And so there goes White House counsel Gregory Craig, right under the proverbial bus.

The Washington Post on Friday, publishing what the web site bills as an exclusive, offers an interesting insider's look at how the White House is struggling with the Guantanamo Bay detention issue. On the surface, the story by the Post's Anne E. Kornblut and ProPublica's Dafna Linzer is all about how Craig's missteps led to his being replaced as the administration's lead guy on detention.

But the story is also something else: a case study in how to undercut a bureaucratic rival and sideline them permanently.

Craig's supposedly shaky tenure as White House counsel has been previously the subject of speculation: how long will he last, where might he go, etc. This article is the final push. First, the story lays on Craig's shoulders the blame for what is now considered a mistake: the naming of a date for the closing of Guantanamo Bay.

Second, but dramaturgically more important, is the way the unnamed sources tell the world that Craig is now yesterday's man. This is the classic  palace intrigue story: does anybody outside the Beltway care who is in charge of detention policy? But in Washington, this is the kiss of death. Try getting a good restaurant table now, Mr. Craig.

By going to the Post with the news that Craig has lost this key responsibility, his White House rivals colleagues have locked in the decision that, reading between the lines, Craig might not have fully accepted quite yet. This is a Rahmian act of public humiliation, essentially given Craig no choice but to accept whatever face-saving consolation prize will come his way; a nice ambassadorship, perhaps.

"The president retains full confidence in Gregory Craig," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has not said yet but probably will soon, Suits & Sentences expects.