If ever there were a living example of instant karma, I think this baby qualifies. As Bobert says, first the reason for war was imminent threat of attack on the US and WMDs. Then when all of that was proved to be nonsense, Bush hit the road to say "Saddam Hussein was a bad man. Saddam Hussein tried to kill my dad".

So word gets out that we are using the very same torture chambers Saddam used, for the same purpose, and...

suddenly they're sorry???

And after that debacle of a hearing (maybe the pundits thought Rumsfeld did well, but it was glaringly obvious that all the DOD masters combined couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again.

The kept mouthing the words 'chain of command chain of command AAWWKK!' and couldn't explain what exactly that chain of command was. They couldn't say who was in charge, who gave the orders, what the orders were...

And the report had been sitting on their desks for two months.

But the pundits aren't even talking about any of that. They aren't picking apart the testimony. They are saying "he apologized, and acted all humble". As if an insincere apology and contrived horror about the scandal was going to convince anyone of anything.

Apparently he wasn't horrified enough at the suggestion of torture by our troops to read the reports or to bother to have a look at the photographs until the night before he was summoned to the Hill.

So why aren't any of the pundits talking about this debacle in those terms? It is obvious the entire Bush administration Iraq strategy is dissembling before the eyes of the world, yet in Washington DC, they act as if nothing matters but the cynical, contrived mea culpas for the cameras.