Wolcott, he who is to be wary of, has a really nice post today, amalgamating several different lines of commentary, and producing an excellent synthesis, as always. Starting off from digby’s very astute observation today that Mr Bu$h is stealing Senator McCain’s trademarked “escalation” and “sacrifice” slogans, without actually – you know – detailing any sacrifice for any but the poor and middle class.

As much as I'm horrified to see Junior adopt the McCain Doctrine of escalation, I'm very pleased to see him adopt his rhetoric of sacrifice. Everything Junior touches turns to garbage and he's going to pull McCain into the rancid compost heap right along with him. I think it's quite obvious that Americans have decided they've sacrificed quite enough for the honor of the neocon codpiece.

From this starting point, Mr Wolcott steps out to embrace the latest analysis from Emmanuel Wallerstein that is coldly calculating:

Why doesn't Bush then cut his losses? He can't. His entire presidency revolves around the Iraq war. If he tries to cut his losses, he admits that he is responsible for a national disaster. So he has no choice but to try to bluff his way into 2009 and turn over the disaster to someone else. That is, he has no choice acceptable to him. But Bush is going to learn something in the next eighteen months. The situation is out of control and even the president of the United States can be forced to do things he finds abhorrent.

He ends up with referencing Steve Gilliard, who has been slamming at the point of Mr Bu$h’s poker hand of seven-high hash. All are quite certain Mr Bu$h is bluffing now, and will fold his had.

I respect all four of these writers; their professional skills and accomplishments are unique. Wolcott has a scalpel in his mouth and can have your liver out before the ether starts to take effect; digby has terrific insight into political reality and prudently finds chinks in the right’s ideological house of cards. Wallerstein establishes weighty and convincing arguments that are hard to question. Gilliard brings great street sense to his work. But I disagree in this instance because Mr Bu$h is a drunk. Wet or dry, he is a helpless victim of his pathology.

Maybe if he’d gone through the program, and embraced the proven Twelve Steps to thinking right he might be different today. But, a child man all his life, coddled and cosseted from his youth, he took the easy way out and surrendered to the sweet siren song of the faux Christianity of Texas, declaring himself “cured.”

George Bu$h will drag this thing out, perhaps causing the deaths of thousands and thousands of Americans, Iraqis, and probably Iranians because he is incapable of self-judgment. Those who have parented will understand. Eight year olds are incapable of ethical thought.

Why wouldn’t he double the bet? He’s not betting with his money, after all. It’s past time for an intervention, but how do you say “no” to the guy who can open the briefcase?