One of the interesting things about Bob Woodward’s new book, In Denial (I think that’s the name), which should be approached with a strong political caveat but nonetheless contains some valuable information, is the picture that is painted of the friction and uncertainty within the highest echelons of the US administration over the war in Iraq almost from its beginnings.

Woodward, who has been much softer on this administration in previous publications, claims the following:

- That George Bush has become increasingly distant from reality, refusing to listen to accounts from any source that don’t paint an optimistic picture of Iraq in the near future.

- That both former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card (who was replaced, as you may know) and Laura Bush (!) have tried, unsuccessfully, to get the President to fire Rumsfeld.

- That Gen. Peter Pace, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (who was also replaced) has openly referred to Rumsfeld as “that son of a bitch,” and that his replacement was advised not to take the job because of Rumsfeld’s management style.

- That Dick Cheney, like the President, has grown increasingly intolerant of realistic viewpoints in favor of self-serving dicta such as have predominated in White House discourse really ever since 9/11.

So these aren’t really deep observations, but in America, at least, a very common misconception among people of all political persuasions is that the White House really believes in what it is doing, that when they say “stay the course” they really mean it, for better or worse. Well, in a sense, I suppose they do, but that the friction is being covered up instead of constructively debated is about the most compelling flare I know of that would seem to exclaim: there’s an agenda here.

Just thought you might find that interesting.