John Hawkins has the scoop, and it's a doozy. If you're eating or drinking right now, you better put it down so you don't spit it out at your computer screen.
The argument is that if Bush ignores the ISG, he will be proven to be mentally ill. Then the ISG members, along with Congress, White House staff, and the Bush family will stage an intervention and remove him from power.
"ISG's proposals are studiously designed to isolate Bush, to highlight and tweak his mental illness. Surrounded by a diverse alignment of extremists and centrists, icons of the Reagan-Bush and Clinton 'Wonder Years', the President is put to the test: is he irrational? If he rejects even these lukewarm, unanimous, bipartisan proposals--plans so generic/neutered that even Ed Meese and Vernon Jordan can agree--he proves that he is not just wrong, but mentally ill. And yet the proposals are aimed right at the President's 'issues'--particularly Iran. ISG is almost begging Bush to flip out and reject their report, to show to the country that he is unfit for office.
The next step: consensus among the establishment--in the Congress, among business leaders, in the Pentagon, the White House Staff (yes, even Rove) and in the Bush family--that the President is ill and must be removed from power. We may be witnessing a coup d'etat.
I don't think impeachment is in the winds, rather a quiet in-house understanding where Bush gets the word: You're not really President anymore. Bush would serve out his term as a null object."
Excuse me as I guffaw heartily. This insanity almost makes me feel sorry for these Kos wackos.
John's last sentence is spot on accurate:
This is the analysis from one of the writers at the biggest, most successful, most influential liberal blog on the planet -- and Bush is supposed to be the guy with the "mental illness."
Update: A commenter reminded me of TF Bogg's piece on the ISG report. For those who are unfamiliar, TF Boggs just returned from his second tour in Iraq and has nothing positive to say about the ISG members or their report. Here are a couple of paragraphs in particular:
Not only are the findings of the ISG a joke but the people who led the group (Baker and Hamilton) treat soldiers like they are a joke. One of the main recommendations of the ISG is to send more troops to Iraq in order to train Iraqis so they can secure their own country, but they don't feel that we are doing a good job of that right now because training Iraqis isn't an attractive job for soldiers to do because it isn't a "career advancing" job. As someone who trained Iraqis from time to time I take personal offense to this remark. In my experience soldiers clamored for the chance to train Iraqis. Any soldier who doesn't think training Iraqis is worth their time because it isn't a "career advancing" job shouldn't be part in the war on terror plain and simple.
What the group desperately needed was at least one their members to have been in the military and had recent experience in Iraq. The problem with having an entire panel with no one under the age of 67 is that none of them could possibly know what the situation is actually like on the ground in Iraq. Now I concede that it is possible to have a good understanding of things as they stand in Iraq but unless you interact with the people of Iraq and spend a year or years of your life on ground you cannot possibly have a complete picture of the situation.
Read the rest of TF Bogg's post and get educated.
Carl at The World According to Carl asks if the Kos Kiddies can be as nutty as Screwy Squirrel.
I'd say more so.