Discourse.net

It is interesting to see how the GOP spin backfired here. The original story was almost certainly the result of the White House saying that 'Bush is the decider'.

Not only has this been refuted but the New York Times is forced to start talking about impeachment.

You know, sometimes it's just simple human error: I am a big fan of what the British call the "cock up theory of life".

One reason why the Bush administration has been such a shock of course is that so many of its mistakes have not been the result of an incompetent desire to do well, but rather side effects of plans to do illegal things.

Cock up is more likely than conspiracy in the general case.

But once conspiracy after conspiracy has proven true ockham's razor favours conspiracy as opposed to cock up, or most likely of all a cocked up conspiracy.

Do we have to wait until every single Republican central to the neo-con project is convicted or impeached before we can consider corruption the most likely cause?

The triumvirate of DeLay, Doolittle and Ney are all either in jail or most likely to end up there in the near future. Libby has been convicted, Gonzalez is facing indictment, Wolfowitz is about to lose his job at the World Bank for corruption. Rumsfeld was mercifully sacked for his incompetence, albeit far too late. That only really leaves Hastert, Rove, Cheney and Bush himself, and its not like any of them appear exactly competent or trustworthy.