Writing at e Pluribus Media yesterday, Welshman has a glimpse into the Bu$hCo/Iraq qWagmire that is illuminating:

I have found no directly comparable commentary on Iraq in the United States media nor on the Internet that expresses what is happening in the terms of this diary that identifies a radical change in the position of George Bush.

My main source is an undocumented report and commentary on the BBC 24 Hour News Programme Channel of an hour ago. I was watching casually and was not able to take notes. I believe that the main contributor was Andrew North, the BBC News correspondent in Baghdad but, although there is a background report of his that refers to some of the issues that he raised tonight on the BBC News site, there is no story on that site that contains the information that he provided during his latest broadcast.

Despite the insubstantiality of the sources being provided, I find his report entirely credible and I am willing to place trust in the reputation of the BBC. His comments were presented as facts, not speculation. I am also conscious that Condi Rice has just visited Baghdad and met with leaders there. I have little doubt that by now what she had to say will have leaked to the senior reporters on permanent assignment in that country.)

It must have been a shock for Ms Rice to arrive at Baghdad and not be able to land for 35 minutes because of the twice-daily rocket and mortar attack. We’re reminded of that famous photo of WH official press liar Tony Snow and Presidential counselor Dan Bartlett, garbed in Kevlar helmet, double flak jackets and triple Depends™ sitting in a C-130 approaching Baghdad International Airport and wondering if all this was worth the glory.

We’ll bet Ms Rice was a sight…

Official news reports indicate that Ms Rice brought a mixed message to the Iraqi puppets: Get this place swept up, because US troops may not be here for the next 10 or 20 years. Probably unspoken was the admission that it might only be a while that Republicans will be able to keep USS Dreamstate afloat.

[Ms Rice said] she will tell its leaders they have limited time to settle political differences spurring sectarian and insurgent violence.

"They don't have time for endless debate of these issues," Rice said during a news conference aboard her plane. "They have really got to move forward. That is one of the messages that I'll take, but it will also be a message of support and what can we do to help."

Rice said Iraqis must resolve for themselves complex problems such as the division of oil wealth, possible changes to the national constitution and the desire for greater autonomy in various regions of the country.

A cynical man would think that comment about oil wealth division indicates a strong reminder that the oil belongs to US companies, and the Iraqis are only awarded temporary custodial rights.

In the e Pluribus article Welshman added to his report on the BBC commentary:

The current wisdom on the attitude of Bush to the events in Iraq is driven by the newly published book by Woodward. This says that he is in denial of the real mess that exists in Iraq and is oblivious to the entreaties of those few of his senior advisers that attempt to persuade him otherwise .

We forget that, however contemporary is its publication, Woodward is recording history, even if it is very recent history.

Andrew North was categorical in his statement: Bush and his administration now accept that the policies for Iraq have failed.

This is a good point. It also explains Mr Bu$h’s almost hysterical outbreaks of slander against Democrats this past week during fund-raising events throughout the mid-west ad far west. Telling Americans that Democrats want to do nothing until we are attacked again is at the least ridiculous hyperbole. As Keith Olberman noted in his landmark take down of Mr Bu$h the other night:

No Democrat, sir, has ever said anything approaching the suggestion that the best means of self-defense is to "wait until we're attacked again."

No critic, no commentator, no reluctant Republican in the Senate, has ever said anything that any responsible person could even have exaggerated into the slander you spoke in Nevada on Monday night, nor the slander you spoke in California on Tuesday, nor the slander you spoke in Arizona on Wednesday… nor whatever is next.

In Welshman’s piece he wrote that Andrew North’s commentary noted that:

…[R]eporting of three days ago was subsequently given credibility two days later by Warner, what is he now saying twenty-four hours after Condi Rice left Baghdad following her fleeting visit?

It is that Bush concedes that the Iraq policies have failed and that there is no solution to be found in the poorly pursued strategies that involve Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and the Iraqi government, who themselves are part of the problem.

Iraq is a mess and Bush knows it, says North. Denial has ended.

This would certainly provide one more explanation of why Mr Bu$h has been almost frothing at the mouth in his recent castigation of the Democrats.

Because Bu$hCo has been preaching the standard “light at the end of the tunnel” romance for almost three years now, there is a perceived wisdom among internet commenters (and probably among many mainstream observers) that they really believe this story. That would be contrary to human experience, but then, when have they failed to rise above our most cynical expectations?