Amid the stir caused by Sarah Palin's jugheaded First Interview yesterday, there was a moment when deep-cable time seemed to stand still, and a discussion seemed imminent on the real reasons for the Iraq War.

That moment passed in a near-instant, which is probably what McCain and the GOP hope the Palin interview will do; they've gotta be whistling Dixie to avoid answering questions about her wacky sit-down with Charlie Gibson, normally a McCain-servile talking head willing to indulge the candidate a mile whenever an inch will do.

The Alaskan governer and Republican Vice Presidential candidate told Gibson and the increasingly appalled TV audience:

- "Perhaps" war with Russia is possible. After all, that's what NATO allies do for each other. It seemed unclear whether Mrs. Palin had been briefed that Georgia wasn't a NATO member just yet.

- Iraq was connected to the 9/11 attacks - a hoary old tall-tale even the reliably counterintuitive George W. Bush has slung on the junk pile.

- As TPM poster M.J. Rosenberg notes today, she told Gibson  three times during the interview that America can't "second guess" Israel. That, combined with an AIPAC vetting within 48 hours of her candidacy roll-out two weeks ago, indicates she knows to whom genuflection is due.

That second-guessing procedure may soon be tested, since Israel is asking the U.S. for arms and flight corridors to use in an Iran attack. A story in Haaretz this morning says the package, so far refused by the U.S., includes "a large number of "bunker-buster" bombs... an advanced technological system and refueling planes."

Palin's much ballyhoo'd interview (she's been kept virtually quarantined from reporters since her wildly effective, sneering acceptance speech last week) has revealed her to be a dangerously naive lightweight on foreign policy. Her world is stark black and white, and it's sobering to consider one of the simplistic dots she connects could be the dreaded red button of a nuclear trigger. War with Russia, indeed.

A neo-Cold War seems imminent, order in the Afghan-Pakistan region is deteriorating and the Mideast continues to seeth. Meanwhile, this airhead thinks the Iraq War has "righteous" overtones. Palin has already achieved the impossible: She's out-dumbed Bush.

Mommy, your hockey rink is calling.

But it wasn't all fun and games last night. For a moment, on Rachel Maddow's new show, the host and MSNBC stalwart Chris Matthews seemed on the cusp of doing the unthinkable: Discussing, live and on the air, the real reasons for the Iraq War.

For going on six years now, the media has treated this subject like an anthrax letter: at first sight, run for the hills! For the life of me, I can't remember the exact lead-in to their chat, and it's still too early to be posted on the transcripts page of Maddow's MSNBC site, but there were the two of them... putting the sorry history in perspective, naming names.

In a general conversation about how 9/11 morphed into the invasion, Matthews started lining up the voices pushing the nation to invade. He actually mentioned the term "neoconservative," naming David Wurmser and "the Kagans... how many Kagans are there?... Fred, Robert... Kimberly Kagan?"

Toss in dad Donald Kagan and you have most of the heavy hitters over at the archly neocon Project for a New American Century, an unofficial offshoot (many of the same folks involved) of the American Enterprise Institute.

These were the names, think tanks and policy shops wedded to the idea that America had to use its might to assert a New World Order - especially in the Middle East. And these somewhat shady chickenhawks pop up frequently throughout the past few decades, joined by perennials like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and the very suspect Michael Ledeen.

Wurmser crops up at a crucial juncture, co-authoring - along with Perle and soon-to-be No. 3 man at the Pentagon, Douglas Feith - the now-famous "Clean Break" policy paper for former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; that never-implemented 1997 study advocated American-backed regime change for all Israel's most-powerful enemies in the region: Iraq, Iran and Syria.

Iraq had by that time become a back-bench military power, suffering inglorious defeat and anguishing in sanction-effected misery during and after the First Gulf War in 1991. That made an attack "doable", in the words of Wolfowitz, as the first step of a Mideast makeover. All that was needed for the conflagration to begin was a pretext, and the "Pearl Harbor" of 9/11 provided just that.

Palin's blinkered, half-witted linking of that terrible September day to Iraq merely reflected what the Administration had trotted out time after time as the reason for the Iraq War - as late as 2006! After it was proven there were no connections to al Qaeda, along with no weapons of mass destruction to be found in Saddam's arsenals, Bush offered other cover stories for the war - ridding the country of a dictator, spreading democracy, and the "flypaper" strategy of attracting militants to the carnage "over there" instead of battling them in Hoboken sex shops and video arcades.

What remains is a propped up, catch-all explanation that we were drawn into war by "bad intelligence." That this intelligence was "cherry-picked", "stove-piped" and bust-out fabricated by Feith and his Office of Special Plans goes unmentioned.

And underlining the shabbiness of this alibi: If the U.S. is willing to go to war on intelligence so unsubstantial... how safe can any of us feel?

But when this tawdry excuse is aired - once again - no one questions it. "The whole world believed Saddam has WMS." That's the mantra, when, in truth, the whole world didn't believe it. Europe may have given lip-service to the idea of a dangerous Iraq, but not to the point of drinking our Drano and sending in ground troops. The IAEA, which actually had inspectors scouring Iraq for any sign of nukes, didn't think so. Russia and China practically spoofed us over our grand crusade.

The moment came up on the Maddow show, and faded away. The pressure to not shine a light on the war's actual motivations is just to great.

But for a moment, the chance shined like a diamond in a very dark, very seedy rough.

(NOTE: This originally was posted Tuesday. I'm resending it so it will appear in my archive.)

Amending Barack Obama's effusive appraisal on "The Factor" last week, the Surge worked beyond the GOP's wildest dreams. Not "our's".

The troop increase in Iraq initiated last year has provided the party with a firm talking point toehold in a year it should be slipping off the precipice. It's obvious now that was intent. President Bush announced the troop increase two months after the Republicans had taken a pasting in the 2006 elections - losing control of Congress for the first time in 12, long "Contract With America" years.

And, yes, putting American troops in harm's way for political purposes at home is nothing new. Nevertheless, it's a manipulative ploy of breathtaking cynicism and soullessness.

The cover story for the Surge had the strategy - Bush's first real military initiative in what was then four years of war - buying time for the Iraqi government to unify and set the blood-soaked country on a course to become a Jeffersonian democracy in a land where respect for civil rights is traditionally as rare as wet bars and nude beaches.

In that respect, the Surge is a monumental failure. The government of Nouri al-Maliki is chaotic, divided and shot with deadly intrigues. The only things upon which official Iraq can agree are to save all its oil earnings for a rainy day and push Bush for a timetable for American troop withdrawal.

But the idea that the Surge has been a costly mistake is a pet peeve of benighted mortals down here in the reality-based world. The Surge has been a boon to the Republicans.

They constantly point to it as proof the war strategy is working. ...That, somehow, a slight reduction in the country's daunting death tolls is proof that victory is possible. ...Just around the corner. ...Somewhere, someday. They bait Democrats, squinting their eyes and probing deep to discover if cowering opponents ever had harbored pantywaist doubts about the brilliant tactic.

From the level of Iraq War coverage in the American press, it would be easy to conclude that roadside bombs and suicide attacks have been eliminated altogether. Look! Only 26 Iraqis were killed Monday! The Surge is working!

Barack Obama correctly observes that it's obvious putting more boots on the ground will reduce killings; it doesn't take a strategic genius to figure that out. But he also notes that we can't keep up this level of commitment forever - we simply can't afford it - although exactly when the troop numbers will be cut is an... ambiguous... matter.

Several times during the past year, the Administration has made noise about troop reductions, as noted by Jason Ditz at Antiwar.com, only to have the reductions delayed, or transferred units reinforced with replacements. A year ago, ground commander Gen. David Petraeus said troop strength would be down to 130,000 by this summer. The current figure, however, remains at 146,000. Evidently, another one of those unadvisable timetables bit the dust.

It's a now-familiar tap dance: troop reductions are announced for a time months in the future. When that date arrives, there is a "troop-cut freeze" or "pause" that suspends the planned downsizing.

None of the troop cuts now will occur until after Bush leaves office. Ditz notes that although only 7,500 will be pulled out, and mostly transferred to Afghanistan. But never tardy in putting a happy face on anything coming from the White House, Ditz quotes this heavy spinning from CNN: "The top U.S. general in Iraq is recommending nearly 8,000 troop cuts in Iraq because of the improving situation there, a source close to the process has told CNN."

Bush is scheduled to announce that reduction, as well as his plans for the future of Iraqi troop levels (not that he'll have a say in that after January - thankfully) in an address to the National Defense University today.

Also, our reliable flack media (this time the Associated Press) dutifully reports that Petraeus wants at least 100,000 troops to remain in Iraq after Bush leaves office. What? 100,000? So... in this Hollywood-math shell game, we're supposed to conclude from this whispery factoid that almost 50,000 troops will be gone by January! But no promises, of course. ...Just duly reported double-talk.

The troops are leaving! (But, really, they're not.) The Surge is working! (But, really, it's not.) We're winning! (Well... depends on your definition of winning.)

The Surge looks like a cobbled together delaying action to buy time for the GOP to get its act together after 2006; well, at least the RNCC doesn't have to worry about IEDs in its parking lot. With the help of a compliant media, the Surge has been fabricated into a great success, a surrogate "victory" that the party can use as a talking point and mallet with which to strike out at opponents. (Much has been made of Obama's right-minded doubts about the strategy.)

The expense of keeping that many troops in a combat zone precludes it lasting much longer. Who want's to bet that after the election, we begin an unavoidable drawdown to 2006 troop levels. After we declare a Surge-fueled victory, of course.

The crucial question in the next two and a half weeks: Will the Obama campaign get its balls back?

Since the announcement of Sarah Palin and the resultant post-convention GOP "bump", Democrats have seemed more skittish and rattled than ever before in this campaign. Has panic set in? And if so, can the party of change pull itself back together in time for the first debate Sept. 26?

Truth is, the polls have narrowed Obama's lead, especially in key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio. The news cycle is now dominated by the GOP, with stories about Palin leading off most elections roundups. The Obama campaign has become accustomed to the spotlight of attention, and has skillfully engineered the arrangement; this recent upset seems to have left them flustered and let down.

Have the Democratic candidates softened their tone in reponse. Sure seems so. The paleoconservative American Conservative, long an opponent of neoconservativism and the Bush Imperium, has some good observations on this phenomenon.

Monday night, during his interview with Obama on "Countdown", Keith Olbermann seemed to be prompting the candidate to put on  some spurs, asking him if he felt his campaign needed more "exclamation points." Well, doesn't it... huh?

Democrats seem once again to be fleeing almost-certain victory for the comforting tendrils of gaseous defeat. The "aw, shucks" soft-sell, softening the sharp "change" and anti-war image of the primary days, will crap this election quicker than revelations that Obama has hard connections to Shar-Pei dogfighing rings.

This Ned Lamont/Republican Lite curse is particularly difficult to shrug off since, in truth, Democrats are answerable to the same money interests and lobbies as Republicans. Anyone doubting that need only look at the absolutely disgusting, dispiriting record of the Democratic Congress elected in 2006.

Congressional Democrats, personified by the hysterically hypocritical Nancy Pelosi, repeatedly have drawn a line in the sand and then scuffed it out themselves. They make a great show of "battling" the Republican establishment, but they're firing volleys of throw pillows and marshmallows at the Bush bulldozer.

For the past two years, astonishing malfeasance committed by the administration attracts only tentative, nervous-nelly "inquiry" by the Democrat-dominated Congress. Just one example: Upholding a Justice Department record of allowing wholesale spying on the American public, rubber-stamping torture and other Constitution-shredding infamy, Bush's third attorney general practically spits in the face of Congress when hauled in for "questioning".

The change Obama promised, at least that heard by the American electorate, covered Congressional negligence as well as administration misdeeds. But Obama's metier had been wandering away from that hopeful message before the GOP convened in Minneapolis. He's hedged on Iraq withdrawal timetables and left the door open to offshore drilling. He seems less ...different.

On subjects like renewing a pointless Cold War with Russia and maintaining the phony, disgraceful "War on Terror," Democrats and Republicans see eye-to-eye. In the words of George Wallace, there's not a dime's worth of difference between them.

Obama's promise is undiminshed if he delivers change in office, and that is the one beacon in the night for his supporters. But to get there, he must win the election.

Let's take a page from the Karl Rove playbook: Attack the Republicans - not at their weak points - but where they are strong. OK... Sarah Palin has turned McCain's campaign around and given it some renewed hope - then, dammit, attack Sarah Palin. The GOP has been keeping her under wraps, away from the press, hoping to extend the hoodoo of her just-folks appeal by not revealing too soon the depth of her religion-driven, far-right ditziness. "Where's Sarah?" - that's what the Alaska legislature would chant when the elusive governor was AWOL during extended chunks of her very relaxed, laid-back term.

Perfect: "Where's Sarah?"

Get Rovian. Why not? Look at the little toad warrior: No doubt he served as an ambulatory punching bag for schoolhouse tyrants, but, following human nature, after acquiring some success, considerable power – and attendant super-confidence – he became one scary motherfucker; this is a process not unique in anthropoid experience.

OK, take that weakness... and turn it around. Channel the turd blossom. Here's the key point: For whatever else he did (or is infamous for), Rove knew how to win. This is not the time for Democrats to wallow in lukewarm subterfuge - refusing to take a stand that elite contributors and power brokers may not like.

America has stumble-bummed through eight years of an Administration thuggish and stupid, it’s disastrous operational technique propped up and enabled by the most collectively WORTHLESS news media in this country’s history. McCain is lashed to those years, dragging with him the dead-weight cargo of failed, stupid schemes.

Obama has at least the image of being a man of the people. And the people want the hard stuff. They want real change. And that's going to take a president - and a party - with balls!

The crucial question in the next two and a half weeks: Will the Obama campaign get its balls back?

Since the announcement of Sarah Palin and the resultant post-convention GOP "bump", Democrats have seemed more skittish and rattled than ever before in this campaign. Has panic set in? And if so, can the party of change pull itself back together in time for the first debate Sept. 26?

Truth is, the polls have narrowed Obama's lead, especially in key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio. The news cycle is now dominated by the GOP, with stories about Palin leading off most elections roundups. The Obama campaign has become accustomed to the spotlight of attention, and has skillfully engineered the arrangement; this recent upset seems to have left them flustered and let down.

Have the Democratic candidates softened their tone in reponse. Sure seems so. The paleoconservative American Conservative, long an opponent of neoconservativism and the Bush Imperium, has some good observations on this phenomenon.

Monday night, during his interview with Obama on "Countdown", Keith Olbermann seemed to be prompting the candidate to put on  some spurs, asking him if he felt his campaign needed more "exclamation points." Well, doesn't it... huh?

Democrats seem once again to be fleeing almost-certain victory for the comforting tendrils of gaseous defeat. The "aw, shucks" soft-sell, softening the sharp "change" and anti-war image of the primary days, will crap this election quicker than revelations that Obama has hard connections to Shar-Pei dogfighing rings.

This Ned Lamont/Republican Lite curse is particularly difficult to shrug off since, in truth, Democrats are answerable to the same money interests and lobbies as Republicans. Anyone doubting that need only look at the absolutely disgusting, dispiriting record of the Democratic Congress elected in 2006.

Congressional Democrats, personified by the hysterically hypocritical Nancy Pelosi, repeatedly have drawn a line in the sand and then scuffed it out themselves. They make a great show of "battling" the Republican establishment, but they're firing volleys of throw pillows and marshmallows at the Bush bulldozer.

For the past two years, astonishing malfeasance committed by the administration attracts only tentative, nervous-nelly "inquiry" by the Democrat-dominated Congress. Just one example: Upholding a Justice Department record of allowing wholesale spying on the American public, rubber-stamping torture and other Constitution-shredding infamy, Bush's third attorney general practically spits in the face of Congress when hauled in for "questioning".

The change Obama promised, at least that heard by the American electorate, covered Congressional negligence as well as administration misdeeds. But Obama's metier had been wandering away from that hopeful message before the GOP convened in Minneapolis. He's hedged on Iraq withdrawal timetables and left the door open to offshore drilling. He seems less ...different.

On subjects like renewing a pointless Cold War with Russia and maintaining the phony, disgraceful "War on Terror," Democrats and Republicans see eye-to-eye. In the words of George Wallace, there's not a dime's worth of difference between them.

Obama's promise is undiminshed if he delivers change in office, and that is the one beacon in the night for his supporters. But to get there, he must win the election.

Let's take a page from the Karl Rove playbook: Attack the Republicans - not at their weak points - but where they are strong. OK... Sarah Palin has turned McCain's campaign around and given it some renewed hope - then, dammit, attack Sarah Palin. The GOP has been keeping her under wraps, away from the press, hoping to extend the hoodoo of her just-folks appeal by not revealing too soon the depth of her religion-driven, far-right ditziness. "Where's Sarah?" - that's what the Alaska legislature would chant when the elusive governor was AWOL during extended chunks of her very relaxed, laid-back term.

Perfect: "Where's Sarah?"

Get Rovian. Why not? Look at the little toad warrior: No doubt he served as an ambulatory punching bag for schoolhouse tyrants, but, following human nature, after acquiring some success, considerable power – and attendant super-confidence – he became one scary motherfucker; this is a process not unique in anthropoid experience.

OK, take that weakness... and turn it around. Channel the turd blossom. Here's the key point: For whatever else he did (or is infamous for), Rove knew how to win. This is not the time for Democrats to wallow in lukewarm subterfuge - refusing to take a stand that elite contributors and power brokers may not like.

America has stumble-bummed through eight years of an Administration thuggish and stupid, it’s disastrous operational technique propped up and enabled by the most collectively WORTHLESS news media in this country’s history. McCain is lashed to those years, dragging with him the dead-weight cargo of failed, stupid schemes.

Obama has at least the image of being a man of the people. And the people want the hard stuff. They want real change. And that's going to take a president - and a party - with balls!

Amending Barack Obama's effusive appraisal on "The Factor" last week, the Surge worked beyond the GOP's wildest dreams. Not "our's".

The troop increase in Iraq initiated last year has provided the party with a firm talking point toehold in a year it should be slipping off the precipice. It's obvious now that was intent. President Bush announced the troop increase two months after the Republicans had taken a pasting in the 2006 elections - losing control of Congress for the first time in 12, long "Contract With America" years.

And, yes, putting American troops in harm's way for political purposes at home is nothing new. Nevertheless, it's a manipulative ploy of breathtaking cynicism and soullessness.

The cover story for the Surge had the strategy - Bush's first real military initiative in what was then four years of war - buying time for the Iraqi government to unify and set the blood-soaked country on a course to become a Jeffersonian democracy in a land where respect for civil rights is traditionally as rare as wet bars and nude beaches.

In that respect, the Surge is a monumental failure. The government of Nouri al-Maliki is chaotic, divided and shot with deadly intrigues. The only things upon which official Iraq can agree are to save all its oil earnings for a rainy day and push Bush for a timetable for American troop withdrawal.

But the idea that the Surge has been a costly mistake is a pet peeve of benighted mortals down here in the reality-based world. The Surge has been a boon to the Republicans.

They constantly point to it as proof the war strategy is working. ...That, somehow, a slight reduction in the country's daunting death tolls is proof that victory is possible. ...Just around the corner. ...Somewhere, someday. They bait Democrats, squinting their eyes and probing deep to discover if cowering opponents ever had harbored pantywaist doubts about the brilliant tactic.

From the level of Iraq War coverage in the American press, it would be easy to conclude that roadside bombs and suicide attacks have been eliminated altogether. Look! Only 26 Iraqis were killed Monday! The Surge is working!

Barack Obama correctly observes that it's obvious putting more boots on the ground will reduce killings; it doesn't take a strategic genius to figure that out. But he also notes that we can't keep up this level of commitment forever - we simply can't afford it - although exactly when the troop numbers will be cut is an... ambiguous... matter.

Several times during the past year, the Administration has made noise about troop reductions, as noted by Jason Ditz at Antiwar.com, only to have the reductions delayed, or transferred units reinforced with replacements. A year ago, ground commander Gen. David Petraeus said troop strength would be down to 130,000 by this summer. The current figure, however, remains at 146,000. Evidently, another one of those unadvisable timetables bit the dust.

It's a now-familiar tap dance: troop reductions are announced for a time months in the future. When that date arrives, there is a "troop-cut freeze" or "pause" that suspends the planned downsizing.

None of the troop cuts now will occur until after Bush leaves office. Ditz notes that although only 7,500 will be pulled out, and mostly transferred to Afghanistan. But never tardy in putting a happy face on anything coming from the White House, Ditz quotes this heavy spinning from CNN: "The top U.S. general in Iraq is recommending nearly 8,000 troop cuts in Iraq because of the improving situation there, a source close to the process has told CNN."

Bush is scheduled to announce that reduction, as well as his plans for the future of Iraqi troop levels (not that he'll have a say in that after January - thankfully) in an address to the National Defense University today.

Also, our reliable flack media (this time the Associated Press) dutifully reports that Petraeus wants at least 100,000 troops to remain in Iraq after Bush leaves office. What? 100,000? So... in this Hollywood-math shell game, we're supposed to conclude from this whispery factoid that almost 50,000 troops will be gone by January! But no promises, of course. ...Just duly reported double-talk.

The troops are leaving! (But, really, they're not.) The Surge is working! (But, really, it's not.) We're winning! (Well... depends on your definition of winning.)

The Surge looks like a cobbled together delaying action to buy time for the GOP to get its act together after 2006; well, at least the RNCC doesn't have to worry about IEDs in its parking lot. With the help of a compliant media, the Surge has been fabricated into a great success, a surrogate "victory" that the party can use as a talking point and mallet with which to strike out at opponents. (Much has been made of Obama's right-minded doubts about the strategy.)

The expense of keeping that many troops in a combat zone precludes it lasting much longer. Who want's to bet that after the election, we begin an unavoidable drawdown to 2006 troop levels. After we declare a Surge-fueled victory, of course.