The new path that the Bush administration is about to embark on in Iraq ("Go Strong?") is proof positive about the accuracy of what that Bush insider told writer Ron Suskind some years ago about how the administration was (and is) about changing reality while the so-called reality-based community is about debating what has already passed.

According to polls, 70 percent of Americans oppose the Bush administration's war/occupation in Iraq. Republicans lost control of the House and the Senate in large measure because of public dissatisfaction with the war.

Hemmorrhaging money to the tune of $2 billion a week, rampant corruption in the no-bid private contracts that were handed out to rebuild Iraq, almost 3,000 American soldiers dead, 22,000 wounded, the Army on the verge of breaking, and the administration is pushing to escalate the fighting in Iraq.

The so-called grown ups tell us that horrific things will happen if we pull-out. Bad things will befall America if we leave. A bloodbath will ensue as our military departs.

And how, exactly, is that any different from what is going on now and what will go on as we stay?

What we have seen in recent weeks is the emergence of a new reality among the foreign policy elite (neo-cons, conservatives, liberals, and progressives alike) that we cannot afford to pull out of Iraq — regardless of what the vast majority of the people in this country believe.

The shift confirms that Bush has altered reality to such an extent that the reality-based wing of the foreign policy elite is left to wring its hands over the bad choices that this new reality presents.

The other reality — the reality outside the Beltway, outside New York, outside think tanks — is that ordinary Americans have had it with these imperial parlor games that drain national resources and attention from the issues that shape their lives on a daily basis.

One reality the Bush administration has made clear: we can have an empire or we can have a republic, but we cannot have both. Those of you who argue for 'responsible' policies are implicitly making your choice on the side of empire.

The fact that the Army is on the verge of breaking is not a sign that the Army is too small. It is a sign that we have committed to missions and policies that are beyond the scope of our republic to support and sustain.

In one of his tapes released just prior to the 2004 presidential election, Bin Laden said that he had bled one empire to death (meaning the Soviet Union) and that, through the gift of Iraq, he had a chance to bleed a second one (meaning the United States). Any policy that commits more U.S. troops to Iraq or that does not immediately start drawing down those troops is reactionary in the sense that it's first impulse is to validate the new Bush-created reality in Iraq.

There are no good choices left for the United States in Iraq. But, doubling down on a catastrophic policy is a national death wish. Anything less than beginning the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces is to commit this country to a role to which is not genetically suited: that of imperial power.

The intervening two weeks since the release of the ISG report have provided concrete evidence that Bush believes he is above the law and above the will of the people. He will not comply or cooperate with any congressional attempt to rein in his power or his policies. We are headed to a constitutional crisis. Impeachment will be one alternative; the other will be to accept the newly ordered constitutional reality created by the Bush/Cheney cabal.

Based on how they've shifted the Iraq debate, I'm not sure anyone on the Democratic side has the courage to stand against this most fundamental shift.