THEY'RE CLEAN . . . ALMOST . . . TOO CLEAN

Chris of Interesting Times makes a point about the parallel WMD intel investigations both here and on Airstrip One (comparing the Hutton report and Kay's testimony):

The interesting thing in both of these cases was that the investigating party may have over done it with the exonerations by trying to push the idea that both Blair and Bush are completely innocent parties in this and did absolutely nothing wrong. Even supporters of both governments are a little taken back by that kind of blanket statement and it encourages critics to just stand their and say "Yeah right!" and for many in between to agree with the latter.

In other words, both Hutton and Kay would have served their masters better if they had found some kind of minor thing to slap them on the wrist with. Instead, they went for the complete innocence pronunciation. A verdict that has increased skepticism among the general public and, even worse, within the media.

Certainly, part of the up-is-downist strategy of the Bushies on Iraq, and most anything else, is a belief that the American people will swallow most anything.

On the other hand, the idea of having Kay out there completely exonerating the administration ("it was all the CIA's fault!") also has parallels with Bush's policies in other areas: It's the go-for-broke and get-most-of-what-you-want strategy. A ridiculous tax cut proposal in 2001 ($1.8 trillion, though much higher down the road) is whittled down in conference ($1.3 trillion) but works its way back close to the original amount when passed and signed ($1.6 trillion).

Now, the Bush executive order creating the WMD commission to investigate the CIA's gathering of intelligence (but no, not how the White House actually used it) is the equivalent swing-for-the-fence, and they're hoping they can get at least a triple out of it, they'll get a near-slap on the wrist, but it would be enough for them to declare the matter "settled".

(and no, that's a different triple from the one Dubya thought he hit, rather than being born on third)

They think that this strategy will work because, as they see it, they control the rules and the goalposts (okay, mixed metaphor, sue me). The lack of subpoena power for the commission (which wasn't the case with "The Committee to Investigate President Blowjobs", as Susan puts it over at Suburban Guerrilla), the appointment of yes-men like GOP hack Laurence Silberman (go read Brock's Book), and the limiting of the scope of the investigation to the CIA's actions (and not Cheney/Feith's intel end-run around the Agency) show their control of the rules. But this is not a policy proposal, this is about decisions that led to massive losses of life: 600+ coalition deaths, at least several thousand Iraqi civilians, UN diplomats and many others. And in a political climate where many are questioning whether every recent Bush action has been blatantly political, this commission will fall under the same public microscope, if not now, then soon.

In other words, I'm inclined to agree with Chris that the WMD strategy employed by Bush, through Kay and the commission, will cause more problems for them than it will solve.