Dubious Milestones in Baghdad.

As Iraq announces the approval of its draft constitution (which passed in a manner Slate‘s Fred Kaplan has deemed “the worst of both worlds“), the war claims its 2000th US military casualty. (Of these, 357 were under 21, 487 were National Guard, and 1863 — over 9 in 10 — have died since Dubya’s “Mission Accomplished” fiasco.) We’re still well under the casualty rate for Vietnam, true, but what comfort is that to the families of the fallen? Two thousand US men and women have been killed in the line of duty, and this blatantly amateurish administration still has no plan either to win or to disengage from a conflict they orchestrated, other than “stay the course.” As with so much else under this president, the conduct of this war from its inception has been shameful and unacceptable — in short, a national embarrassment.

Fleeing the sinking ship.

“‘The real anomaly in the administration is Cheney,’ Mr. Scowcroft told Jeffrey Goldberg of The New Yorker. ‘I consider Cheney a good friend – I’ve known him for 30 years. But Dick Cheney I don’t know anymore.'” As Cheney consigliere Scooter Libby preps for a likely Plamegate perp walk, the NYT refocuses on the broader question of our entry into the Iraq war. And, as the Scowcroft quote attests (and as Medley also notes), prominent Republicans are starting to pile on. “‘Iraq was at core a war of choice, and extraordinarily expensive by every measure – human life, impact on our military, dollars, diplomatically,’ said Mr. [Richard] Haass, a former senior State Department official under President Bush.

Or, as former Powell chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson puts it, “[T]he case that I saw for four-plus years was a case that I have never seen in my study of aberrations, bastardizations, perturbations, changes to the national security decision-making process. What I saw was a cabal between the vice-president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy didn’t know were being made.

Update: Jeffrey Goldberg discusses his Scowcroft piece, and Slate‘s Fred Kaplan evaluates it, noting that George H.W. Bush is also something of a Dubya critic in the article. Speaking of Scowcroft, Dubya Sr. says: “He has a great propensity for friendship. By that, I mean someone I can depend on to tell me what I need to know and not just what I want to hear….[He] was very good about making sure that we did not solely consider the ‘best case,’ but instead considered what it would mean if things went our way, and also if they did not.” Listen up, sonny…Papa just learned you.

More of the Same.

“President Bush’s speech this morning, billed as a major statement about Iraq and the war on terror, was a sad spectacle — so ripe with lofty principles, so bereft of ideas on what to do with them. He approached the podium amid growing disapproval of his performance as a war president, ratcheting chaos and violence in Iraq, continuing terrorist attacks worldwide — and pleaded for nothing more than staying the course, with no turns or shifts, for a long, long time to come.” Slate‘s Fred Kaplan surveys, and bemoans, Dubya’s “big” Iraq speech this morning.

Better Late than Never.

It’s a significant breakthrough. But it could easily have been accomplished two and a half years ago, had President George W. Bush been willing…Had he signed this rather innocuous joint statement back then (it wouldn’t have harmed our national interest to forgo an option — invading North Korea — that we were never going to exercise in the first place), the next steps toward an arms-control treaty would have been much easier than they will be now.Slate‘s Fred Kaplan realistically assesses the good news — and work ahead — in North Korea.

Down Dives Dubya.

Bush’s poll numbers, low since early summer, just keep on plummeting and might soon reach Carter-like proportions. Somehow, I don’t think calling the Iraq War the moral equivalent of WWII is going to stem the tide. Nor, I’ll hazard, will his making it easier for his corporate cronies to pollute at will. But hey, keep trying, guys. Update: Slate‘s Fred Kaplan blows further holes in the WWII analogy.

Bolton Blocked II.

Since the White House still won’t cough up the necessary info, the Dems (and Sen. Voinovich) manage to keep Bolton out of the UN once again, prompting Dubya to consider putting him there by recess appointment fiat. (As Fred Kaplan wryly noted, that should teach those evildoers abroad what we mean by democracy up in these parts.) And the big winners in this affair thus far? The State Department, who no longer have Bolton as a “roadblock” against diplomacy.

Bolton’s Loose.

After hours of deliberation, telephone calls, personal conversations, reading hundreds of pages of transcripts, and asking for guidance from Above, I have come to the determination that the United States can do better than John Bolton.” Nevertheless, Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) will let the Bolton nod go to a floor vote, arguing he has “every faith in [his] colleagues” to do the right thing. (Sen. Chafee (R-RI), for his part, already reluctantly folded.) “Voinovich called Bolton ‘the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be.’ He said Bolton would be fired if he was in the private sector.Update: Fred Kaplan has more: “A special place in the halls of cowardice should be reserved for Sen. Lincoln Chafee, the Republican from Rhode Island.

A Failure to Communicate.

If the president believes what he said, he doesn’t comprehend the nature of either crisis. If he doesn’t believe it and was just reciting the usual grab bag of cliches, what was his point?” As more questions arise about John Bolton’s temperamental fitness for UN ambassador, Slate‘s Fred Kaplan wonders aloud if Bolton’s boss “gets” diplomacy either.

Plenty of time, no love or tenderness.

“In short, John Bolton came off as strikingly lacking in the credibility, values, and basic commitment that, especially these days, the job of U.N. ambassador requires.” Slate‘s Fred Kaplan, a frequent critic of Dubya’s freak show choice for UN ambassador, sizes up Bolton’s performance before the Senate today.

Send Bolton to the Blue.

“The case against Bolton, which has been made here a few times, rests not so much on his ultra-neoconservatism (an insufficient disqualification on its own) or on his past criticism of the United Nations (the organization merits criticism). Rather, it boils down to his long-standing attacks on the principles underlying the United Nations and to his wholesale rejection of the legitimacy, propriety, and even the political expediency of international law, which, after all, is the United Nations’ currency of enforcement.” With an editorial Hail Mary, Slate‘s Fred Kaplan pleads with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to vote down on John Bolton as UN Ambassador. We can only hope.