Timing Is Everything

Looks like Democrats picked a great moment to blink in their confrontation with President Bush over Iraq. Fresh data: "Americans now view the war in Iraq more negatively than at any time since the war began, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll." If only there were an opposition congress or something:

A majority of Americans continue to support a timetable for withdrawal. Sixty-three percent say the United States should set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq sometime in 2008.

While the troops remain in Iraq, the overwhelming majority of Americans support continuing to finance the war, though most want to do so with conditions. Thirteen percent want Congress to block all spending on the war. The majority, 69 percent, including 62 percent of Republicans, say Congress should appropriate money for the war, but on the condition that the United States sets benchmarks for progress and that the Iraqi government meets those goals. Fifteen percent of all respondents want Congress to approve war spending without conditions.

To me, the only real explanation for Democratic behavior is this. The party's leadership and political thinkers simply can't conceive of national security issues as anything other than a source of potential political problems to be coped with, never as a set of potential political opportunities. Since congress can't unilaterally end the war, then, there's no reason to have a confrontation with Bush; national security debates are just pure downside. Overwhelming polling data backing the liberal position isn't a reason to go on offense, it's a reason to think Democrats can succeed in slinking away.

Comments

Matt:

I pointed this out in your last diary, but you keep dodging the issue. The poll you cite does not say that the people want Congress to deny funding if Bush vetoes a funding bill with timetables. The polls have consistently shown that they do not want Congress to deny funding. If Congress provoked a confrontation with Bush over the funding, they are more likely to lose than to win and there isn't any realistic chance of actually ending the war through that method anyway. That's why they punted.

Posted by blah | May 24, 2007 11:59 PM

The horror...the horror.

Posted by alphie | May 25, 2007 12:04 AM

Matthew Yglesias's diagnosis of the Congressional Democrats' problem:

"The party's leadership and political thinkers simply can't conceive of national security issues as anything other than a source of potential political problems to be coped with, never as a set of potential political opportunities."

Here's an idea: instead of vacillating between political cowardice and political opportunism, why don't Dems figure out what they think is the best policy for the country and pursue that?

As I've said before, I don't think the Dems funded the troop surge because they are being cowards; I think they funded it because, in reality, there is much less daylight between mainstream Dems and Bush on Iraq policy now than grass roots Dems realize: both want out, but both realize that if we leave too soon, we are likely to be drawn back in, under even worse circumstances. The Persian Gulf isn't a part of the world we can pretend doesn't matter.

Posted by Fred | May 25, 2007 12:08 AM

"To me, the only real explanation for Democratic behavior is this. The party's leadership and political thinkers simply can't conceive of national security issues as anything other than a source of potential political problems to be coped with, never as a set of potential political opportunities. Since congress can't unilaterally end the war, then, there's no reason to have a confrontation with Bush; national security debates are just pure downside. Overwhelming polling data backing the liberal position isn't a reason to go on offense, it's a reason to think Democrats can succeed in slinking away."

This strikes me as a rather bizarre paragraph.

The Dems knew they didn't have the votes to cut off funding for the war. They had a confrontation with Bush anyway. They went on offense anyway.

And you accuse them of not doing precisely what they did.

Posted by Petey | May 25, 2007 12:09 AM

Democrats did not avoid confrontation with Bush over this. They sent a bill to the WH that they knew would be vetoed, and sent many representatives to the media to defend it. That's what a confrontation would look like.

Now the confrontation could become a stalemate of no bill being passed, or it could just lead to Democrats folding now and choosing another battle later. But to say there is no fight is silly.

Also as to them looking to the future, I don't see why they aren't doing this here. Politically it's better for them to still hang the war over the Republicans a year or so from now, so why stop funding (tactically speaking). You only refuse to fund the war now if you actually want the war to end now, and are willing to pay a high price for it. I doubt that they are.

Posted by Tony V | May 25, 2007 12:09 AM

What Tony V said.

This analysis falls short.

Posted by Brian | May 25, 2007 12:14 AM

I posted a comment earlier in "People Vote on Election Day" along the lines of what a lot of the commenters here are saying... it's rather gratifying to find out that I'm not the only one to think the Dems actually played this one out pretty well. In fact, I think this was a covert victory for the Dems; they were probably able to pull off some domestic victories with far fewer compromises (i.e. tax cuts) than they would have at other times.

Posted by Jonathan | May 25, 2007 12:18 AM

blah,

Congress wouldn't be denying funding. Bush via the veto would be doing that.

Posted by Rich | May 25, 2007 12:24 AM

I think there's also another psychological factor involved.

Most of the DC Democrats, especially the political leadership, spend a huge fraction of their time interacting with donors, either beggint them for money on the phone or hanging out with them at fund-raisers. I think this population provides them their sense of "public opinion" on a subject such as Iraq.

Now my guess is that the vast majority of these donor-types don't really focus that much on the Mid East or Iraq, especially since these subjects are "controversial." After all, they're giving money for a specific purpose, and spend all their face-time targeting the tax-loophole or regulatory-change they're seeking.

I'd bet that a very large fraction of the big Democratic donors who DO focus on the Mid East are basically AIPAC-types, and are extremely vehement.

So the empirical, every-day experience of DC Democrats is that most of the people they actually know and hang-out with have views much closer to Joe Lieberman and Marty Peretz than to Ned Lamont or Howard Dean. And all those national polls just seem peculiar and mysterious.

Remember how utterly astonished all the DC Republicans were when American public didn't support impeachment? After all, everyone *they* knew thought Clinton was Satan himself.

Posted by RKU | May 25, 2007 12:36 AM

"To me, the only real explanation for Democratic behavior is this"

IMHO, it's because they're more concerned about the reaction of the media, than they are about the electorate.

Support for the war among prominent media figures (ie, the ones on camera and the ones who set tone, not the guy who feeds in the graphics) is much higher than in the general public.

These are people who probably still think Bush is a popular president.

That's the only explanation I can believe. They're trying to appease Joe Klein and Kiran Chetry.

Posted by Jon H | May 25, 2007 12:46 AM

I agree with the Tony V analysis, and for the time being, I think we're headed for a replay of Election 2006. I can't imagine that Mitch McConnell is sleeping easy tonight.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 25, 2007 12:53 AM

As a service to MY regulars, I offer you Pat Buchanan's take on this: Why Congress Caved to Bush

Posted by Fred | May 25, 2007 1:41 AM

All this chortling about how the Dems are really cannily setting themselves up for a sweep in '08 is incredibly short-sighted. Here's the deal: If the war doesn't end while its instigator is in office, its denouement will land squarely in the lap of his lucky successor. Are there many people who sincerely believe that the news from Southwest Asia is suddenly going to improve with the occupation over? If that part of the world uncorks totally -- in Pakistan, in Turkey, in Iraq itself -- does anyone think our savvy, highly informed voters are not going to turn on the administration that "lost" Iraq?

I am not advocating a continuing occupation. Far from it. But the Dems do themselves and the country no favors if they "win" what turns out to be a poison chalice, and did nothing to prepare the country for what may be some very disappointing choices.

Posted by sglover | May 25, 2007 1:42 AM

You're right, Fred. The fact that the war is seen as primarily a POLITICAL issue by some leading Democrats is itself a reason to be disgusted by them. The war is primarily a moral issue. I can't believe this is still a slippery concept in 2007. I mean, I'll vote for Dems no matter what, but I'll understand when low-information voters look at these folks and think they don't stand for anything... because they don't stand for anything.

I don't care how red your state is, this is a very easy case to make in '07, and people will actually listen to you if they think you're speaking from some convictions instead of some infinitely regressing triangulations.

Posted by nikolaipdx | May 25, 2007 1:47 AM

But the war, at this point, is primarly a political issue. Change can only happen through the political process - either through Congressional action (unlikely) or through Democratic victory in 2008 (hopefully).

It's also a moral issue, of course, but moral arguments and $14.99 will get you a cool indie rock album at Starbucks.

Posted by blah | May 25, 2007 1:54 AM

Let me see how it feels to speculate amorally about politics for a moment. If I were the Head-Dem-In-Charge and I wanted to squeeze the maximum, longest-term, political victory out of the war in Iraq, what would I do?

I'd go to Bush on the Q.T., and tell him, whatever he wants for Iraq, he's got it -- blank check until Jan 20th, 2009, no more problems from little 'ole us -- provided he gets the immigration bill passed (one way to get it over the hump might be to add a provision for a fence to cover all 2100 miles of the border; Dems can later do like Bush did with the 700 mile fence authorized last year and forget to build it. Or, to be accurate, take six months to build two miles of it.).

Consider the consequences: The anti-war folks would be pissed, all ten million of them or whatever. Who cares? They're never going to vote Republican, and you can augment them with 20 million+ Mexicans if you get the immigration bill passed. And forget what the Dick Morris and Robert Novak are saying: Those tens of millions of Mexicans aren't Irishmen and Italians landing at Ellis Island a century ago, and they won't be voting Republican. Neither will their children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren, 41% of whom (if current trends continue) will be high school dropouts.

An awful outcome for the country, IMO, but a long-term decisive winner for the Democratic Party. And in Bush you have a rare Republican President ignorant enough to be eager to help you make his party a permanent minority. If I were a Machiavellian Dem, I'd take him up on it.

Posted by Fred | May 25, 2007 2:27 AM

Looks like my link above doesn't work. Here's another try: Why Congress Caved to Bush

Posted by fred | May 25, 2007 2:45 AM

To me, the Dems strategy should have been one that aimed for heroic failure in their legislative efforts. They know they can't get past the Veto Sharpie, but that doesn't stop them from making Bush and the veto-enforcers in Congress look even worse, especially given the Senate races next year. Claiming victory looked dumb: the optimal presentation was 'Bush fucked us over and blackmailed us with the troops: what's new?'

In the meantime, the minimum wage and Katrina relief are out of the Senate, where they had been gummed up. Small mercies, but better than nothing.

you can augment them with 20 million+ Mexicans if you get the immigration bill passed.

Yeah, right. You've never dealt with that little corner of the federal government, have you? Your numbers are bullshit to begin with, but let's just say that at current processing levels, plenty of those given a path to citizenship under the current bill would probably end up taking the oath just in time for Jenna Bush's presidential run.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 25, 2007 3:16 AM

In other words, Matt, as you said earlier in the American Prospect, the Democratic party is very reluctant to try to THINK at all about military and national security issues. Instead, they want to ignore them -- and so their immediate reaction to such issues is to just try to find a way to "slink away" from them, instead of actually thinking about them, trying to come up with security policies superior to the Republicans', and then using those policies to positively drum up votes for themselves.

Pfui. As Leo Durocher said during the Mets' nadir, can't ANYONE play this game?

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | May 25, 2007 3:19 AM

Just a few weeks back weren't we all worried about the Democrats looking bad if Republicans placed the blame of withdraw on them. This looks like a short run loss for the Democrats, but next year Dems will not be defending the decision to withdrawl.

Posted by publius | May 25, 2007 4:01 AM

Since congress can't unilaterally end the war.

It only takes 1/3 of the Sentate to filibuster a bill and therefore stop it from becoming law. Don't pass a funding bill and the war ends (or we have a major constitutional crisis).

Posted by richard | May 25, 2007 6:21 AM

The Dems knew they didn't have the votes to cut off funding for the war.

no votes at all are necessary to override a veto if Bush has no bill to veto.

in other words: Bush can't veto anything that Congress doesn't send him. and the Dems have the power to control which bills Bush gets.

Posted by cleek | May 25, 2007 7:37 AM

I'm amazed everyone thinks this particular confrontation was so telling. Here's what I see:

1) Democrats got everyone in the Senate & House & White House on the record about deadlines;
2) Democrats, unable to get their bill passed, passed a different bill;
3) The War will continue, and Republicans will not be able to blame Democrats for it - Democrats will be able to blame Republicans;
4) Anti-War individuals can target the pro-War incumbents.

Ideally, we should end the War, but the notion that we could make this happen after our very narrow victory in 2006 is overly optimistic.

Posted by MDtoMN | May 25, 2007 7:41 AM

Is there that little daylight between congressional Dems and Bush? How do we know that? For example, the "Washington Note" is making claims about Cheney trying to whittle down Bush's options so he has no choice but to pull the trigger on Iran.

Be that as it may, the Democrats still need a military strategy; you can't replace something with nothing, something wins every time.

Posted by Shrike58 | May 25, 2007 7:45 AM

Matt,

I expect better analysis from you. If I wanted histrionic hand wringing, I can go and read the million diaries on Kos about this. I'm solidly with blah and Tony V on this one. The public DOES NOT support stalemate or blocking funding.

If the Dems did nothing, then what would happen? Uhm, methinks it would be a tad bit more than just "Bush would be mean to us". It would be a debacle for everyone, especially the armed forces. The public is not ready to see funding for the troops cut (Hello stabbed in the back theories!), as the very poll you quote in your post states.

Morally, it's reprehensible. Politically, it's a big win for Dems in the long term (more war = more anti-war votes). Constitutionally, in a game of chicken, everyone loses. Including Congress.

Posted by Nasara | May 25, 2007 8:42 AM

"The public DOES NOT support stalemate or blocking funding."

Out of sheer curiosity, how exactly would the public like to see the war ended? Or are you saying the public's not quite bright enough to grasp the fundamental conflict (Bush v. Dems)here?

Posted by James Gary | May 25, 2007 8:50 AM

Nasara, huh? You do know that the people who tend to make the argument you just made don't really want to end the war, right? They just want to look for reasons to shame those of us who do want the war to end. I'm sorry, but anyone who spouts what you just said is objectively pro-war.

Posted by soullite | May 25, 2007 8:51 AM

My last post was totally incoherent.

My point is/was that the two assumptions here-- 1) the American people strongly want the war ended, and 2) the American people are going to be en masse offended and all vote Republican in 2008 if the political process of actually ending the war gets messy and confrontational in the slightest--seem completely incompatible.

Posted by James Gary | May 25, 2007 8:59 AM

I've been pushing this idea for awhile with zero response: what the Democrats should do is pass a generously-funded "Bring the Troops Home Safe" bill. Bush could sign it or not. If he vetoes it, they could just repass it.

"Cutting off funding for the troops" sounds bad (even though that's not what the Democrats did). But "Vetoing a bill that would bring the troops home safe" sounds worse.

I'm not a big enthusiast of the "framing" meme, but the Democrats have allowed the Republicans and the media to frame this as "supporting the troops". That's a horrible, stupid fraud, but the Democrats have failed to counter it; they don't even seem to have tried. I'm not sure why it is that the Democrats are so inept at making their case effectively (media stupidity has something to do with it), but they really need to do some work.

I wasn't a big Bill Clinton fan, but he was really good at making his case. I really dislike Carville (Mr. Matalin) a lot, but when he's on your side he can be very effective.

Posted by John Emerson | May 25, 2007 9:02 AM

I think they funded it because, in reality, there is much less daylight between mainstream Dems and Bush on Iraq policy now than grass roots Dems realize: both want(s) out, but both realize that if we leave too soon, we are likely to be drawn back in, under even worse circumstances. The Persian Gulf isn't a part of the world we can pretend doesn't matter.

Posted by Fred

On what evidence do you base that?

Posted by Cyrus | May 25, 2007 9:06 AM

Re Tony V comment: "Politically it's better for them to still hang the war over the Republicans a year or so from now, so why stop funding (tactically speaking). You only refuse to fund the war now if you actually want the war to end now, and are willing to pay a high price for it. I doubt that they are"
-------------

1) I strongly disagree. This mentality is what is destroying the Democratic Party.

If you continue sending soldiers to their deaths simply to protect your political career -- not to defend the country -- then you are an amoral calculating psychopath who does not deserve office.

2) You encourage people to vote Republican -- because people will choose people who make mistakes over lying shitheads who accept the deaths of our children as the price of serving their selfish, personal agendas and careers.

3) I personally think the Republicans and their Neocons are liars in the service of rich men -- and I've presented evidence for why I think this. But the Republicans at least stick to their story.

4) The Democrats have put forth the argument that Bush lied us into an unnecessary war that has killed over 3000 soldiers and is killing more every day.

So what Democratic brainiac allowed Bush/Cheney to present themselves as "Supporting the Troops"??

And if Democrats believe their rhetoric, then why are they not stopping this war? They control both houses of Congress.

Posted by Don Williams | May 25, 2007 9:50 AM

Every soldier who dies in Iraq from this day forward is a bloodstain on the Democratic Party.

So the crafty Democrats are going to win next fall, huh?

Posted by Don Williams | May 25, 2007 9:54 AM

Soullite,

Ad hominem attack to you to! I'm not sure if I have a rejoinder to your devasting "huh?" remark, but I'll try James Gray's point:

Clearly, the American people want what the Dems tried to deliver: funding with timelines and set conditions. Phased withdrawal, essentially. Bush vetoed it, and that's why he's even more unpopular. To think that desire is a mandate to outright block funding, though, is misplaced. It was a risky gamble for the Democrats to "defund", and one that could have devastating results, hard as it is to imagine Iraq getting worse.

Posted by Nasara | May 25, 2007 9:57 AM

So, the most important key to victory is staying on the offense? Hmm… where have we heard that before?

Staying on the offense is pretty stupid if it means rushing into a battle you can’t win. Knowing how and when to pick your battles is the key to winning the war over the long run.

Matt’s argument here is getting perilously close to a Democratic version of the Green Lantern theory. Yes, the majority of Americans support a timetable. HOWEVER, the reality is that there simply aren’t yet the votes to impose a timetable over Bush’s veto. No amount of rhetoric about ‘going on the offense’ or ‘showing more resolve’ is going to change that. Given the actual choices that the dems face, it seems to me that the course they’ve followed is the tactically smart one.

Posted by RC | May 25, 2007 10:33 AM

"Yes, the majority of Americans support a timetable."

I'm not entirely sure that the majority of Americans would recognize a meaningful timetable if it bit them on the ass. But I'd believe that a majority of Americans don't like the idea of withdrawing all the troops out at once as a result of legislative plug-pulling.

But if that's the case, why didn't the Dems just propose a phased withdrawal in the first place? The point here is that they have some leverage and they didn't use it.

Posted by James Gary | May 25, 2007 10:47 AM

Matt:

the Dems have the unfortunate task of dealing with an American population that cannot and will not support what it takes to end this war. They hate the war, but are too uninformed to realize that unless funding is removed, Bush is not leaving. They are too politically ignorant and uninformed to realize that Bush is not going to listen to us.

Another problem is that Americans are dealing with their own internal issues of having supported this war. I am more sympathetic to this, as Americans supported sending these troops to Iraq, and pulling funding and leaving without having acheived are goals is a hard pill to swallow for many in the US.

It is said that only Nixon can go to China, and I think quite frankly, given the slander that Dems are weak on Defense, only the Republicans can get us out of Iraq.

Posted by B-Rad | May 25, 2007 10:56 AM

The majority of Americans want a result. The result is the end of the Iraq war. The Dems had a perfect opportunity to create the conditions for ending the war. They did not have to do anything before the Memorial recess. They did have the votes to keep anything from being done. They could easily have shaped the funding debate in the interim around responsible funding and issues of competence and winding up the war vs. irresponsible funding and continuing the failed strategies of the past. They didn't. They blew it. They blew it politically. They blew it morally. They blew it pragmatically. The same kind of strategy has already been played out in 2002 and 2004, and the same kind of remarks were made by the Dem insiders about voting for the war and voting for the funding then. Guess what? It was hung like burning tires around the necks of the Dem candidates, for good reasons. I do love the remark about handwringing at Kos - Kos is not a site I much like because it is way too Democratic. But the contempt of the DLC style Dems for the people who really care and work for the Democrats tell a lot about what is dysfunctional in the party: it is mainly lead by rich or management strata white males, who happen to be the least likely to vote Democratic. And those rich white males actually think that the most important constituency the Dems should listen to and try to appeal to is: rich or management strata white males. A group that sets a lot of store by symbols of strength and weakness, and is sexually roused by the vision of proxy mass death. Oh, they love it. So being strong, always being strong, hard-ons likes steel, is what they crave. They don't want a foreign policy, they want a shot of viagra.

The logic for this being a big victory, as it it spun by some of the commenters above, is the funniest part of the Democratic spin. It so exactly reproduces the Bushian spin about the surge - it is working! The press has it all wrong! Long term strategy looks great!
To recap, this was a rare trifecta: a moral disaster, a political disaster, and a rhetorical disaster. But keep up the good work, the insults to the handwringing grassroots people who do all the work, the insults to people who actually care about results instead of strategery, and especially keep up that rhetoric about how continuing the war is making the GOP look bad. It will give you... Joementum!

Posted by roger | May 25, 2007 11:40 AM

. . . if we leave too soon, we are likely to be drawn back in . . .

This presupposes that the presence of American troops is effecting some positive change. That is what most Americans no longer believe.

Posted by David Tomlin | May 25, 2007 11:43 AM

I think I have a better explanation. Lieberman threatened to hold is breath until his face turned blue, or change parties or whatever, so Reid and Pelosi backed down rather than have a Republican Senate. The problem is, if they back down and if they let Lieberman dictate what they do, it's a Republican senate anyway.

They should call his bluff. He would lose his ability to throw his weight around if he became a repub, and nobody likes a traitor, even the side he's joined.

Posted by 14All | May 25, 2007 12:18 PM

And if Democrats believe their rhetoric, then why are they not stopping this war? They control both houses of Congress.
Posted by Don Williams | May 25, 2007 9:50 AM
Every soldier who dies in Iraq from this day forward is a bloodstain on the Democratic Party.
So the crafty Democrats are going to win next fall, huh?
Posted by Don Williams | May 25, 2007 9:54 AM

1. Control of the Senate is tenouous. And it is not veto proof majorities.
2. If it is a stain on Dem party that makes it what, an ocean of blood and guts on the GOP? So moral people are going to choose blood and guts galore over the stain or simply refuse to stand up to blood and guts galore cause they can't deal with the stain?
That's Naderism and it helped bring us to this point in the first place, I think everyone remembers that.

Posted by Northern Observer | May 25, 2007 12:42 PM

That's Naderism and it helped bring us to this point in the first place, I think everyone remembers that.

Yeah? Well as somebody who always seethed at Nader's 2000 run, it seems to me that with this sellout the Dems are making him look pretty damn prescient.

Democrats are assuming that '08 is going to be their year -- justifiably, all things considered. But if they alienate their own left wing to the point of energizing a third party challenge, that happy anticipation might not pan out at all.

Posted by sglover | May 25, 2007 12:50 PM

Sglover, I agree with your sentiment, but really, I don't think this is a left and right issue. Opposition to the war is a mainstream position. Opposition to Bush's openended war in which the word 'winning" is used like the word "hocus pocus" at a children's party, to pull a magic rabbit out of the hat, is a mainstream position. Hagel is no lefty. The convenient labeling of opposition to the Iraq war as 'leftist" is bs that might go over big with Fox news dittoheads, but shouldn't have any traction elsewhere. Much as it might be nice to think that "left" suddenly means competent and rational, I don't think the terms have shifted that much. Rather, it is simply the D.C. establishment making up reality again. The only people who think it is true are the 'political elite" who basically talk to themselves on shows that garner pathetically small audiences, like Meet the Press.

Posted by roger | May 25, 2007 1:35 PM

Re Northern Observer:
"1. Control of the Senate is tenouous. And it is not veto proof majorities."
Irrelevant. The Democrats are in charge and they are the one's voting to continue this war by voting to fund it.

"2. If it is a stain on Dem party that makes it what, an ocean of blood and guts on the GOP? "

Yes -- for the period 2002-2006. That's why the GOP was thrown out. Short message: He who is in charge of the Congress is responsible for what that Congress does.

The hard core Republican supporters BELIEVE the Republican bull that we are in Iraq because of a real threat to national security. So they see NO strains on the Republican politicians and will continue to vote Republican.

By contrast, Democrats and INDEPENDENTS who elected Democrats last Fall see a group of Democratic politicans who AGREE this war was a huge mistake, who were elected on that stance, but who now decide that the lives of another 2000 soldiers is of less importance than protecting their political careers.

Who do you think is going to vote and who do you think is going to stay home?

Who do you think the voters will find more despicable -- a Republican who sacrifices our children because of an arguable mistake in judgment? Or a Democrat who knows better, who publicly PROCLAIMS he knows better, but who then goes ahead and sacrifices our children out of calculated self-interest and cowardice?

Posted by Don Williams | May 25, 2007 1:58 PM

Mr. Williams, very true. Very sadly true.
The Dem leadership has invented a new sexual category: voteteasing.

Posted by roger | May 25, 2007 2:12 PM

The most fascinating thing here is that the Dems didn't just fold on a mandatory deadline -- they folded immediately on the obvious next fallback step: demanding mandatory BENCHMARKS, which -- according to that CBS poll yesterday -- are now backed by 6/7 of the American people and 2/3 of Republican voters.

That is, they have now placed themselves right alongside Bush as being more stupidly hawkish than 6/7 of the American people. And they wonder why people have a tendency not to take them seriously?

Unless, of course, one follows Kevin Drum's bloodchillingly cynical but frighteningly believable theory: they decided to help Bush prolong the war just so that the 2008 campaign will run while there is a very unpopular US troop presence in Iraq, rather than the inevitable post-American civil war there during which voters might start to have second thoughts. (After all, as we now know, Rahm Emanuel and his aides knew for at least 6 months about the Foley Congressional page scandal -- but, like the knowledgeable Republicans, covered it up, in this case so that they could unveil it just before the 2006 election. Charming, no?)

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | May 25, 2007 5:03 PM

nqyfsgj kchrdfqmu owmpfubch ysucmtg panysvjo wsfchlq laomqgku

Posted by qlbcpogs aljoezfih | June 11, 2007 8:29 PM

ywxagulkp kgzbyw ktih ncvyli punmxkr qidcz kydsbxu http://www.dkwv.gzixn.com

Posted by zykjt dbrvzsqge | June 11, 2007 8:29 PM

ywxagulkp kgzbyw ktih ncvyli punmxkr qidcz kydsbxu http://www.dkwv.gzixn.com

Posted by zykjt dbrvzsqge | June 11, 2007 8:30 PM