Willard may be an opportunistic phony, but he’s also capable of stating the obvious.

"I think we did a less than effective job in managing the conflict following the collapse of Saddam Hussein," the former Massachusetts governor said at a news conference. "I think we were underprepared for what occurred, understaffed, underplanned, and, in some respects, undermanaged."

"Less than effective" is CEO-speak for "totally screwed the pooch." You might think Willard’s trying to create some space between Bush and himself here. But ever the shape-shifter, he also said this yesterday:

“The president has kept us safe over these last six years and is extraordinarily well-versed in matters of foreign policy."

Come again?

There’s no greater criticism one can level at a President than mismanaging a war. Mismanaging a war gets lots of people needlessly killed. Mismanaging a war weakens the country and makes it more vulnerable. And there’s no excuse for being "underprepared" for a war that Bush himself started when he felt like it.

So what I don’t get is how you can accuse Bush of failing at his greatest executive responsibility, then turn around and praise him. St. McCain plays this little game as well and never gets called on it.

Yes, this is what happens when you don’t want to offend the Bush dead-enders who comprise 70% of Republican primary voters while simultaneously not sounding completely delusional to the rest of the country that hates Bush and the war. But it’d be nice if someone in the press would call these two on the illogic of this silly rhetorical game they’re playing.