The Wall Street Journal poll only appears to be an outlier. In fact, the poll posited a withdrawal policy that has been neither proposed by Obama nor approximates his policy of substantial withdrawal over a 16 month period. The WSJ poll asked whether the withdrawal of "most of our troops by the beginning of 2009" would be the most responsible thing we could do. The formulation of the WSJ questions differed materially from the questions posed by the other polls, and the difference probably accounts for the WSJ poll results.

It's why crimes committed by the Washington elite go uninvestigated and unpunished

One would think that a lawyer intent on preserving rights for unlawful combatants would do the same for the President. Sadly, no. Tsk.

The meme that "Americans want to stay in Iraq" is sounding less and less like an actual conviction amongst the punditry and more like outright self-deception, bordering on delusion.

Oh, I'm quite sure they can insulate themselves from inconvenient poll findings and factual reporting from the field from now until doomsday. The trouble I'm having with that explanation alone is just how much bad news is coming out, how many poll findings are telling them they're wrong, and how circumstances are squeezing the life out of their sacred cows.

So again, is it that the pundits have isolated themselves from reality (and hence have no further connection with the objective facts) or are they simply the biggest crop of liars this side of a sideshow huckster?

You did not summarize what Mara said exactly accurately. You changed her meaning.

Liasson did not say that the American people don't want to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months. What she said is that the American people don't want the commander in chief to just stick to a campaign promise, but rather to look at the facts on the ground.

None of the polling asks exactly the right questions to determine whether Liasson's assessment is correct. It is my best guess that were a poll to ask whether the respondent believes that the facts on the ground in Iraq do (or will in January) allow for the withdrawal of U.S. troops within 16 months, the answer would be yes. In other words, the American people currently believe that Obama's 16 month campaign promise is (or will be) supported by the facts on the ground in Iraq. There is no conflict between the campaign promise and the facts on the ground. None of the polls ask what the respondent believes the next commander in chief should do if a careful assessment of the facts indicates that troops cannot be responsibly withdrawn in 16 months, whether in that case the President should stick to the campaign promise or change policy to reflect the new assessment. Liasson thinks that the American people would want the commander in chief to go with the new assessment, not just stick to the campaign promise.

There is no unequivocal polling evidence that she is wrong. Even polls that seem to indicate support for withdrawal regardless of what is going on in Iraq (at least when presented with a false binary choice) also indicate strong support for achieve certain preconditions to withdrawal: "Does the United States have an obligation to establish a reasonable level of stability and security in Iraq before withdrawing all of its troops? -Yes: 65%"

In short, as long as people believe that the facts on the ground are consistent with withdrawal in 16 months, they believe that Obama should stick with his campaign promise and withdraw troops within 16 months. Under what changed assessment of the facts the American people would prefer that Obama abandon the campaign promise is uncertain, but Liasson asserted that the American people would prefer that future Iraq policy be based upon an assessment of the facts on the ground over sticking to a campaign promise. That assertion is not supported by the polling data, but neither is it flatly contradicted by them. Regardless, Liasson certainly did not say that the American people don't want to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months.

I'm even relieved to see that "no opinion" (aka "what war?") was not the overwhelming "winner" in these polls.

The "American casualities are at record low levels since (fill in your favorite blank, whenever they were worse)" meme seems to have failed to mollify those who just want us out of a wasteful, embarassing, losing proposition. (I'm not young enought to believe that the American people are seeing the error of our belligerant aggressive ways.)

Obviously, Liasson doesn't bother with actual reseach to verify her hunches ... yes, the media has been hand-in-glove with the administration in attempting to rehabilitate Iraq to make it not urgent, "old news" in time for the election. yes, they would be very offended if such complicity was openly suggested.

What's particualr galling about the formulation is that relies on the unstated assumption that the "left-wing base" are not American people.

This thinking is so pervasive that people fail to notice it.

That's why I always make it a point to ask virulent right-wingers why they hate America.

The false dichotomy that suggests that we aren't ALL American people needs to be attacked in every instance.

I used to think Glenn was diluting his message by going after specific reporters, but now I think he's right to do so. Standing up and saying to a specific person: 'You lied when you said X' may make that person a bit more careful about what they say in the future. Or maybe not, but it needs to be said.

I don't have time to fax as someone suggested, but I did e-mail Morning Edition with a link to this article and a question for them:

To summarize the article: Liasson's claim that only the left-wing wants us out of Iraq as soon as possible is false and had she made any effort to find out she would have known it was false.

Please address this on the air. What exactly is the evidence that Liasson used to determine which positions on the war are left-wing and which positions are the majority's?

It will be interesting to see if they can or will come up with anything.