I noticed this little nugget from the CNN poll results:
In May, soon after Bush announced that major combat operations had ended in Iraq, 41 percent of Americans said they thought the war was over. But now only one in 10 feel that way.
I’d say that this has a lot to do with the disillusionment. I don’t think most Americans feel the president lied his way into war. He didn’t. But his post-war strategy both in Iraq and at home has been dismal. Rummy’s intransigence over the need for real troop support after the war created a security vacuum from which Iraq is still reeling. Rove’s strategy of egregiously milking military victory for short-term political gain gave the impression that everything was over, done with, finished. So when conflict continued – as anyone who noticed the melting away of the Republican Guards would have predicted – it looked as if Bush was not in control. Subsequently, there hasn’t been a clear and positive account from the president of why Iraq is so vital. He needs to tell the country that we have accomplished two hugely important things: we have removed Saddam from power, liberating millions and ending a continuing threat to the West; and we have begun the difficult process of trying to turn the entire region around by attempting a democratic revolution in Iraq. This broader, positive goal of the war on terror has never been as front-and-center as it needs to be. It’s far more ambitious than anything the opposition favors; and it appeals to Americans’ sense of their own destiny and to the deeper security matters that are involved. Why hasn’t he trumpeted the Marshall Plan, rather than seem sheepishly apologetic about it? There is only one way we can lose this war now. And that is if the American people lose faith in it. That’s what many in the media are trying to accomplish. Many loathe the idea of fighting back aggressively, especially if it means offending the poohbahs at the U.N., the E.U. and so on. This is where the war gets tough. It’s time Bush got going on the hard domestic job of promoting it more persuasively.
BY THE WAY: Do most national polls have 48 percent Democrats, like the CNN/USA Today poll? It seems pretty loaded in that direction to me. Where are all the Independents?
EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I read Wiliam Safire’s piece, and while his assesments are solid in general I think he assumes to much complexity in Clintonian tactics. I don’t think that the Clinton machine is planning to muddy the waters for Hillary’s entry. They know that elections are too unpredictable to time multiple candidates entries and exits. One bad news cycle and your Byzantine plan goes to hell.
I think they have seen what others see: Dean won’t win against Bush, unless everything goes his way. The Clintons know that this rarely happens, and they are intimately familiar with the Whitehouse’s ability to control the news cycle. Clark can win if only some things go his way. He needs bad news in Iraq, something that can be counted on no matter how well things go there. If the economy is the issue, all they will say is that they are running a good teacher against a poor student. Few understand economics well enough to delve further.
Bill Clinton knows that his power is on the line. If Dean runs and the Dems lose, Clinton will be remembered for his history of personal success amidst party disaster. If Clark wins, he’s the Man from Hope who delivered the party from Bush and Ashcroft.-Hillary knows the wife of the Man from Hope is the heir apparent, so the whole family is on board.” – more reader insight on the Letters Page.
The Dish 