jayeff

A reasonable analogy up to a point: running a democratic country is much more like keeping a pre-owned car running than trading the old model in for a new one. It is neither possible nor desirable to totally overhaul all of a country's laws and policies within - effectively - 2½ to 3 years.

When it comes to mid-east policy for example, the US has pursued a consistent line since the 1920's under a succession of presidents from both parties. You can argue it was a wise policy or not, but if you believe it was a wise policy, then the invasion of Iraq was almost a necessity at this stage of the game.

The present president cannot be held reponsible for the actions of his predecessors and could even use them to justify his own actions. But that doesn't let him off the hook in respect of specific decisions that he made. He didn't have to order the invasion of Iraq, and he made the choice to sell it to the public in the way he did.

I seriously doubt the White House is bothered by the Rove story because it is a sideshow that will fizzle away in a few weeks. It may even have been a useful diversion, drawing attention away from other recent events: the announcement at the end of June about the formation of a National Security Service under the direct control of the President; the placing under the President's authority of the 180,000 employees of Homeland Security; and the release of a document from the Pentagon that the military intends to ?expand military activity? within the United States (something which is specifically banned under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878).

Thanks - at least in part - to all the speculation about Rove, these potentially far more serious events have barely caused a blip on the radar.