Where's the outrage?

Dan Froomkin asks...

The American voters in November made it clear that it's time to start withdrawing from Iraq. Political leaders from both parties and any number of experts are increasingly coming to the realization that American soldiers are dying, day in and day out, in pursuit of an unattainable goal.

So what is President Bush about to do? By all indications: escalate. His "new way forward" in Iraq appears to call for more troops -- along with a series of other measures that might have helped if he'd taken them three years ago.

News reports suggest that Bush's plan is not likely to win enthusiastic support, even from within his own party. But my question is: Where's the outrage?

If the vox populi and the cognoscenti agree that throwing more American bodies at the problem will only result in more American deaths, then how is the apparent Bush plan anything short of a betrayal of the troops and an expression of contempt for the will of the people?

And is there any more plausible explanation for Bush's behavior than that he is willing to sacrifice more troops so he won't have to admit -- at least not yet -- that he made a mistake? Is that a good enough reason to ask even one more soldier to die?

I simply can't recall a president more obsessed with his own image at the expense of the nation's...or the soldiers he's intent on putting in harm's way. For Bush, as Atrios and this humble blogging professional have long been saying, leaving is losing and staying is winning. As long as we stay in Iraq -- and Bush has certainly been clear enough that as long as he's the president we're staying, and that this stinking pile of human offal is going to be someone else's problem -- Bush thinks that he can't be judged a failure.

He's insane, of course.