It is so dispiriting. Bush has an opportunity -- a second one, in fact -- to act like an ally, not a bully. Instead, it sounds like he's going to back to the UN and say, basically, that he's right, the rest of the world is wrong, and they'd better pony up the cash by way of apologizing for not following his "leadership." I know Chirac and the French are being equally irresponsible, but France is not the UN. Germany has shown recently that they're willing to let bygones be bygones and provide support in Iraq. So have other countries that had opposed the unilateral invasion.

But that's not Bush's way. In only a week or so, he's gone from a "plea" for international help to a demand for it. No, for Bush, demanding "my way or the highway" is both his natural inclination (which is remarkable for a man so given to mediocrity and failure throughout his life) and a way to play to his base. Pleas are for sissies.

It's so sad. In some ways, I should be enjoying watching Bush, Cheney, and the neocons hoist on their own petard, but failure is not an option. Because, as Josh Marshall writes, Bush's failure is our failure.

Josh, curiously wasn't quoted in Michele Goldberg's piece for Salon this week. It seems like she spoke with just about every other liberal hawk who supported the war back in March. Again, dispiriting. I, too, am not making any mea culpas. At the time, I thought Bush was right to demand the UN enforce its resolutions, but wrong to do it without international support. Nevertheless, I also felt that our army couldn't spend six months to a year massed at the Kuwait/Iraq border, while inspectors finished up (as we now know, they wouldn't have found anything, but I seriously doubt that would have stopped an invasion).

The UN has always waited too long to act (Rwanda, Bosnia). And although Saddam was bluffing, he wouldn't be as soon as the sanctions were lifted. But, like Jonathan Chait at the New Republic, I'm not as confident as I once was in arguing that.

And that's the issue now. Because it's not just the liberal hawks who are uncomfortable and vaguely embarrassed. Because the administration lied about the pretex for war and bungled estimating the costs for reconstruction, the next time there is a Rwanda, Bosnia, or Somalia, the American people will oppose the intervention. The unintended consequences of trying to reshape a region by force.

Another unforeseen consequence that liberals like myself now find themselves grappling with after the attacks on the World Trade Center is the whole notion of when -- if ever -- "forceful interrogation," or even torture, is justified. It's worth reading the entire article (which unfortunately, the Atlantic expects you to actually go to a store and pay for), but here's an interesting interview with the writer, Mark Bowden.

Bowden's conclusion, I think is the right one, but it certainly is murky and puts a lot of strain on the interrogator. Basically, that while these kinds of practices should be considered illegal and should be universally condemned, there are going to be situations where they are justified. The classic "ticking bomb" situation.

The trouble is, Bowden notes, that while countries like Israel and even Germany are trying to grapple with this in public discussion, the Americans don't want to talk -- or even think about it. That's unhealthy, literally and figuratively.

I don't usually get too worked up about what ex-cons do when they get out, but this is sick. Something tells me this little publicity gag will not work.