What's striking about those survey results is that even Congress, after falling 20% in the polls, is still above the GOP in terms of favorable attitudes. While some of the disgust being expressed for it probably has something to do with various recent scandals, I see no evidence that the level of scandal has deviated much from the usual background level of Congressional scandal.

No, most of that 20% drop must come from the widely held perception that Congress caves to dictators. So even when Congress is reviled and the Democrats with it, it's likely disgust for Republicans that drives it. And still no one stands up to them.

I would be interested in seeing polling data as to what percentage of American realize that our invasion has resulted in the displacement of four million human beings, the deaths of "at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians" (and, indirectly, many more), and "severe hardship" suffered by at least 8 million Iraqis.

As we all know there is a concerted effort on the part of CNN, ABC, NYT (not to even mention FOX)and to a certain extent WaPo to paint the war as a noble struggle that can only acheive victory with continous (read andless) effort. There is also a concerted effort on the part of the RW Noise Machine to portray the media coverage as an endless series of bad reports which fail to portray the noble struggle.

In the meantime what people actually believe is affected far more by their own attitudes then by the particulars of the information they receive from afar. This is where the process of moral dissonance and denial kicks in. The degree to which people were enthusiastic about the war in the run up (and trust me - there was a lot of enthusiasm that people are trying hard to forget) is the degree to which they still need to supress information which reveals just how evil the results of the invasion have been.

Cordesman was scheduled to be on Charlie Rose last night but was pre-empted by John Rigas (on the eve of reporting to jail).

Cordesman is now scheduled for Monday.

Glenn can't get the interview so he has to use the awful MSM to get it for him. And then he bites the hand that feeds him.

As always in Glenn's rants he acts as though the U.S. in Iraq exists in some sort of vacuum where no one is fighting against the good work that we have done and want to do. It's simply because we are there that bad things happen and there are no other reasons.

And you wonder why can't get interviews with anyone of substance.

And you wonder why can't get interviews with anyone of substance.

That's not a very nice thing to say about the Highly Respected Foreign Policy Scholar from the Brookings Institution, Michael O'Hanlon.

How did Alan like his trip to Iraq to meet with Petraeus? I was under the impression that when corresponding with you, Col. Boylan emphasized that Patraeus prefered to do these interviews in person and in Iraq.

How did Alan like his trip to Iraq to meet with Petraeus? I was under the impression that when corresponding with you, Col. Boylan emphasized that Patraeus prefered to do these interviews in person and in Iraq.

Good point - I think he enjoyed it as much as Hugh Hewitt's trip there. I guess the requirement that was imposed that I first travel to Iraq (with no guarantee of an interview) applies only to some interview requests, not to all.

Like Anthony Cordesman, my representative Rep. Jan Schakowsky is just back from Iraq with a view that does not fit the administration’s propaganda offensive about "progress." Indeed, she even makes clear that she understands that there is a major public relations effort to turn opinion in this country. One based on wishful thinking, rather than facts on the ground. She says:

What I feel is going on right now is that there’s a major PR effort going on to convince the Congress and the media and the public that just enough progress has been made to justify staying. A little more, and then maybe a little more, and a little more — perhaps to where Petraeus has said 9 or 10 years have elapsed. Calling for patience is not at this point going to work with the American people, and I’m hoping…are just too smart to be fooled again.

Obviously, with those views we won’t be seeing her all the networks like O’Hanlon and Pollack because her views automatically designate her a very “unserious” person. She is so unserious that she’s concerned how the media is “buying in” to people like O’Hanlon.

She also reiterated a quote from Petraeus that we would need to be in Iraq for 9-10 years if we want to win. So, forget September. Talk to him in a decade.

Petreaus just saw your “Friedman unit” (FU) and raised it substantially. We’ll now talk in units of 10 years. It’s called the Petreaus Unit (PU), and people in my neighbor don’t like the smell of it.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/10/schakowsky-iraq/

So would I. So would anyone who doesn't draw a sizable salary every month from Murdock and Ales.

Glenn, isn't it time stop this charade that Alan Colmes is really a lefty?

He works for Fox. His job is to be the Judy in the Punch 'n Judy Show.

Would you work for Murdock and still call yourself a progressive?

I know what I would call you: Quisling. Or Vichy Democrat if I wanted to be nice, which I never do.

There are several points that need to be acknowledged about the Cordesman Report.

1. Cordesman endorses the continuation of current troop levels into 2008 and maintaining a (somewhat) reduced combat presence thereafter.

2. Cordesman views much of the surge policy as a failure but argues for a new strategy of "strategic patience" that would build on events in Anbar and focus on local accommodations between tribal leaders, the American military, and reliable Iraqi forces.

3. From Cordesman's comments, it appears that "strategic patience" is the preferred policy of Ryan Crocker, American military officials (although Petraeus isn't mentioned), and the Sunni political leadership. Cordesman appears to be serving as a mouthpiece for their views.

4. It's a sign of the disintegrating credibility of the Bush administration (and Cordesman displays a withering contempt for Bush policy-makers) that officials in Baghdad are communicating their views through Cordesman rather than the Bush administrative apparatus.