America: Washington is badly rattled by the latest turn of events in Iraq. There is a strong sense that popular support for the military action in Iraq is waning, and that the influence of the neo-conservatives who had the ear of the President has peaked, writes Conor O'Clery.
Even pro-war commentators are turning on the Pentagon over its hyped pre-war optimism and lack of post-war planning.
Any future inquisition on "who lost Iraq?" may find that its first victim will be Douglas Feith, head of policy planning in the Pentagon.
It is even rumoured that Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will not be asked to serve in a second Bush term.
Americans got a reality check from three respected US Senators, Republicans Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel and Democrat Joe Biden, who warned after a brief trip to Baghdad that the US military may be stuck in Iraq for five years. No one has told that to the American people up to now.
With TV news dominated by pictures of burning US army vehicles and casualties being evacuated by helicopter, comparisons are being made with the Vietnam War.
The latest poll, taken just before the bloody events of this week, shows that 44 per cent of Americans feel the level of US casualties to be unacceptable, up from 28 per cent in April, and seven in 10 Americans now fear they will get bogged down in Iraq.
The digging up of nuclear components buried since 1991 in a Baghdad rose garden has enhanced the case that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons components for future use, but the Bush administration cannot shake off the accusations that it used deception to make the case for war.
After his visit to Iraq Senator Biden said there was no question in his mind that the administration hyped the evidence on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to create a sense of urgency to deal with Iraq.
He was commenting at a hearing for Gen John Abizaid, the Arabic-speaking commander who is taking over Central Command from General Tommy Franks.
"It is perplexing to me," Gen Abizaid told the senators, "that we have not found weapons of mass destruction when the evidence was so pervasive that it would exist."
This contradicted Ari Fleischer's repeated assurances that it was "not surprising" no weapons had been found because they had been well hidden, which gave frustrated White House correspondents something with which to torment the president's spokesman.
Hans Blix, retiring this week as chief UN weapons inspector, had a last word: "It is sort of fascinating that you can have 100 per cent certainty about weapons of mass destruction and zero certainty of about where they are."
In the aftermath of the war the hyping goes on. In an interview with Polish television on May 30th, Mr Bush cited two mysterious trailers found in Iraq as proof that the US had "found the weapons of mass destruction".
On Thursday the New York Times revealed that the State Department's intelligence division disputed the CIA's conclusion that the trailers were for making biological weapons.
The US media reporting is now openly skeptical about WMD claims.
In an extensive 7,700- word critique of the case for war in the influential Washington journal, the New Republic, the authors, John Judis and Spencer Ackerman, identify a pattern of deception that they say exaggerated the threat from WMD and deprived Congress of its ability to make an informed decision on going to war.
It also deconstructs the case for linking Iraq to al-Qaeda which was pushed by Donald Rumsfeld - who claimed to have "bulletproof" evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and the organisation, but was resisted by the CIA and other intelligence agencies. No significant link was ever established.
In the not-too-distant future, when pre-emptive military action is actually necessary against a regime about to use nuclear weapons, the country will look to its leaders for an honest assessment, the New Republic concluded, but "thanks to George W. Bush, we may not believe them until it is too late".
No Democratic candidate for 2004 has yet "caught fire" and some Democrats say they would just love to be able to have a certain prominent American in the race.
A clue: he is a former baby-boomer and Rhodes scholar from Arkansas, he is extremely articulate and impressive, he supports abortion rights and racial preferences, and he has a devoted following. No, not Bill Clinton, but retired general Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander and CNN war analyst, who has been meeting potential donors and pondering a future as a politician.
Clark, a critic of the rush to war and of Bush's pro-wealthy tax cuts, says he is considering a run for the White House.
John Hlinko and Dave Wallace, two moderate Democrats looking for a proven leader to reverse Bush's foreign policy, have started a grassroots Internet movement (www.DraftWesleyClark.com) to persuade people to write letters asking the 58-year-old general to run, and volunteers have paid for radio ads in New Hampshire to introduce him to electors.
Dismissed by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, as a "blow-dried Napoleon", Clark nevertheless has impeccable credentials on national security, and he would be an attractive running mate for any soft-on-the-war Democratic nominee, which is where his ambitions may lie.
The Bush administration's deck of cards of Iraq's most wanted has spawned a small industry of imitators.
The anti-war Ruckus Society in California is selling a set featuring George Bush as the Joker and Dick Cheney as King of Hearts.
A pro-war "Deck of Weasels" features Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks, who was denounced as a traitor for an uncomplimentary pre-war remark about Bush.
The Chicks came to Washington on Thursday for the first time since then, and showed themselves totally unrepentant.
As they played Truth No 2, about having the nerve to protest against injustice, pictures of censorship and oppression appeared on a screen.
"Now we understand every word," Natalie said, as the fans gave her a standing ovation.