I agree with your first letter 100%, and that only proves my point - Polls should not make policy.

As to your second letter, I never said unilateral. I should have been more explict, but my assumption is that there will be more players at the table, including, but not limited to Turkey and Iran.

Kitt: "It's a lot more than the "simple minded us vs them" that some "we" has, according to you, propagated."

When I refer to "We" here, I mean our current administration. I've seen that site, and that's great. But that was not the thrust of Glenns post. His post was about a poll that presented a stark choice, a choice that I think the republicans can sell as "Stay the course or cut and run"

LWM: We probably disagree fundementally on this, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Mike: The will of the people is not the same as the whim of the people. As far as the table, I agree - we need a plan. How exactly that works will have to be carefully worked out - the devil is in the details. I feel that some transition will be necessary to make it all work out. Yes, that means our troops in Iraq for longer than I would like.

Well, I guess I think it can be fixed. Aside from that, I agree with your response.

Puppy might get fed

It might also get stepped on

Inadvertantly

Or kicked. Or eaten.

So it's a good thing for the Dems to be perceived as the cut and run party? No. We need to change the framing of the debate. Polls like this do not help.

I made this point a few letters back. It is not a military solution. That does not mean the military is uninvolved, but it is not a military solution. This ain't a fairy tale.

"When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" That's one of my favorites, in regards to this administration.

That is the mess I can clean up

Not the mess I would like to clean up

No sense in preaching to the converted

But I've been reading, and I gotta say that Benens posts have been very good.

But seriously, when they strive for this:

"Nevertheless, what we're seeing unfold is a coordinated, carefully-orchestrated campaign to get the political world to stop using the words "McCain," "Iraq," and "100 years" in the same sentence."

Do they think that it will still be ok to use "McCain" and "Iraq" in the same sentence? I wonder. Come November, if the Iraq mess is PERCEIVED to be improving, regardless of the blunders that got us there, I wonder how this will play out.

Not directly related, but when I read the comment from Uf..I thought of this.

I would have more respect for an administration position on torture that said we would cleave a little closer to Geneva, and would some ticking time bomb scenario (the unlikeliest of unlikely possiblities) come along, that the president would be human being enough to stand up and say "I had to torture, and I take responsibility. I offer my resignation to the American people."

Diaz must have know he would be caught, and while I think he could have achieved what he did, and more, via another route (Debatable, for sure), he was clear about his intent and reason. He got 6 months - He has been tried and punished. but the Administrations continuing vilification, and persecution of the man is just plain mean.

.

On another note, the thing about America is that everybody can speak, and nobody has to listen.

Vs. "Weapons of mass destruction related activities" or thoughts of the same.

It's just a lower bar.

I like art from different places.

I like old art from China.

But I will never understand it, without some study on it.

Their stories are different.

As are yours.

Stalk much?

I read Lakoff's "Don't think of an elephant" right around the time of the last presidential election (right before this one started). The thing I took away was that the left should be more proactive, and react less directly to what the right says. Dean's meteoric campaign embodied this best, I think.

His writing was a little pedantic, and some of the framing ideas felt forced, so I see what you mean, in this respect.

But when is propoganda not propoganda? When it's you who is saying it?

When you start talking about "Values" is there a reality? I mean, take abortion - What is the reality? Doesn't the Right have a different "Reality" than the Left?

I'm not trying to argue with you - I'm sure that we're in agreement on the substance of the issues. But I'm not so sure it's all about some reality.

The heavy handed posturing on both sides makes us confuse what is real with what is right, I think.

Sven, I read that comment about republicans funding the Government, and I was as stunned as you.

I seem to remember, it was maybe a year or so ago, reading that overall, red states are "receiving" states, and blue states are "giving" states, when it comes to money to and from the Feds. Can anyone out there back me up on this? I couldn't find it just now myself...

Thanks for the link

But, via FIA, the public ought to know what the deal is, and with whom the deal was cut.

Congressional approval of the deal ought to be mandated, since it could be shown that the administration has not acted in the public interest.