Projecting into the future:

If:

1. Congress permits another 6 months of full-bore occupation;

2. The WH was somehow able to keep up an effective propaganda campaign (using question 9--the 'civil order' question cited by GG);

3. That propaganda realizes the same gains showed in the past three months (see question 9);

Then by the end of the F.U. the postive/negative numbers will be ca. 45/52, with 3 point MOE. In other words, the public will have shown a significant shift. Numbers this closely divided in significant subject areas will, I believe, permit indefinate occupation, base-building, etc.

There are a lot of ifs in the above, and this is all speculation, but it does suggest what could be at stake with this pending decision in congress.

Good post, and I'd add that Osama bin Laden comes down squarely on the Neocon side in this debate. Cauldronize the entire region.

Biddle has a statement, cited at Digby a day or two ago, where he does just that--he equates defeat with total withdrawl for the purposes of argument. Biddle's paper is linked at digby, it was his prepared statement to a house committee I believe.

I think you're on to something there. These guys are Rove-whipped. They've been so traumatized that they can't grow into the majority that they are. They can't help themselves, much in the same way so many here can't help themselves with Shooter. Regardless of how worthless, off-track, ignorant and inconsequential his comments are, they cannot resist side-tracking to follow him through his ancient and stale maze, constructed of petrified bullshit.

While I find some of NPRs political reporting no longer suits me, that is quite different from condemming the network altogether. Shows like Talk of the Nation and Fresh Aire are valuable programs and worthy of support. NPRs coverage of Katrina and the Gulf Coast disaster was very good, imo. NPR's interview with Rove prior to the '06 election was informative and valuable reporting.

I wish NPR had more teeth in their political reporting. I wish they had several Bill Moyers over there. But I also find them worthy of support.

Your post reminds me of Bertrand Russell's definition of "liberal", which hangs on Anonymous Liberal's shingle...

"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment."

I think you're right. And I was encouraged that, during the Comptroller General's (GAO) testimony this week, several of the democratic members were clearly beyond the surge. Their questions and statements were in fact not related to the surge at all.

The CG recommended that congress should reconsider their Iraqi goals, and their regional goals/strategy as well. He repeated this advice with nearly every single answer he gave. Some members had clearly gotten it. Whether there are enough of them to make a difference seems doubtful.

The president is mandated by congress to report on Iraq, and Bush has wisely chosen someone else to do that for him. I say wisely, because Bush himself might well confuse congress with parliment, thank them for hosting this meeting at the Indianapolis Rotary Club, and then exit via a closet door.

So Petraeus has no choice does he. Nor does Bush. They are required to report by the first branch of govt.

And it won't do Congress any harm to listen to Petraeus.