Never mind. I have confirmed that indeed this is Obama's pledge. Sorry for the interruption.

...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.

This seems to me very similar to Bush's stated strategy. He states that his [Bush's] decisions will be guided by 'commanders on the ground'.

Is it your sense that Americans generally agree with Bush on this specific?

I keep getting emails from Chris Dodd to contribute money to aid in the FISA fight. I understand the point of contributing money to pay for ads like the one Glenn has been working on, but none of these emails I'm getting from Dodd explain exactly what that money would be potentially used for. Does anyone here know the answer to that?

I wish you would post contact info each time you hold these people to the light. Forget Kristol...he's just propaganda garbage and always will be. But Liasson makes more money from Fox than NPR yet poses as some kind of "educational" voice. Most of my friends no longer give to NPR because of her and Cole now spouting these lies but I would like to make her aware that we know they are lies and call her on it. So please post this info if you have it in an update. Thanks Glenn, your work is greatly appreciated.

Your questions is apropos my last comment. My understanding is that Obama has pledged to provide the additional two brigades to Afghanistan. Is that your understanding, too?

Hit 'em till they go ! I think the thing that gets me most about all this is their smugness. Smugness + Wrong is not a good combination. They'd get away with it if it were not for you and a few others.

Is that being intentionally ironic, or just that unintentional Bushie irony?

What is meant by the term "withdrawal" -

a) in the context of either Obama's policy position; and

b) in terms of what the "American people" want to see happen?

And, just in case I have anybody's attention, I'll press my luck with a third question --

c) Do the "American people" have anything approaching a consensus view with respect to the presence of US troops in Afghanistan (and, if so, what is it)?

My thanks in advance.

From the beginning of the Iraq war, I have been in numerous discussions with folks, both for and against the war, and I have seen opinions shifting towards leaving Iraq as soon as possible.

A few folks are resigned to an indefinite occupation but most want us to get out, and the sooner the better. And, this is best accomplished by establishing a timetable for withdrawal (in secret if necessary) that the Iraqis will accept.

And then we should get out. This is the general consensus of the people I am talking to.

Well the problem with this question is that it gives nice words for civil war.

Would you want to leave Iraq, even if it leads to a bloody civil war?

Well, that IS what is being suggested, abeit nicely worded.

If so, then you have NO problem with the consequences of watching people who depend on us be exterminated, much like what occurred during Viet Nam.

I frankly believe we will not leave there but will install a permanent post there, from which we will monitor the area for future hostile intents...ASSUMING the indigenous government agrees to this. If the government does not agree to it, then our hands are clean if war erupts there...if they do agree to it, then we can help them to continue to make their country safer, and can still bring home a majority of our soldiers there.

Down, boy!

A few months ago it was reported that Secretary of Defense Gates was trying to find a way to beef up forces in Afghanistan.

He appealed to some NATO partners for help, it was said; but that went nowhere.

Still, reporting on the military situation in Afghanistan suggests there needs to be five to ten thousand more combat troops there.

The latest reports say the Taliban has re-formed to its pre-9/11 strength. American combat deaths for June in Afghanistan were the highest monthly toll since that conflict began in 2002. There continues to be talk of a push into the Pakistan frontier by American or NATO forces - to boldly go to Tora Bora, where we should have gone before

Yet the "stretched" American force struggles to maintain adequate forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Last week, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs acknowledged that the only way to put two brigades, about 7,000 troops, into Afghanistan would be to draw directly from the 130,000 troops in Iraq.

There are no other ready troops available for Afghanistan, the chairman said.

What will people say about this reality - whether they are the "American people," the "establishment," the "left-wing base," or the "flag-waving, raving right," - when enough of them understand this?

These would appear to be a set of hard facts which would leave very little traction for an election year spin job.

And yet ...

NPR has "media stars"?

By the way, Glenn, you gotta stop watching Fox Anything. Haven't you been paying attention? Fox sucks.

Good post, once again.

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?

Exactly the question I was pondering when I saw your post. I think ML's careful phrasing is an attempt to avoid facing the fact that she is lying. Sort of: "The people really mean this..." They are not really sufficiently isolated from reality to avoid some internal pressure when they lie, but not honest enough to face the truth of what they are doing.

What is overlooked in all this is the problem of winning. Conservatives don't want to leave Iraq until it is "won," but what does "winning" mean? If winning means getting the violence below a certain level, that may be achievable in the short term. If winning means the establishment of a constitutional democracy in Iraq, well, they already have that.

But for conservatives winning seems to mean not only an established democracy, but one that is running like clockwork. That will never happen in Iraq, at least not in our lifetimes. The Virginia House of Burgesses had been meeting for 100 years before the U.S. Constitutional convention. It takes years and years of practice before a nation has enough confidence in the electoral process to make it work. Heck, we had our own civil war because some people still didn't believe in it by 1861.

The argument that "most Americans" want to stay until things are "stable" on the ground means nothing until "stability" and "winning" are spelled out. In this case the American people are a step ahead of the clairvoyant pundits -- the Americans do not trust the government to stop moving the goal line. They realize that unless you get a hard number from a used car salesman, you are going to be swindled.

I think Americans want a strict deadline because they do not trust their leaders to get out of Iraq in a reasonable time frame without one.