I saw that and I could not believe my ears. I had to back it up and play it again to be sure.

Have a nice stay.

It was only my keen grasp of reality that enabled me to intuitively grasp your snark.

errata:

(1) Over the next couple of days, I intend to write about the "Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq" -- which can be read here, and which seeks not only to effectual a real withdrawal but also repair the systemic crises which spawned the disaster, including executive power abuses. Last week, I interviewed one of the spearheads of the Plan -- the superb Democratic Congressional candidate Darcy Burnerhere.

"effect" & "Burner [space] here"

G'morning, all.

There was a time in the early 80s, before she sold out to corporate news, when Cokie Roberts was one of the great triumvirate of female reporters at NPR (Roberts, Totenberg, and Wertheimer). Hard hitting, no nonsense, high quality news. But at some point (I think when she decided to contract with ABC), she sold out. Her reporting is now lazy, imprecise and often just plain wrong. Her history shows that she's capable of much better work, so the only conclusion is either that she got lazy or that she deliberately sold out. I stopped taking her seriously years ago.

N/T

With the return of Jesus.

Not a minor point:

"Would you want a department store manager or orthodontist running the Pentagon?"

People who run the Pentagon do not decide when we go to war, or when we end a war.

And there's a reason for that.

Both her parents were members of the House of Representatives - he dad was speaker. I heard an interview in which she spoke about visiting LBJ's family as a child. Not much of the common touch there.

Pax

I never liked her smugness and hate it when NPR trots her out as some unbiased source of "insider information." NPR is nothing like it used to be 20 years ago. Another example of right-wing politicization of what is supposed to be a public, unbiased service.

Cokie needs us citizens to mail a recycled Chanukah greeting. Shailagh and crew want it spelled war, blood, lies, and shame for many Hanukkah and Springtime celebrations. Odious. Consecration to what? GOP. CEO. DOD. ETC., Spokespersons? The Death Wheel.

To be in abeyance to who? Fools.

What does "win" mean? How will we know when it happens? Do any of the war proponents have any idea?

I cannot think of any realistic definition of "win" that is achievable by military force. Until such a definition is given, requesting such should be the primary argument against this continuing war. Make them state specific goals that will constitute winning, and steps toward those goals that are demonstrably achievable and demonstrably being achieved.

Calling them out on their fantasy will go much further towards a resolution than simply calling for withdrawal.

Glenn's post at HuffPo too.

I don't think it is that unreasonable to assume that most Americans want to "win" in Iraq. In this sense, Cokie Roberts is right. The question is whether McCain can persuasively frame the argument that the surge is the best path to victory.

In this regard, the polling is much more ambiguous than Glenn lets on (in part because there is considerable variation depending on how the question is asked). Consider another CBS News poll listed on pollingreport.com (the same place Glenn takes his figures):

The question: "From what you know about the U.S. involvement in Iraq, how much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of U.S. troops remain in Iraq: less than a year, one to two years, two to five years or longer than five years?"

The answer:

3/08

Less than a year: 46%

One or more years: 42%

Undecided: 12%

These numbers have been more or less constant in the four previous polls cited from September 07 through January 08.

Taken together with the numbers Glenn cites, it seems to me that while most Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of the war and approve of some sort of draw down of troops, there is considerable disagreement and uncertainty among the public about how best and how quickly to do so.

This seems to me to provide the opening for McCain that Roberts was hinting at. Given that most Americans want to "win" in Iraq, McCain has to convince the 12% or so who are undecided that an American presence will lead to "victory". He may not win the argument, but the data certainly suggests there is an opening for some sort of argument along these lines.

As somebody who frequently reads your excellent pieces and usually agrees with your insights, I do have one thing to point out. Although polls do indeed show that the majority of Americans want out of Iraq, I do think that the truth about this country is that most people would rather win the war if they thought we could.

Please remember how popular this disaster was back when America was "victorious." Bush's approval rating was high and most people polled thought the Iraq invasion was a good thing, despite overwhelming evidence that it was based on lies, was illegal, and hugely immoral, among other things. Also remember that Kerry didn't win the presidency, even though he seemed to represent the only hope of getting out of a worsening situation. Also note that of the three remaining candidates for president only one claims to really want us to get out, and Obama is tepid about that, at best. If Americans really wanted to get out of Iraq we'd have nominees like the stridently antiwar candidates Paul and Kucinich. But we don't. We have a warrior-politician, who claims he can win the thing, coming out better in polls against Clinton (who also voted for the disaster) and Obama (who isn't stridently antiwar enough, in my opinion). I'm afraid the sad truth is that the Cokie Roberts of the country do understand something about the American people, they would indeed rather follow and install somebody who promised them pie in the sky ideas about victory, rather than face up to the reality that the USA has lost, and cannot and will not win.