Bush has left us to choose between two awful options

It was no accident that Osama bin Laden timed his videos for Sept. 11. But then again, how fitting it was that the hearings on the Iraq war coincided with the anniversary of his attack.

The testimony was dotted with overt and subtle messages about Iraq as the center of the war on terrorism without acknowledging how it became the center. In opening statements, Ambassador Ryan Crocker used "al-Qaida" nine times and Gen. David Petraeus used it 17 times without mentioning that there was no al-Qaida in Iraq before we were in Iraq.

There was nothing new in this false connection. For that matter, there was no news at all from the hearings, if by "news" we mean something unexpected: "General Bites Commander in Chief."

Was there any doubt that Petraeus wanted to keep the surge troops as long as possible? Was there any doubt that President Bush would claim to follow the advice of the man he commands and announce plans to withdraw those 30,000 troops by next summer?

Nevertheless, to my surprise, these hearings did mark a turning point. In place of swagger, we saw sobriety.

The general who came bearing medals as well as a Ph.D. admitted, "I'm as frustrated with the situation as anybody else." But if you need more proof of sobriety, there was the moment of the hearings when Petraeus was asked whether Americans were safer now. After a pregnant pause, he answered: "Sir, I don't know, actually."

This was supposed to be the week of Osama's makeover or Bush's do-over. It was the week when the public conversation may have shifted permanently. We have entered the debate over the lesser of two catastrophes. Americans gave up the belief in Iraqi WMDs long ago. Most of us have given up the idea that we can create democracy in Iraq. Now we also have lost confidence that the surge can create the "breathing space" in which the Iraqis will achieve reconciliation in their disintegrated society.

Mission creep has become "mission shrink." The real role of American troops in Iraq now is to try to keep a lid on the terrible violence unleashed by our own invasion. Our job in Iraq, as Crocker put it, is preventing a "big, nasty street fight."

So we get down to the tale of two catastrophes. On the one hand, the war's supporters claim only that things will get horrifically worse if we leave.

On the other hand, the war's opponents insist that staying the course will only stay the disaster. All we get from prolonging the war are more casualties of the war.

Between these two unbearable options, I choose leaving. But any choice comes with a bitter recognition of the financial, moral and political fallout from this president's decision and deception.

In Robert Draper's book on the Bush presidency, "Dead Certain," the president muses on his retirement. "I'll give some speeches, just to replenish the ol' coffers," he says. "We'll have a nice place in Dallas," he adds, where he will run "a fantastic Freedom Institute. I can just envision getting in the car, getting bored, going down to the ranch."

Just think. Osama is on the loose with his hair stylist. Iraq is coming apart at the seams. How swell that one American has an exit strategy.

© 2007, Washington Post Writers Group