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?

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.

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?

...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?

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

and wouldn't it be wonderful to see an effort on our media or governments' part to do as you suggest and thoughtfully and truthfully discern the points of view of the American people. I have always envied California its ballot propositions, which seem as close to democracy as we are likely to get. And don't say it -- I know we're actually a republic. The point is, polling is what we have to work with, and if our "journalists" ignore the polls, they are ignoring the closest sense they can currently get of the will of the people.

I took a gander over at NPR to find out more info about Ms Liasson. Why is it all these people look the same? They always have heads that are too big for their bodies, and always with the overly-strong cheek bones, all of which make them look like some alien species come down to conquer earth. To serve man indeed... ( a little light-hearted fun as we watch the sinking of our democracy ).

What happened to the days when our journalists (and, for that matter, our artists, musicians, actors) actually had backbone and character? I guess 28 years of republican strong-arm tactics, media consolidation and erosion of ethics regulations will have that effect on a culture.

The only thing that can save us now is the internet, so believe you me, net neutrality is target numero uno for the Bilderbeg set.

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

The President's legal rights have not been infringed upon. Its his own fault for going before the public and admitting he authorized illegal activities.

Or are you suggesting we just presume he was lying?

"Most Americans" put Iraq on the back burner. I think they also accept that the somewhat vague answers from BOTH candidates indicates that whoever, whatever, we'll be in Iraq for years more.

...with regard to the polling data is that (contra Greenwald), one does have to look at just some -- not all -- of the most recent data to reach the conclusion that the American people unequivocally want to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months regardless of any facts on the ground in Iraq. As is not uncommon with public polling, the data seem to indicate that the American people simultaneously hold contradictory positions. Ask them whether they want to win in Iraq, and they will say "yes." Ask them whether they want to withdraw from Iraq, and they will say "yes." Ask them whether they want to withdraw from Iraq regardless of what is going on in that country, and they will say "yes." Ask them if they think we have an obligation to establish a reasonable level of stability and security in Iraq before withdrawing, and they will say "yes."

Sorting out what those seeming contradictions mean is difficult. Some of it has to do with exactly what questions are asked. For example, the USA Today/Gallup poll that seems to indicate substantial support for withdrawal "regardless of what is going on in Iraq," only offered a choice between keeping "a significant number of troops in Iraq until the situation there gets better" and a timetable for withdrawal regardless of what is going on. Those aren't the only two policy options, which means that it is hard to say what percentage of Americans would think we should stick to a timetable for withdrawal regardless of the facts if they are given other policy choices, such as phased withdrawals with periods of reassessment to ensure troops safety, or to allow for pauses in withdrawal in response to significant acts of political reconciliation in Iraq (i.e., a Carrots and Sticks policy instead of just the Stick of unconditional withdrawal.) Meanwhile, the very same USA Today/Gallup poll that seems to indicate overwhelming support for withdrawal regardless of the facts also indicates that 65% think that "the United States ha[s] an obligation to establish a reasonable level of stability and security in Iraq before withdrawing all of its troops." However, the poll doesn't ask whether that obligation has already been met, or whether we should withdraw even if that obligation has not been met.

Even doing our best to account for polling questions that can allow for ambiguous results, it would seem that some residue remains of the American people actually simultaneously holding contradictory positions. That can remain so until the decision is about some future policy and not about the hard reality of right now. In the here and now, people can still believe that we should withdraw from Iraq within 16 months of the inauguration of the next President, AND that our policy in Iraq should be based upon a careful assessment of the facts on the ground. It would not be until that assessment came back and said that withdrawal within 16 months cannot be accomplished without some list of negative consequences occurring that the American people would be faced to resolve the now obvious contradiction and decide whether those facts demand a different policy or whether the new President should stick to the 16 month promise. Current, contradictory polling data do not tell you which way the American people would break.

Mara Liasson asserted that they will break in favor of a policy based upon the new assessment, not on sticking to the campaign promise. She did not assert that the American people don't want to withdraw within 16 months.