Josh Marshall writes a very good one on the psychology game that the Bush Administration is playing with the American people on Iraq:

Think of the president as a failed or deadbeat entrepreneur (again, not such a stretch) who's already lost his investors a ton of money. He goes back to them and says, 'Okay, fine. You think I'm a moron and a screw-up who lost you guys a ton of money. Fine. But do you really want to finally, totally, conclusively kiss that $300 billion goodbye. You wanna just totally call it quits? Admit it's a total loss? What about giving me just another $10 billion and maybe somehow I'll actually pull this off? Or, since that's just not gonna happen, a mere $10 billion to put off for six months having to write the whole thing off as a loss, having to come to grips once and for all with the fact that all the money's gonna and the whole thing's a bust?'

That's really what this is about. And I think we all know it pretty much across the political spectrum. In this way, paradoxically, the very magnitude of the president's failure has become his tacit ally. It's just such a big thing to come to grips with. And reinvesting in the president's folly, even after any hope of recouping the money is gone, carries the critical fringe benefit of sustaining our own collective and increasing threadbare denial.

It is all just political skirmishing now. Iraq is lost. The question is when do we admit it? And how many American soldiers die until we do?

A diplomat who inadvertently spoke the truth has been quick to recant, Emily Litella style.

"Upon reading the transcript of my appearance on Al-Jazeera, I realized that I seriously misspoke by using the phrase 'there has been arrogance and stupidity' by the U.S. in Iraq," said [Alberto] Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in State's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.

He meant to say that everything is wonderful in Iraq due to the masterful stewardship of the Bush administration which is protecting us all from evildoing terrorists by fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them ... hello? is anyone still awake?

There are ten days to go, but October has been the deadliest month of the year for U.S. troops in Iraq.

For Iraqis, it's been even worse:

So far this month, at least 907 Iraqis have been killed in war-related violence, an average of 43 a day.

Senior State Department official Alberto Fernandez, in an interview with al-Jazeera, said "the U.S. had shown "arrogance" and "stupidity" in Iraq."

And what does Bush have to say? The other day he said we're not leaving until we win. Yesterday, he met with his advisors and the report is there will be a shift in strategy -- geared to make the Iraqis take over. Another election time shuffle:

So WaPo and the NYTimes tell us the Iraq course will be changed after the elections:

The growing doubts among GOP lawmakers about the administration's Iraq strategy, coupled with the prospect of Democratic wins in next month's midterm elections, will soon force the Bush administration to abandon its open-ended commitment to the war, according to lawmakers in both parties, foreign policy experts and others involved in policymaking.

But the fact is atrios is right:

I don't know if they're saying this stuff to try to force a change or if they're saying this stuff to try to convince pissed off voters that maybe they're going to get a clue but either way nothing is going to happen. This is George Bush's game of Risk, and he's not going to quit.

Just ask Tony Snow:

Press secretary Tony Snow yesterday dismissed a dramatic about-face in policy -- such as a division of the country or phased withdrawal -- as a "non-starter" and called the idea that the White House will seek a course correction in Iraq "a bunch of hooey."

Kevin Drum is, as he generally is, sharp and to the point today, cutting through Jonah Goldberg's platitudes to get to the essential question:

But Jonah says that even though it was mistake to go in, we still need to see it through.

. . . The conventional script requires that those who think we should stay need to suggest a way in which we can win.

. . . So what's the plan? It may be true that "if we can finish the job, the war won't be remembered as a mistake," but even if the Iraqis vote to keep us around, how do we finish the job?

Would that even one sentient being in the Media could even think to ask this obvious and essential question.

"Terrorist" Released:

At the crux of Mr. Maliki’s problem lies Mr. Sadr . . . American commanders have been pressing Iraqi officials to launch an all-out assault against the Mahdi Army’s strongholds, but Mr. Maliki, who relies on Mr. Sadr for political backing, has resisted.

These tensions played out today when the Maliki government demanded that the American military command release a senior aide to Mr. Sadr who had been captured on Tuesday on suspicion of attacking American forces and of directing kidnappings, killings and torture of Sunni Arabs and Shiites.

The American military command provided no explanation for the release of the aide, Sheik Mazin al-Saedi, except to say it was in response to a request by the Iraqi government.

Remember the case of the 14 year old girl who was raped and murdered by U.S. troops?

8 of them will face courts-martial proceedings on rape and murder charges.

Eight soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division will be court-martialed on murder charges stemming from their service in Iraq, including two who face a death sentence for allegedly raping a 14-year-old girl and killing her and her family, the military ordered Wednesday.

The Fort Campbell soldiers facing the death penalty are Sgt. Paul E. Cortez and Pfc. Jesse V. Spielman. Both are accused of raping Abeer Qassim al-Janabi in her family's home in Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles south of Baghdad, then killing her along with her parents and younger sister.

Another soldier, Steven Green, is being tried in federal court in the U.S., since he was discharged before charges were filed. You can read the affidavit for Green's arrest here. Page 6 lays out the events and players.

For Mr. Maliki, these concerns have taken on a keen personal edge, exposed Monday when the White House revealed that Mr. Maliki asked President Bush in a telephone call whether there was any truth to rumors that the Americans had plans to replace him "if certain things don't happen within two months," in the words of Mr. Bush's press secretary, Tony Snow.

Chalabi time? What a farce. It would be funny if it was not tragic. Purple fingers anyone?

Take Representative Terry Everett, a seven-term Alabama Republican who is vice chairman of the House intelligence subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence.

"Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?" I asked him a few weeks ago. Mr. Everett responded with a low chuckle. He thought for a moment: "One's in one location, another's in another location. No, to be honest with you, I don't know. I thought it was differences in their religion, different families or something." To his credit, he asked me to explain the differences. I told him briefly about the schism that developed after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and how Iraq and Iran are majority Shiite nations while the rest of the Muslim world is mostly Sunni. "Now that you've explained it to me," he replied, "what occurs to me is that it makes what we're doing over there extremely difficult, not only in Iraq but that whole area."

But I bet he is someone you would want to have a beer with. [Hat tip Tristero..

The judge has reached a verdict in Saddam Hussein's trial. Both the verdict and sentence will be announced on November 5.

A death sentence for Saddam two days before election day?

[Hat tip Patriot Daily.]

From Big Tent Democrat

Murtha:

Now, Karl Rove may call me a defeatist, but can anyone living in the real world deny that [Iraq is] heading in the wrong direction? Yet despite this bleak record of performance, the president continues to stand by his team of failed architects, preferring to prop them up instead of demanding accountability.

Democrats are fighting a war on two fronts: One is combating the spin and intimidation that defines this administration. The other is fighting to change course, to do things better, to substitute smart, disciplined strategy for dogma and denial in Iraq.

That's not defeatism. That's our duty.

Lieberman:

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. . . . The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.

. . . It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril," Lieberman said.

Guest Post from Big Tent Democrat

The sight of Christopher Hitchens' head spinning as he discovers Henry Kissinger's influence over our Iraq policy is certainly satisfying in a perverse way. I can not say that I am immune to it myself. But this bit from Hitchens' column is what got my attention:

It might also help explain a lot. During the Bremer period of governance in Baghdad, both the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis and the calling of elections were fatally postponed (perhaps when it was hastily discovered that a combined Kurdish and Shiite list could win a vote). It has proved difficult, if not impossible, to regain the political ground that was lost in that time. Shall we never be free of the malign effect of this little gargoyle and his ideas?

Hitchens gets it, as he has throughout, exactly backward. It was the rush to create an Iraqi government prior to a political settlement between the sunni, Shia and Kurd which has been a major engine to the chaos. While the Iraq Debacle was destined for failure no matter what, the rush to Iraqi elections was, in my opinion, the biggest post-war blunder of them all. I'll explain in extended.