Hornets' nest

This was in the L.A. Times today. Accurate, as far as it goes:

"No single campaign issue has defined the presidential candidates' differences more clearly than the war in Iraq. Yet it seems that whoever wins Tuesday's election will steer a remarkably similar course in the troubled country.

Despite their passionate debate on the issue, President Bush and his Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry, offer plans for Iraq that substantially overlap. Both are committed to stepping up the pace of training a new Iraqi security force, holding national elections quickly and broadening international military support for the effort.
The reason for the like-minded strategies isn't hard to find: The bleak realities that define conditions in Iraq, and the political climate surrounding the conflict leave little room for either candidate to move in a bold new direction."

The article fails to point out the obvious: there isn't much choice in Iraq because Bush's hubris has created a situation in which there are really NO good options: there are only bad choices and worse choices.

George W. Bush is like the guy who swears that he's an expert on hornets, and the best way to deal with a hornets' nest is to hit it with a baseball bat.

And everybody - beekeepers included - says, "No, no, no, that's really stupid, please don't do that." But he refuses to listen, and goes and hits the damned thing with the baseball bat.

And then there isn't much choice, is there? You either run away, or just keep swatting at the hornets and hope you don't get stung to death. Those are your two choices.

But why the hell would you keep the guy in charge who hit the damned thing with a baseball bat in the first place? And who STILL refuses to admit that it was a stupid move?

How could anybody not realize that such a clown obviously has no idea what he's doing?