As a practical assessment, I suspect that there's a lot of unpalatable truth to be had in the substantial overlap found between the most recent comments by Che Pasa and Electro James T. Kirk.

I suspect that the American people are in for Fait Accomplit time. I don't think that President Obama has any intent of giving up that multi-billion dollar real estate development known as the Green Zone.

I think that panicked oil-centric politics are running the game. And America's latest experiment in imperialism is going to run its course- a disastrous one, I think.

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if Jimmy Carter has been successful in convincing Americans of the imperative to move away from dependence on foreign petroleum in the late 1970s...

"You raise a good question that has many answers. From Foucault down through Noam Chomsky, many thinkers have provided ample and thoughtful responses to that question."

Thank you, and I agree, and would extend your list back to ancient political thinkers, as my question is an old one. But the fact that there are many different answers to the question does not mean we shouldn't have one. We need one. What motivates the "Beltway insiders" to choose the positions they take? Glenn offers only differing hints about this, but it matters.

For example, Chomsky would probably say that Beltway elites are controlled by corporate interests. If that were Glenn's position, than it isn't clear why we spend so much time on this blog worrying about crafting impeccable arguments and referring to the Constitution. If corporate interests call the shots, they no doubt regard Reason and the Constitution as mere instruments, to be used when it is useful for them and disregarded when not. In this framework, without a means of confronting corporate power, there would be an element of self delusion or quaint sentimentality in our sober reverence on this site for Reason and the Constitution. What would it matter what Reason or the Constitution dictates if those with real power do not care?

Geez, Kitt, I said I take your point. You seem not to have taken mine. What I originally wrote was ambiguous, not incorrect. It was not clear whether I meant "the American people would prefer their commander and chief of the armed forces..." or whether I meant "the American people would prefer that the commander and chief of the American people..." You choose to insist that I meant the latter. I did not, and I again accept your point that I should have written more carefully.

Foodle foodle foodle foodle foodle foodle foodle foodle.

Your use of double and triple negatives is clever... a bit too clever methinks. I think you are one of those aliens I spoke of before. In fact... you must be the Mara Liasson-alien-bot herself!!

By George, I think he's got it!

“The suggestion of listening to the generals came from Bush to allow him to avoid responsibility for his imbecilic decisions. . It is sad to see that Obama has followed the Bush line. God Save America.”

On the day that the McWar forces tried to falsely claim Obama had changed his position, Obama held two press Q&A sessions to try and explain he was saying the same thing he had said in debates and throughout his campaign. He said that although he would listen to the generals, if elected, he would be the commander-in-chief and president and he would make the overall major strategic policy decisions and not the generals. So you have unfortunately, fallen victim to the lies, distortions and horse race games that the M$M perpetuates and which Glenn continually works so hard to expose.

The Iraqis don’t like the fact that the Busheviks and McSame want to control their sovereignty and the withdrawal timetable. They rightly believe they should be in control of their own country and our presence there. At my sig I have linked an AP story similar to the Reuters’ story that rufus11 provided.

As imperial potentate, and our King, Bush believes it is his right to invade a country and rule and decide what form of government his subjects should have. He has no intention of letting the natives make him leave, especially when his oil is not quite yet his.

@omooex

You also seem to believe that Obama is adjusting his position. If you would examine what he said during debates and what he has continued to say, you would find his position has not changed. His mistake was to dismiss Power when she was more specific about the complexities of withdrawal while visiting England. That left him more open to the charge of being less flexible about withdrawal. So his frustration with the M$M is partly his fault. Hopefully, he will learn that pandering during a primary or general election can be expensive and can cost you a lot of donations to your campaign. He needs to stick to what he believes and what he will do after he is most likely elected president. McShame only has a small chance if Obama gives it to him.

What it suggests to me is an electorate where the majority are not sure of their own opinions, hold self-contradictory views, and can be easily swayed simply by the wording of an issue.

And thus, the reason Karl Rove and the other "attack ad-ists" exist and flourish.

On the other hand, when you are fed disinformation long enough, you believe it so strongly that even when presented with stark, incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, it is easily dismissed because most ill-informed citizens don't want to admit that they've been holding an (choose your word) incorrect, unsustainable, illogical, stupid, criminal......point of view.

So which is better? The malleable fence-sitter, or the Rush-like dittohead?

Ehh, which is worse is more like it.

Yes, I think foodle went off the tracks @

My point is that Glenn made her out to be asserting that the American people do not want troops to be withdrawn within 16 months

That is itself a clear distortion. Greenwald's point holds very well--Liasson is attempting to marginalize a majority position (the simplest reading of multiple recent polls) into a minority one. Further, the false "minority" is left-fringe.

I also disagree with Foodle's own opinion that Americans will generally allow their desire to leave Iraq be subsumed or guided by "facts on the ground". I personally think that the polls are best interpreted as indicating a majority of americans simply want out. I speculate that most in that majority have either concluded that a)occupation has no effect on public order in Iraq, or b) a negative effect, or c) is not worth the american investment, whether working or not. But that last bit is simply speculation on my part.

That said, I like foodle's focus on polling meta-data, and hope he/she will comment more often.