Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

Here's a nice Manhattan media treat, in its entirety:

The United States made a "big mistake" when it invaded Iraq, former President Bill Clinton said Wednesday, citing the lack of planning for what would happen after dictator Saddam Hussein was overthrown.
"Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done, " Clinton told students at the American University of Dubai.
"It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors ... one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country."
Clinton did however say that the United States had done some good things in Iraq: the removal of Saddam, the ratification of a new constitution, and the holding of parliamentary elections.

So the questions are, why do we care what Clinton says; was it really an error to think it was easy to get rid of Saddam, given that he was chased out, well, easily; if "it's a good thing," why does he not agree with it; and since the good things include ratifying a new constitution and electing a parliament (which seems to negate the "hard to unify" bad thing), what exactly makes anything a "big mistake"?

It's simply hilarious. Iraq is possibly the most successful, least costly war in history, which in addition to accomplishing its immediate objectives, is jerking an entire culture 1000 years out of the past. This is epochal stuff. But the Manhattan media is only concerned about what Bill Clinton says? What does it matter? He lies even if he's accidentally telling the truth. And ought not even a nothing story like this at least be coherent?

UPDATE: Kaus thinks this nonsense is a deliberate Clinton straddle strategy. THere's no question that the Clintons are both willing and able to pull all sorts of strings --there is no doubt they are behind the effort to make the preacher Ted Strickland governor of Ohio, although I doubt there's a single word of it anywhere in the press--but Mickey's overthinking this one. This is just Bill's ego.

And AP isn't the only Manhattan media performing a Lewinsky on The Prez. Check out David Granger from Esquire, labeling Bill the "most influential man in the world."

Esquire editor David Granger argued that Clinton was poised to become "something like a president of the world or at least a president of the world's non-governmental organizations."

Doesn't that just sound like a junior high school kid? "Something like a president of the world." "Yeah, like that." (This world-president stuff must be an Article IV power, or maybe Article VIII. I can't quite place it. Steven Breyer? LAGuy's common law? International law?)

No, Mickey, Clinton strategy is a little more down to earth and sensible. This is pure ego.