Could this author possibly try to put a more negative spin on this situation?

The whole mood of this article is that Bush is going to be screwed politically if, IF we don't find WMD. But a quote from his own article indicates this isn't likely to be the case:

"In a New York Times/CBS News Poll last week, 57 percent of respondents said the war in Iraq was worthwhile even if coalition forces do not find the disputed weapons.

Thirty-seven percent said the failure to find such weapons would mean the war was not worth it."

Couldn't just leave it at that though.

No, we've got to continue with a barrage doomsaying.

'Well, if the effort to rebuild Iraq starts to bog down, the term I like to use is 'quagmire,' and civil unrest accelerates, and somehow our U.S. soldiers start dropping like flies, and the cost of this effort increases to about $400-trillion, and it turns out that Saddam's suspected WMD sites were really producing Cupie Dolls, and President Bush takes a crap on the White House lawn......Well then, yes. I think that could be very harmful to Bush politically'

Give me a break.

But it doesn't stop there!

Now we move on to insinuating, with no basis, that Bush has LIED to the American people. Using quotes like, "It's always dangerous for the president to be exposed as misleading the public" Where the hell did that come from?

Then, let's compare Bush's to Lyndon Johnson trumpeting the 'success' of the Vietnam War.

I guess we should give him credit for trying to balance out the negative tone of the entire article with the lone quote that is buried at the very end:

"They'd be more delighted if weapons of mass destruction were found. But if not, people will shrug and go on to something else."