad, but this is a good deal worse, and looks endless.

By this description, one might get the idea that Simpson sees the insurrection as made up largely of outsiders trying to destroy the U.S. mission in Iraq. But just wait until he has to crap on the president from another direction - he'll completely ignore that role of outsiders to paint the "insurrection" as a native germ because all Iraqis are against the U.S. Whatever fits the moment.

In regards to our options in Syria, I believe David Ignatius is orbiting a little closer to earth in his column:

An angry Bush administration, meanwhile, was actively exploring a policy of regime change several months ago. Bush was furious at Assad for not controlling the insurgents who are using Syria as a base for their attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, and the president pressed his national security team to explore whether there were good alternatives to Assad.

But the administration pulled back from its regime-change enthusiasm in recent weeks, and officials now speak of the need for "policy" change. A big factor is the new director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, and his analysts at the National Intelligence Council. They have been warning Bush that if Assad is toppled, the result isn't likely to be better in terms of regional stability, and it could well be worse.

I don't know how accurate that is - whether that's what Negroponte is saying or whether he's right if he is saying it. But when it comes to invading Syria, I would put money on Bush mulling over security concerns and not just running cover for other perceived disasters.