Bush, never having known what to do with the office of President, chose a course of doing the most outrageous thing he could think of, then when outrage over that starts, do another even more outrageous thing to divert attention from and obscure the last one.
Start an unprovoked, aggressive war in Iraq, obscure that by trying to kill Social Security, obscure that by a series of lies about the reasons for his Iraq war, obscure that by tapping our phones, obscure that by peeking at financial transactions, obscure that by killing habeas corpus, obscure that by reading our mail. You get the idea.
The latest outrage, sending more troops to help out in continuing to lose his Iraq war, is designed to obscure all the previous ones and to divert attention from the doings of the Democrats. Pelosi and her agenda will be sidelined by pronouncements from the Great Decider, who stalled his decision to coincide with the first full week of the first Democratic congress in years.
Given that Bush has lost his Iraq war, this outrage will magnify that loss and create the latest bout of loud talking and arm waving which the media will single-mindedly focus on, obscuring all previous outrages. That this headline grabbing will cost the lives of even more US troops is of no matter to Bush, it gets him the attention he craves. It gets him what he wants.
Bush is not in the least concerned with the effect this will have. Having said that he can't think of a single mistake he has ever made, Bush extends his delusion of infallibility to any future outrages he may commit, insulating himself from criticism and lumping the majority of us into one large group that he can dismiss as being mistaken about him being mistaken.
The options for Bush's Iraq war are clear and few. Chaos, death and destruction in Iraq with US troops being killed, or chaos, death and destruction in Iraq without US troops being killed. There are only two options. Which do you prefer?
