Wingers Slowly Losing The Battle Against U.S. Diplomacy With "The Enemy"
(May 4, 2007 -- 12:14 PM EDT // link // )

From today's New York Times:

SHARM EL SHEIK, Egypt, May 4 — American and Iranian officials spoke briefly today at a regional conference here on the Iraq situation, in a rare direct conversation between representatives of the two antagonistic nations.

Ryan Crocker, the United States ambassador to Iraq, said that he and David Satterfield, who is the senior adviser on Iraq to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, had an impromptu 3-minute discussion with an Iranian deputy foreign minister...

On Thursday, Ms. Rice met with her Syrian counterpart, the first high-level diplomatic contact between Washington and Damascus in more than two years.

The meetings with Syrian and Iranian officials confirm a significant, if unstated, change in approach for the Bush White House concerning relations in the Middle East, analysts throughout the region said. Washington is asking for help, even from foes it has spurned in the past. Under pressure from its Arab allies, the Bush administration has slowly edged away from its position that direct talks can be conducted only as a reward for what it considers good behavior.

Boy, is that going to be disappointing to some of the wingers who have been arguing -- in the last month, no less -- that this sentiment (when held by Dems, at least) is tantamount to treason and appeasment....

The National Review's Rich Lowry on April 11, commenting on Nancy Pelosi's alleged plan to visit Iran (via Nexis):

LOWRY: I just can't believe she is so absurdly crazy to want to go on this magical mystery tour of every rogue state in the world. First Syria, now she's flirting with Iran, at least it's out there. You know, what's next? North Korea? Burma? And you know crazy idea that the Democrats think the only thing missing from U.S. foreign policy is we're not having enough dialogue with the most vicious and dishonest thug regimes on the planet.

Sean Hannity, condemning the idea of diplomatic contact with Iran while grilling Dem Laura Schwartz (via Nexis):

HANNITY: In your liberal mind and I really want an answer to this...if you're going to talk to a guy that supports Hamas, that has in its charter the sole goal and destruction of Israel, would it be better before you sit down with such a person that you have a pre-condition that he denounce that position?...

Would you talk with Usama bin Laden? Do you think we should sit down and talk to him?

SCHWARTZ: No, we should have sent all the troops in Iraq to Afghanistan to kill the guy.

HANNITY: Should we talk to Ahmadinejad, who still denies the Holocaust? I mean, where do you begin your discussion? What would you say, please Mr. Ahmadinejad, please believe the Holocaust happened?

Victor Davis Hanson, imagining a "dream" in which Dems wouldn't want to talk to Iran:

Congressional Democrats would make clear that, while in the interests of peace they might wish to talk to Iran, they had no idea how to approach a regime that subsidizes Holocaust denial, threatens to wipe out Israel, defies the world in seeking nuclear weapons, trains terrorists to kill Americans in Iraq, engages in piracy and hostage taking, and butchers or incarcerates any of its own who question the regime.

From the San Francisco Chronicle, April 12:

One conservative nonprofit group, Move America Forward, pumped out fundraising e-mails soliciting donations because "on a day that Nancy Pelosi considers appeasement of Iran to follow up her dose of appeasement of Syria, we can think of no better time to fight back!''

Day after day, and little by little, they're losing the argument. Now even the Bush White House, as The Times puts it, is "edging away" from its hard-line opposition to diplomatic engagement with "the enemy."

So when are we gonna hear the screams of outrage...

...oh, never mind.

CNN Report On Rice's Meeting With Syrian Official Omits Mention Of Criticism Of Pelosi
(May 3, 2007 -- 6:35 PM EDT // link // )

I'm really not sure what to make of this. But it seems absolutely abysmal. Is it really possible that CNN -- the network which went mad for days flacking the bogus Pelosi-to-Syria story -- is airing a segment on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's meeting with her Syrian counterpart that doesn't mention the administration's attacks on Pelosi for meeting with Syria's President?

Here's a CNN segment on Rice's meeting:

Did you hear a mention of the White House's attacks on Pelosi? Me neither.

Here's why this is strikingly derelict. CNN spent literally days on end pushing the White House line on Pelosi's Syria trip, at one point even asking, absurdly, whether this meant Pelosi was "on her way to becoming the most controversial speaker yet." Given that performance, if any news org should be expected to point out the White House's Pelosi-Rice "shift," to employ a preferred journalistic euphemism, it would be CNN.

Meanwhile, the White House's glaring "shift" was noted in the reports on this by The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, and even... Fox News. But not CNN's segment. I haven't been monitoring CNN every second of today so I can't hands down promise that the network hasn't mentioned it, but given its role in promoting the Pelosi-to-Syria story, it should be prominently featuring the flip in all its reporting on the current Rice meeting.

On the other hand, given CNN's performance on the original tale, perhaps it's something the network prefers to forget.

Update: In fairness, CNN just aired a segment where a reporter posed a question about this to Rice herself. But again, given CNN's complicity in pushing the original tale, CNN should be all over this glaring flip-flop. What's more, CNN's Lou Dobbs was actually on the air tonight wondering whether relations are now improving with Syria. Pretty suspect timing.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Pelosi And Reid's Offices Deny WaPo Story Saying Congressional Dems "Backed Down" To White House On Withdrawal
(May 3, 2007 -- 10:05 AM EDT // link // )

Check this out -- the offices of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are denying a Washington Post story today saying that Congressional Democrats have backed down to the White House by offering to remove Iraq withdrawal language from the now-vetoed Iraq bill.

Pelosi just went before the Democratic caucus and informed them that the story's false, a Pelosi aide tells me. WaPo is standing by the story, and the lead writer of the Post piece, Jonathan Weisman, told me that leadership aides told him that the withdrawal language had to go. But the WaPo story goes further than that, saying explicitly that Dems have already "backed down" and offered the concession of removing the withdrawal language. Those aren't the same thing.

Why report that Dems have already caved in the negotiations if they haven't yet?

The WaPo front page story says the following:

Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable

President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.

Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president's veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability, "transition" the U.S. military role and show "a reasonable way to end this war."

But did Dems actually back down and offer this concession, as WaPo says?

I just emailed a Pelosi aide to ask whether the story was true. Here's the reply:

Not true. Speaker just told members of the Democratic caucus that the story is totally untrue. We are still deciding what provisions the new bill will include.

Meanwhile, a source in Reid's office tells me the following: "No decisions have been made on this yet. No options have been ruled in or out." It's also worth noting that the New York Times story on this today doesn't say that the Dems have officially offered this concession, either.

So what happened here? I just emailed Post reporter Weisman and requested comment. His answer:

That is very interesting, since I was told in no uncertain terms by one of her aides that the withdrawal dates had to go, since they could not stand by language Bush would never sign. That was cofirmed by another senior leadership aide and two members of the leadership.

I can say with no reluctance whatsoever that we stand by the story. By the way, nobody has contacted me about it. That should tell you a lot.

I have no problem believing that these aides said this, or that the withdrawal language is likely to be taken out in the end. But the question remains: If this offer hasn't actually been made yet, why is WaPo saying it has been? It's one thing for the aides to be saying that the language will have to go; it's another to say even before the negotiations have started that the concession has already been offered to the White House. If what the Pelosi and Reid aides are telling me is true, isn't WaPo jumping the gun in saying Dems have already caved in advance of the negotiations?

This all gives rise to a bigger question: Why is much of the media's coverage of this focussed on the Democratic dilemma the veto creates, while so little of it is focussed on the fact that Republicans, too, are in a bind, are trapped between public opinion and their unyielding President, and are going to have to make concessions towards a compromise?

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Rudy's Two-Minute Rant About Ferret Owners
(May 2, 2007 -- 3:14 PM EDT // link // )

Trust me, you've never heard anything quite like Rudy Giuliani's rant about ferrets. It's much, much worse than you all can imagine. I know -- I was there.

Let me explain. Via Atrios, Ana Marie Cox over at Swampland points to a rather odd moment in Vanity Fair's profile of Rudy Giuliani, in which Rudy is quoted unloading on a ferret owner on his radio show as Mayor in the 1990s. VF quotes a few lines of Rudy's startling rant, then moves on.

But the sheer demented nature of Rudy's diatribe is only appreciable if you read the whole thing from beginning to end. How do I know this? I was listening to Rudy on the radio on that day in 1999 when he went off on the ferret owner. Indeed, I was the first to write about it as a reporter for The New York Observer, and it's since entered New York lore. Am I patting myself on the back? Hell, yeah -- this was far and away the best and most important story I've ever broken. Biggest scoop of my life. (Update: That's a joke.) So without further delay, here's the full transcript of Rudy's ferret rant:

The following exchange occurred on Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's weekly radio show on WABC-AM on July 23. The caller was David Guthartz, a ferrets' rights activist who was upset by a June 29 directive by the city's Board of Health making it illegal to keep ferrets and a range of other animals as pets.

Mayor Giuliani: We're gonna go to David in Oceanside.

David Guthartz: Hello, Mr. Giuliani, we speak again.

Giuliani: Hi, David.

Guthartz: Let me introduce myself again, David Guthartz, executive president of New York Ferrets' Rights Advocacy. Last week when we spoke, you said a very disparaging remark to me, that I should get a life. That was very unprofessional of you. Here we're trying to get something seriously done–

Giuliani: I, I–

Guthartz: Without you talking over me, we're trying to get something very seriously done–

Giuliani: David, you're on my show. I have the right to talk over you.

Guthartz: But here's the thing: We're trying to get an important issue taken care of where the city is violating state law and I asked you last week if you care about the law.

Giuliani: Yes, I do care about the law. I think you have totally and absolutely misinterpreted the law, because there's something deranged about you.

Guthartz: No, there isn't, sir.

Giuliani: The excessive concern that you have for ferrets is something you should examine with a therapist. Not with me.

Guthartz: Don't go insulting me again!

Giuliani: I'm not insulting you. I'm being honest with you. Maybe no one in your life has ever been honest with you.

Guthartz: I happen to be more sane than you.

Giuliani: This conversation is over, David. Thank you. [Mr. Giuliani cuts him off.] There is something really, really, very sad about you. You need help. You need somebody to help you. I know you feel insulted by that, but I'm being honest with you. This excessive concern with little weasels is a sickness.

I'm sorry. That's my opinion. You don't have to accept it. There are probably very few people who would be as honest with you about that. But you should go consult a psychologist or a psychiatrist, and have him help you with this excessive concern, how you are devoting your life to weasels.

There are people in this city and in this world that need a lot of help. Something has gone wrong with you. Your compulsion about it, your excessive concern with it, is a sign of something wrong in your personality. I do not mean to be insulting. I'm trying to be honest with you and I'm trying to give you advice for your own good. I know you, I know how you operate, I know how many times you called here this week. Three or 4 o'clock in the morning, David, you called here.

You have a sickness. I know it's hard for you to accept that, because you hang on to this sickness, and it's your shield, it's your whatever. You know, you gotta go to someone who understands this a lot better than I do. And I know you're real angry at me, you're gonna attack me, but actually you're angry at yourself and you're afraid of what I'm raising with you. And if you don't deal with it, I don't know what you're gonna do. But you called here excessively all week, and you called here at 3 o'clock in the morning. And 4 o'clock in the morning. Over weasels. Over a ferret.

So I know this is difficult and tomorrow one of the newspapers will write how mean I am and how cruel I am and all this other stuff, but I believe, because my father and mother taught me this, that you should be honest with people. And I am giving you the benefit of 55 years of experience having represented hundreds and in some cases thousands of people on either side in the courtroom, having handled insanity defenses and cases.

You need help! And please get it! And you don't have the right to call here at three o'clock in the morning, harass the people on my staff, because of your compulsion. So, David, see what you can do to get help. But we can't help you. We don't have the professional expertise to help you. Now we're gonna move on to Richard in the Bronx.

I don't know if David called Rudy's office at 3 in the morning or not, but either way, you have to be pretty whacked out to reach the pinnacle of New York politics but still take great pleasure in stomping all over someone for two straight minutes merely because he's asked you not to take his pet away from him.

Update: I didn't see this before, but here's the audio, courtesy of Oliver Willis. And everyone, I'm not saying that this is some big "gotcha." The idea that this was a big "scoop" was meant as a joke! Just saying it makes the guy (Rudy, not the ferret owner) sound like a total whack job who reacts rather badly when his penchant for heavy-handed government comes under gentle criticism.

Update II: And, yes, Rudy's rant was also funny as heck.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Joe Lieberman's Reality: Public Is Equally Fed Up With Democrats And Republicans
(May 1, 2007 -- 12:33 PM EDT // link // )

Joe Lieberman is so committed to his vision of himself as a heroic and lonely warrior battling partisans and extremists on both sides that he actually would prefer for the Democratic Party to be failing in order to sustain that vision.

Is that an overstatement? Perhaps, but only slightly. How else to interpret Lieberman's remarks at a "civility conference" yesterday:

WASHINGTON -- Democrat-turned-independent Sen. Joe Lieberman said Monday a third-party candidate could emerge to shake things up in the 2008 presidential race unless the two major parties tackle the growing problem of "partisan polarization" that alienates many voters.

"I think the public is fed up," he said at a forum on civility and politics on Capitol Hill. "If the two major parties don't hear this going into '08, there is a real chance of an independent third-party candidacy -- and watch out if that happens."

Extremists in both parties are driving debate in the 2008 primary contests, said Lieberman, who was the Democrats' vice presidential nominee in 2000 and unsuccessful candidate for the party's 2004 presidential nomination.

The fastest growing political party in America, he said, is "no party."

But is the public "fed up" with both parties -- or only with the GOP? And isn't the Democratic Party actually growing, while the GOP is shrinking?

Lieberman's remarks betray as clearly as one could want the equal parts dishonesty and self-delusion lurking behind his repeated calls for "bipartisanship." He's so committed to the idea that the fighting between the parties is to blame for our problems that he's simply lost the ability to perceive the simple political reality that in the broadest sense, the public supports the Dems and wants them to succeed -- both generally and specifically in their partisan confrontations with Republicans.

Democratic party I.D. numbers are increasing:

Even more striking than the changes in some core political and social values is the dramatic shift in party identification that has occurred during the past five years. In 2002, the country was equally divided along partisan lines: 43% identified with the Republican Party or leaned to the GOP, while an identical proportion said they were Democrats. Today, half of the public (50%) either identifies as a Democrat or says they lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 35% who align with the GOP.

What's more:

(1) The favorability ratings of the Democratic Party have been improving over time.

(2) The American people now think the Democratic Party has "stronger" and "better" leaders.

(3) The approval ratings of Congressional Dems, and Dem Congressional leaders, are healthy despite a brutal and sustained effort by the GOP and its media lackeys to drag Dems down in advance of the Iraq showdown with the White House.

Look, I don't mean to oversimplify here. The overall picture is undoubtedly a complex one. Some poll numbers show anemic approval ratings for the overall Congress; other surveys show low approval numbers on the Dems' handling of specific issues; and the Dems have many tough choices ahead on Iraq that could cause the political landscape to change again. But I think in the broadest possible sense, the political reality is clear. Lieberman is so committed to what The New York Times calls his "warped version of bipartisanship" that he's completely unwilling -- or completely unable -- to see it.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Newsflash: Another Bogus "Hillary Is Calculating" Non-Story Bites The Dust
(April 30, 2007 -- 6:12 PM EDT // link // )

As you may know by now, the non-story of the day surrounding Hillary Clinton is that she apparently uses the name "Hillary Clinton" on Presidential campaign material while sticking with "Hillary Rodham Clinton" on her Senate-related stuff.

This alleged "gotcha" story was first pushed by Hearst newspapers in a piece linked (natch) on Drudge, Newsmax, Free Republic and a few other far-flung outposts in the wingnuttia hinterlands. It's now the subject of an Associated Press story -- carried by ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN and others -- that actually says in its lede that Hillary has an "identity crisis." Both the Hearst and AP stories strongly imply that Hillary's people are calculatingly using "Rodham" to speak to the New York audience while sticking with "Hillary Clinton" to appeal to the national audience. Says Hearst:

Clinton identifies herself as "Hillary Clinton" in her campaign press releases and on her campaign website. The lone mention of her maiden name is in a campaign biography that says "Hillary's father, Hugh Rodham, was the son of a factory worker from Scranton."

She continues to use "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in her New York-focused press releases and in the Senate.

Okay -- how to explain this, then?

Someone has just sent me the text of six political ads and two press releases from Hillary's 2000 and 2006 Senate reelection campaigns in New York. In all of them, Hillary is defined as -- yup -- "Hillary Clinton." From the 2006 New York campaign there's this ad:

Narrator: Hillary Clinton has fought to limit the sale of violent video games to our children, worked to improve our ability to track sexual offenders and to protect our kids from internet predators. In the senate, Hillary Clinton has fought tirelessly to protect children. She always has, she always will.

Clinton: I’m Hillary Clinton and I approve this message.

And this one:

Narrator: They stand up every day for our state and our country, so Hillary Clinton has fought for them...Time and again, Hillary Clinton has stood up for the brave men and women who stand up for us.

Clinton: I’m Hillary Clinton and I approve this message.

From a New York Senate campaign press release on September 13, 2000:

“Rick Lazio’s ad is false. Hillary Clinton was one of the first in the country to support teacher testing. New Yorkers have a real choice in this race between Hillary Clinton who has been a leader, one of the first in the country to support teacher testing, and Rick Lazio, who has followed the Republican Leadership and voted repeatedly to cut education,” said Clinton Campaign Communications Director Howard Wolfson.

From another one on October 10, 2000:

HILLARY CLINTON: FIGHTING TO HELP PARENTS PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN

And I've got more. Does this conclusively prove that the campaign hasn't made an internal decision to stick with "Hillary Clinton" for national appeal? No, but it certainly makes it awfully difficult to sustain the notion that this represents a shift born of geographic political calculation. It's unclear, in fact, that there was any kind of shift of this sort in any meaningful sense at all, really. After all, Camp Hillary, and Hillary herself, were calling her "Hillary Clinton" way back in 2000, and as recently as 2006, and in both cases they were speaking exclusively to New Yorkers.

I mean, come on now. Can't we stop with this silliness? Ever?

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Broder: People May Agree With Reid, But He's Still A Loser
(April 30, 2007 -- 3:32 PM EDT // link // )

One last crack at David Broder -- promise! Broder has just told Editor and Publisher in an interview that he's standing by his column blasting Harry Reid for saying the war is "lost":

Broder told E&P that he was "astonished and delighted" that 50 Democratic senators "spontaneously" came up with the letter (adding that he was being "tongue-in-cheek").

The columnist also said he was "not surprised" that his Thursday piece drew such a negative reaction from the 50 senators and most of the many readers who flooded WashingtonPost.com with comments. "This war is so unpopular and for very good reason," said Broder. "I've written many columns critical of this administration's actions in Iraq, and most of the response of readers to those columns has been: 'Right on.'"

Broder stands by his argument. This raises a new question: What exactly is Broder's objection to Reid's comment, anyway? Does anybody even know?

Does he disagree with Reid's contention that the war is lost? Broder didn't really address this rather central question in the initial offending column, and apparently didn't address it in defending himself to the E and P. Does he think it was bad because Reid was harming the Democrats? As he implicitly acknowledges in this interview, the public is basically with Reid here. My guess is that Broder probably more or less agrees with Reid's general critique of the war, too -- he certainly hasn't written anything I've seen suggesting the contrary. So again -- what, according to Broder, did Reid do wrong?

The only answer I can think of is an admittedly simplistic one: Dems simply aren't supposed to behave this way. As this blog has noted before, one common thread linking all the outrage directed at Reid is sheer incredulity -- a kind of flabbergasted sense of surprise that Dems would be aggressive on such a matter when establishment wisdom has decreed that doing so would be to court political doom. There was a time when a declaration from the Dean that you were an "embarrassment" and "inept" would have sent Dems scurrying back to their pollsters and hurrying to push forward more "hawkish" Dems to make the Democrats' case. Yet here Reid is, ignoring Broder's increasingly shrill admonishments again and again, and not backing down.

One last point: If you're gonna attack Reid based on the alleged opinions of anonymous Senators, as Broder did, you don't get to be snide and dismissive about it when 50 of those Senators go on the record saying you're full of it. That is decidedly un-Dean-like. And with that, no more Broder for the foreseeable future. Seriously.

Update: Media Matters unearths more evidence that Broder basically does agree with Reid on Iraq. And Atrios points out that Broder originally claimed that Senators from "both parties" thought Reid inept -- including the party whose Senators all said that they don't think he's inept at all.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

WaPo's Kornblut: Centrist, Pro-War Dems Come From Party's "National Security" Wing
(April 30, 2007 -- 10:46 AM EDT // link // )

Matthew Yglesias is right to say that this profile of Hillary pollster Mark Penn by Anne Kornblut is highly worth reading. But check out this passage in particular:

Penn has deep roots in the national security wing of the Democratic Party, along with other centrist Democrats -- some of them Jewish and pro-Israel, like Penn -- who saw the merits of invading Iraq before the war began.

"Penn has always believed that strength is critical for running the country, and that people want to have a president who's going to be willing to defend the country -- that's the number one criteria," said Al From, the chief executive of the Democratic Leadership Council, who considers Penn a friend.

The "national security" wing of the party? Looks like Hiatt is moonlighting on the copy desk again...

Seriously -- I have no idea whether this passage was penned by the author or whether it was the result of some editing atrocity. But really, this reads like it was written by Joe Lieberman, who suggested not long ago that Dems opposed to the Iraq war came from the party's "anti-security wing."

Putting aside the absurdity of actually buying into such an inane construct -- is there any one left aside from Dick Cheney and Victor Davis Hanson who believes that the Iraq War is proving anything but completely counter to our national security interests? -- this can't possibly be the sort of thing the professional journalists who edit the Post want in their news pages. Can it?

Update: A quick clarification. A commenter below notes that this article is riddled with the usual innuendo about Hillary and concludes that this is just more "liberal media" bashing of the Clintons. Let me be clear: I basically agree with that analysis. When I said the piece was highly worth reading, I meant that solely because it does tell us a lot about Penn -- someone we should want to know more about for all sorts of reasons. Please don't read that as an endorsement of the piece's murkily sourced innuendo about Hillary. It isn't that at all.

Washington Post Scrapes Bottom Of Barrel To Find People Who Think War Isn't "Lost"
(April 29, 2007 -- 7:43 AM EDT // link // )

The other day, an editor of The Washington Post's outlook section sent out an email soliciting opinions from a variety of experts on the question of whether Harry Reid was right in saying that the Iraq War was "lost." They promised to publish replies on the Op-ed page today.

Well, the piece is now up, and guess what? The Post article publishes the names of only three people who answer the question with an outright "No." And guess who the three are:

No. There has been a dramatic decrease in sectarian violence; the situation in Anbar province and within the Sunni community in general has been transformed; the Maliki government has been incredibly supportive of efforts to go after Shiite militiamen. But it's going to be a long, hard slog.

-- Frederick W. Kagan, American Enterprise Institute; proponent of the recent surge

And:

No. Many said Anbar province was "lost" six months ago. Today, local tribes are cooperating with us to fight al-Qaeda. Iraqis, with our help, are confronting the sectarian violence in Baghdad, seeking to take back their capital so they can pursue political reconciliation.

-- Stephen J. Hadley, national security adviser

And:

No. The war is not lost -- no more than it was in winter 1776, July 1864, December 1945 or November 1950. The challenge is winning back hearts and minds at home, rather than in Iraq, where brave thousands join us each day to fight an evil sort the likes of which we haven't seen in recent memory.

-- Victor Davis Hanson, military historian, Hoover Institution

Note that the WaPo describes Kagan as a mere "proponent" of the surge, a description that doesn't make it clear that Kagan is in fact one of its principal architects. This is pretty questionable in and of itself, because it doesn't clarify the degree to which Kagan's professional reputation is tied up in whether the surge succeeds. Bad, WaPo, bad!

That aside, it's pretty striking that the only three people the paper apparently could find to say "No" to the question were (1) someone who is President Bush's national security adviser (Hadley); (b) someone who actually helped create the current plan (Kagan); and (c) someone who -- well, someone who is Victor Davis Hanson. In fairness, WaPo also quotes two others saying, in effect, "not yet." But both also suggest that the answer turns on just how much in the way of resources the U.S. is willing to sink into the conflict, which -- given the obvious limits on such resources -- is just a way of ducking the question.

Meanwhile, here's the list of people saying "Yes" to the "is the war lost" question:

-- Barbara K. Bodine, a former ambassador and a coordinatorfor post-conflict reconstruction for Baghdad and central Iraq in 2003

-- Paul R. Pillar, former deputy chief, CIA Counterterrorist Center

-- Bruce Hoffman, Georgetown University; adviser, Iraq Study Group

-- Robert Dallek, presidential historian

-- Nathaniel Fick, former Marine infantry officer in Afghanistan and Iraq

Yep, those are the people who agree with Reid, despite the fact that David Broder says he is an "embarrassment" and should step down. Speaks for itself.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.