Sore, George Bush tried to spin his "tell it as it is" technique to regain control of the situation.
As expected, he went back to the early days of his first mandate to demonstrate that he can work in a bipartisan manner... Even on the conduct of the war in Iraq, he says, since he is convinced that both republicans and democrats "want to win", and bring the troops home without sacrificing the goals of their mission. As if "the difference in strategies" that he acknowledges were a mere detail, and not the core of the debate.
The swift replacement of Secretary Rumsfeld will (temporarily?) occupy the minds with the suspense of inside baseball. Is Condoleezza Rice gaining the upper hand, against the Cheney clan? Is the vice-president now effectively on the sidelines of the president's decision-making process? Is the appointment of Bob Gates the signal that Bush-the-father's old guard is coming to the rescue of a contrite son? Are there other changes to be expected in the White house team?
And then, soon enough, the events on the ground should force a real debate about the end strategy in Iraq, as well as the principles and practices of the so-called "war on terror". That should be an urgent exercise not only for the White House, but for the democrats as well. They will have to sort out the muddled call for "change" delivered by an electorate that rewarded anti-war candidates, but also pro-war candidates with various opinions on the best exit strategy, such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman.