Inside the mind of former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III: They are finally starting to listen to me on Iraq. My, what a difference eight months makes. Back in December, when Lee Hamilton and I – plus eight other sturdy pillars of the establishment – issued our Iraq report, we thought we were doing the Bush administration a favor.

That is, we were offering the White House – which had just gotten its butt kicked in the midterm elections precisely on the war issue – a graceful way out of Iraq, under cover of bipartisanship. In politics, when things are going well, you naturally want all the credit. But when things are going badly, that’s when you want to be part of a convoy; you want to disappear into the indistinguishable herd of Democrats and Republicans.

But the same neocon geniuses who thought up the Iraq war, the ones who got George – oops, I still have trouble remembering that the smart-aleck kid I first met a half-century ago is now president of these United States – into this mess, not only rejected our bipartisan recommendations, but they attacked us personally.

Not that I hold a grudge or anything, but I still remember that cover of the New York Post, which put my picture, along with Lee’s picture, atop chimpanzee bodies, under the headline, “Surrender Monkeys.” Back home in Texas, them’s known as fightin’ words.

I have to admit, while I pride myself on keeping my emotions under control – you don’t survive in this game if you don’t – I was pretty darn hot. I mean, I was White House chief of staff and Treasury secretary under Ronald Reagan, and secretary of State under George H.W. Bush; I’m in my late 70s now – I don’t need this kind of grief. So why I am still in the fray? Because I’m a patriot, dammit. And, I’ll admit, I like being a player.

The president himself always was polite to me, all through the flap over the release of the Baker-Hamilton report – not that he’s ever really liked me, even after I saved his Florida bacon in the vote recount back in 2000. So 43 was happy enough to see me getting beat up in the right-wing media over my characterization of Iraq as “grave and deteriorating.” And he’s stubborn; he didn’t want to change course in Iraq. Indeed, as if to spite me one more time, he went the other way – he “surged.” Well, the situation continues to deteriorate, despite the surge. Finally, in recent months, reality has been sinking in, even at the White House. In May, the president, asked if he had a “Plan B” for Iraq, responded that, in fact, he had a “Plan B-H,” referring specifically to Baker-Hamilton. That made me feel better.

I hate to say it, but the worse Iraq looks, the better I look. Here’s the headline in Sunday’s Washington Post: “Administration Shaving Yardstick for Iraq Gains/Goals Unmet; Smaller Strides to Be Promoted.” So the surge is a bust: Time for Plan B-H!

Last month, Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., introduced legislation to enshrine Baker-Hamilton as national policy. He has gathered six Republican co-sponsors, with more to come. And it was fun watching Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., on “Meet the Press,” saying, “The president missed a tremendous opportunity when he did not use the Baker-Hamilton report late last year to build a new bipartisan consensus on Iraq.” Yet at the same time, the White House still has some maneuvering room on Iraq. Why? Because congressional Democrats, egged on by the New York Times, seem ready to renew their push for a hurry-up withdrawal.

But the American people want a steady “peace with honor.” I can help define the middle ground – between permanent quagmire and instant defeat.

But this time, little George will have to call me and ask for my help.