The story behind the story of Baker's comeback is an intriguing one. Last Friday, July 25, Washington Post reporters Mike Allen and Glenn Kessler filed a report at 12:20 p.m. that began:

The White House hopes to persuade former Secretary of State James A. Baker III to take charge of the physical and economic reconstruction of Iraq as part of a broad restructuring of postwar efforts, administration sources today.

At 7:05 p.m., they filed a revised report (which also appeared in the next day's printed edition) that led off:

President Bush is contemplating the second overhaul in three months of his postwar administration of Iraq, as the White House faces up to the enormity of the task and the need to demonstrate progress to maintain political support for the effort, administration officials said today.

Baker's name did not come into this version of the story until the fifth paragraph, and then much less prominently:

As part of an effort to beef up the reconstruction, the White House is considering asking several major figures, including former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, to help with specific tasks like seeking funds from other countries or helping restructure Iraqi's debt.

(Click here for a side-by-side view of the two stories, and thanks to Josh Marshall for pointing out the site.)

There are several possible explanations for this sequence. The source for the 12:20 story might have simply been wrong. Or the source might have been floating a trial balloon or trying to influence the outcome of what could have been a contentious internal debate. Or maybe the source was Baker himself, or someone speaking on his behalf, trying to float his own name into the competition. The changes in the 7:05 story might have reflected a resurgence of the neo-cons, who had no doubt read the 12:20 story on the WaPo Web site and mounted a counteroffensive. Or they might have simply been the result of a clarification by the original source or, if Baker or one of his people was the source, an admission that the situation was not quite as clear-cut as originally conveyed. (The 7:05 story noted that Baker was on vacation and could not be reached.)

In any case, both versions of the story make clear that the White House has lost some confidence in Bremer. And if Baker does not get a job after all this, it might fairly be inferred that the neo-cons are still on top.