onally involving President George Bush in a scandal related to the disclosure of the identity of the "CIA" operative Valerie Plame and still subject to investigation by the Judiciary… These recent two developments are only a small sample of the struggle of the brothers-enemies. The rival brethren were stricken by the failures of the war on Iraq, thus, each is scrutinizing the other, seeking to lay the blame for the disaster on the others.

The only irrefutable factor is that none of them dared to say that the notion of the war on Iraq was basically a fixed idea and a pressing obsession for President Bush. When the 9/11 attacks took place, it became inevitable to head to Afghanistan to overthrow the regime of "Taliban" and uproot "al-Qaeda" organization from its mountains. Hence, the President seized the golden opportunity to put forth the change in Iraq on the agenda. "The Israeli lobby," or its modern label "Neo-Conservatives," was indeed utterly excited about this war. It was an impetus to launch the most futile and pointless theories to consider Iraq a gateway to bring "The Great Middle East" under the US hegemony. However, while pouncing upon the Iraqi cake that fell (even before it did) into their hands, they did not heed the cost of the hegemony, requiring a genius administration to prevent it from becoming a curse for the architects of war.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he did not know what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was talking about when she said last week that the United States had made thousands of "tactical errors" in handling the war in Iraq, a statement she later said was meant figuratively. Rumsfeld said calling changes in military tactics during the war "errors" reflects a lack of understanding of warfare.

Rice is trying to hold a dialogue with the world that was and still is opposed to the war, as to any future warfare. As for Rumsfeld, who does not discern any error in what happened and is happening, preferring to lay the blame for the errorsd solely on the Iraqis, even if they were among the so-called "Iraqis of the Pentagon," or on "al-Qaeda" and al-Zirqawi…

However, since the days of Colin Powell, and despite the fact that the latter espoused the war, the State Department, in coordination with the CIA, sought to impart an accurate assessment to all the Iraqi "allies," warning them against the danger of failing to put forth a clear and comprehensive vision of the so-called "Day After", i.e. the post invasion and occupation period. The State Department was not granted any active role in the occupation authority, continuing to uphold the President who gave most of the prerogatives to the Ministry of Defense and the circle sharing its thinking and scheming in Cheney's administration. At the time, Rice was relocating in accordance with the President' position.

Then came the confession of Lewis Libby, Cheney's former Chief of Staff and assistant for National Security Affairs. Lewis admitted that Bush consented to leak the information about agent Plame, to even the score with her husband Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was assigned by the "CIA" in 2002 to investigate and find out whether Niger sold Baghdad a quantity of Uranium (yellow cake). Ambassador Wilson came back from his investigation mission to refute the fact adopted by the administration and later substantiated it in one of Bush's speeches to promote the war and warn the public opinion against the danger of an Iraqi nuclear attack on the US. The story of the spy couple was not an indication of using lies and forgery s to justify the war, but a whistleblower forewarning that the administration, which renounced all the principles and values in its quest to retaliate following the 9/11 attacks, soon also renounced all constraints in dealing with the employees working at its service.

It is unknown to what extend this civil war within the Bush administration may go, especially since it is facing today the possibility of another war, against Iran this time. The war is an option, just as the "deal" is an option, should the dialogue in Baghdad succeed. Some presage that Bush, who went far in seeking to acquire the image of the combating President, will not be reluctant in opting for the nuclear alternative against Iran since he does not want to end his second mandate yielding to an Iranian challenge.

As with the war on Iraq, and in any upcoming war, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld will care less about the developments of the day after, since any strike to Iran will restore Bush's radiant image, or so he believes.