This is worth reading, the kind of reporting not often done, but very important, that takes us inside the thinking of others.
In a USA Today opinion piece Web accused Bush of having "committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence."
Webb then resorted to the older notion of conservatism so as to distinguish himself and his grouping from the neophytes in the White House.
"There is no historical precedent for taking such action when our country was not being directly threatened. The reckless course that Bush and his advisers have set will affect the economic and military energy of our nation for decades. It is only the tactical competence of our military that, to this point, has protected him from the harsh judgment that he deserves."
Indeed, at one DC fete, an influential dowager opined that the Bush boy's invasion of Iraq and his failure to encounter those awful WMDs did not inspire the truly important people with confidence. And why didn't our CIA lads know something after employing all that hi-tech seeing and listening technology that one sees in the movies? Can the affable young man in the White House find the proverbial pimple on his you know what?
What will happen if one of the truly dangerous WOGS actually threatens us?
This kind of chatter among the idle rich bodes well for the Democrats, who could accuse Bush 43 of having committed the strategic bungle of the decade. He seems to have wanted to go to war and allowed those boorish neo-cons to, what's the term, yank his chain.
