Well, the week isn't going quite like LiberalOasis thought yesterday, because Dubya scrapped the plan

Instead of continuing a series of authorized leaks meant to build a case for continued occupation, the White House announced today its putting off announcing the Super Shiny New Way Forward in Iraq until next month.

Why is this getting pushed back? We have three theories.

One comes from the NY Times, that Administration officials simply don't know what the plan is yet and are still arguing amongst themselves.

The second was offered by CNN's John King -- that to send in more troops, Bush needs more time:

I talked to a number of senior administration officials today, and also some of the outsiders who have been consulted by the administration as part of this review...

These officials all believe the president is planning to do something big. He is planning to do a substantial policy shift.

And one of the sources I spoke to says he believes the president is very seriously considering ... agreeing with Sen. John McCain and increasing U.S. troop levels in the short-term and also resisting the recommendations from the Iraq Study Group [to] begin to withdraw troops.

... the president, we are told, has asked for more advice about, how could he do it?

If he wanted to send in 20,000, 15,000 more troops for a few months to try to improve the situation, primarily in Baghdad, how would could that happen? So they need more time to put all that on the table.

The third comes from Time -- that the Bushies are busy pulling the strings of the Iraqi government, in an attempt to either separate prime minister Maliki from his coalition partner Moqtada al-Sadr, or force Maliki out:

It would certainly come as no surprise if, between now and [Bush's announcement next month], Iraq experienced its own traumatic version of what is known in the U.S. as a cabinet reshuffle.

Despite being dubbed by Bush "the right guy for Iraq" after their meeting in Jordan two weeks ago, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is plainly not delivering the progress Washington demands ... A memo by National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley ... recommended trying to separate Maliki from the Shi'ite bloc and isolate Sadr, by building a rival coalition in parliament that could allow him to govern without Sadr's backing.

Enter Abdulaziz al-Hakim, leader of the Iran-backed Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the largest of the Shi'ite parties, whose own Badr Corps militia is also allegedly involved in sectarian killings.

The turbaned cleric and Iran ally may seem an unlikely partner ... but his White House visit last week at Bush's invitation signaled that the U.S. may see him as a key element of a change in political tactics.

...

Right now, Hakim plays the lesser role in the Shi'ite coalition in which the Maliki-Sadr alliance holds sway. But Maliki's paralysis and the U.S. desire to isolate Sadr presents Hakim with an opportunity: he has the parliamentary muscle, potentially, to help install a new governing coalition.

And a reported flurry of meetings in Baghdad between representatives of SCIRI with Sunni and Kurdish parties, as well as [Iraq's Sunni VP] Hashemi's White House visit [yesterday], suggest a political shift may indeed be underway.

But if Hakim has no use for Sadr, he has no use for Maliki either -- it was only Sadr's backing that gave Maliki the prime minister's job at the expense of Hakim's own candidate, current vice president Adel Abdul-Mahdi. If the object is to be rid of Sadr, then there may be no need to retain Maliki.

Of course, all of these theories may well be true. And none of them are reassuring.

Regardless of whether it's why the announcement was pushed back, the blatant attempts to manipulate the leadership of the Iraqi government should be recognized as additional proof that the Republican White House has zero interest in promoting credible democracy.

Never had. Doesn't now.

If Maliki is replaced with another, the Iraqi people will have had three prime ministers since the election one year ago -- further exposing their votes as meaningless.

The failed adventure in Iraq is not about the shortcomings of democracy.

It's about the bankrupt policy of manipulating foreign governments and subverting the will of their people in the name of shortsighted self-interest.