This morning's analysis by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post of the woes the Bush Administration is experiencing now that they're being held accountable for their claims on Iraq contains a zinger in the fourth graf:
It is too early to know whether the controversy will fade or provide Democrats with political traction. For the moment at least, Bush has little to fear. The majority Republicans in the House and Senate, convinced the Democrats have overreacted, are nearly unanimous in opposing hearings on the matter. But that could change. [Emphasis added]
Perish forbid the GOP would let partisan politics impede the investigation of what's now obvious was majorly flawed presentation of intelligence to sell Bush's war.
And is it just me, or does that sentence imply that Bush has something to fear from hearings?
There's also this:
Some Democrats think the damage to Bush could go well beyond the Iraq issue. One of Bush's most valuable attributes has been his reputation for honesty and straight talking. But the controversy has caused the White House to appear slippery. In moments reminiscent of the Clinton presidency Bush and his aides have sought to parse phrases -- they have called the disputed claim "technically accurate" because it was pinned on British intelligence -- and they have said it is time to "move on," the same phrase Clinton aides used. Also, a president who came to office criticizing those who would blame others for their problems has put responsibility on the CIA and the British.
These notions, of course, are nothing new to those who read this blog and others. The difference is that now editors appear to have stopped assuming Bush is a "straight shooter" and are taking a look at whether Bush's rhetoric matches reality. As I've observed many times in the past, that development can't be good for Bush.