Now that Rumsfeld's gone, we have to figure out which other pre-election plans were lies. I think the biggest lie is that the goalposts of a democratic government in Iraq in charge of its own security would stay put.
Bush isn't going to drive his party into the ground with two more years of the same failed strategy. Rhetoric alone won't distance them far enough from him. They'll make him change tactics by threat of impeachment if necessary. Perhaps today's nomination indicates that this has already happened.
If the CIA's involvement in El Salvador during Gates' career tells us anything, it's that Bush is after "victory," no matter how bloody.
Here's how I see it turning out :
A strongman seen as favorable to the administration is chosen for Iraq. If the election can't be rigged in his favor, he'll enjoy unexpected (wink wink) success in taking over Iraqi cities until serious talking heads start parroting the line that we must negotiate with him.
Once he's granted a veneer of respectability, his operations will be split in two :
(1) Human rights violations that only offend 60% of the USA, so Limbaugh and Coulter can use them as a wedge to divide the country. We've seen that this category includes torture, shutting down media outlets and mass executions. Critics will be dismissed as idealistic weaklings.
(2) Universally despised human rights violations carried out by groups with no provable ties to the strongman. In light of the above examples of what's "acceptable," I don't want to think about what will happen here. People who think these actions might be tied to covert actions by the US will be dismissed as tinfoil crackpots.
If successful, Iraq will be precisely as safe and as free as it was under Saddam. Democrats should be ready to see this spun as "victory" in 2008.
This is all hunch. Please tell me I'm wrong.