Your idiocy is neither here nor there. But you and your 17 fellow bloganauts, you keep right on clapping each other on the back. The Dems will have a huge problem if they attempt to resurrect Iraq as the single sole once and ever only issue in this election. Luckily they don't listen to the fools here.

That sympathizers of Osama bin Laden sink three oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and choke off the narrow, bow-shaped channel that funnels 14 million barrels a day from the Persian Gulf to the rest of the world.

That the United States attacks Iraq, and Israel launches a huge strike against the Palestinians, driving them from their camps and staking out more land -- all of which spurs the Persian Gulf states to cut off oil for the West. Or perhaps that a popular uprising, led by sympathizers of Mr. bin Laden, topples the ruling Saud family in Saudi Arabia, by far the world's largest oil producer.

''If bin Laden takes over and becomes king of Saudi Arabia, he'd turn off the tap,'' said Roger Diwan, a managing director of the Petroleum Finance Company, a consulting firm in Washington. ''He said at one point that he wants oil to be $144 a barrel'' -- about six times what it sells for now.

- By NEELA BANERJEE, Page 1, NYT, Oct. 14, 2001

Are there any developments with respect to newspaper ad(s)?

We just completed the full-page ad for the WashPost and it's being submitted by their noon deadline for publication in tomorrow's Section A paper.

We have a PR person who is working on getting media coverage of it and she wants us to wait until tonight before writing about it and posting the ad, so that's what I'm going to do.

But I love the ad - it's conceived of as a sort of closing argument -- a "this-is-what-you're-really-doing" manifesto -- to the political class and DC establishment. Neither it nor anything else is going to change the outcome of the vote, which is all but a fait accompli.

Glenn, you are badly needed in the "mainstream" of reporting as an agent of change.

Your factual presentations supporting your position on an issue is exactly what is missing in today's "sound-bite" journalism.

Power to you.

...they're only polls. I agree that Liasson is contradicting the polls in her comments about "the American people." However, relying on polls exclusively can be harmful. After all polls of "the American people" is part of what got us into Iraq in the first place.

I have a feeling (certainly not scientific) that if you sat down with a sampling of "the American people" and had a real conversation about the pros and cons of withdrawal and the role that the "facts on the ground" should have in the timing, you'd probably come up with something different than the results of a few multiple choice questions asked over the phone during dinner time.

Glenn: excellent article.

El Cid: great comment for putting things in perspective but a little scary when combined with Glenn's article.

I sometimes wonder if the "looney left" is not close to the majority in the country. We know the far right is a tiny minority but it has managed to have its positions instituted as that of the majority. A great accomplishment.

Given that this minority seems to controls the discussion as shown by Glenn and El Cid, how can we expect to ever leave Iraq. Obama's worst thought is listening to the generals on the ground. Had Truman listened, we'd have been in a war with China; had Kennedy listened we'd have fought the Soviet Union over the Cuban Missile affair.; had LBJ not listened he might have had a second term.

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 hs followed the Bush line. God Save America.

The short of it is that the banner in the screen shot from the Jerusalem Post coverage of the U.S. election makes Obama look evil; and it is on purpose.

This is a misplaced charge. If the picture had been of Obama smiling, nobody would care what shade he was. There are quite a few steps from camera to publication, all of which can change color balance. Not the least of which, is the color of light the photos were taken with.

If there is anything that can be criticized, it is the selection by the photo editor of Obama making an aggressive unattractive expression. That, without a doubt, was a conscious decision.

even more than I have at having both Obama and Clinton, for months, shying away from the war EXCEPT by saying "depends on conditions on the ground" "advice from the generals" etc.

It's looking like the Iraqi provincial elections may be postponed ... but maybe not ... from their October 10th date... some details of who may campaign, using what images, etc. are being negotiated, however, fireworks and violence are probably inevitable. (most notably Iraqis will be allowed to vote for candidates as opposed to party slates for the first time).

"Passage" of either the status of forces or the petroleum revenue sharing plan could easily blow the cork ...

Sorry, sorry, the FISA bill is HR 6304. I was (honestly) misled in calling Feingold's office. Cardin's office, and then Dodd's office corrected by error: Ammendment 5064 is the Feingold, Dodd, Leahy ammendment. Sorry, again.

You did it again in your response to me, pushing the numbers I referenced -- a third to 45 percent -- down to 30 percent.

Look at the CBS, Qunnipiac and LA Times polls and then let me know what you see.

If you look at the polls Glenn showed us, there are several that closely address the question of whether "facts on the ground" should determine when we leave. They all, without exception, show a substantial majority of Americans want us to leave regardless of facts on the ground.

The first poll that does this:

ABC News/Washington Post poll, June 12-15, 2008 -- 55% favor withdrawing "even if that means civil order is not restored there."

Time Magazine, June 18-25, 2008 -- 56% responded that we should leave in the next year or two versus 39% wanting to "wait until Iraq is relatively stable even if it takes 4 years or more".

USA Today/Gallup, March 13, 2008 -- 60% want us to leave "regardless of what is going on in Iraq"

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg, June 19-23, 2008 -- 43% want to withdraw within a year and 25% want to withdraw right away, and only 26% want us to stay "as long as it takes to win the war".

Even if we disregard the last one as not being completely on point, all of the others consistently show Glenn's point.

So I ask, what is your point Foodle?