Yep. Support for the war as it is being fought is declining.

What does that mean?

Many - like A.L. want to see more muscle applied.

Some - like me want to see that muscle applied to Iran and Syria.

So does such sentiment translate into Democrat cut and run votes?

I don't think so.

I started reading one of the bits on LAT and guess what.

First thing up is that we need to give up the tax cuts.

Now quite a few believe that those tax cuts have led to higher government revenue and also economic growth.

So the first thing I read out of the box is effectively "we must strangle the American economy in order to buy more body armor".

Ok so they don't understand economics. That is a pretty big hole in war fighting capacity.

I didn't have the stomach to read the rest.

Some one need to tell these folks Socialism is Dead.

I quit reading when he started repeating the lie about someone supposedly called Max Cleland a "traitor." If all the guy's doing is repeating DNC talking points, who needs it?

Riiight, no one called Max Cleland a traitor? And I suppose Ann Coulter didn't suggest that his injuries were the result of a beer drinking accident?

So these quotes from Coulter are just my imagination?

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=42941

Amazing.

And I suppose that juxtaposing his picture with Osama and Saddam's right after 9/11 in a campaign ad was meant to imply a healthy respect for his country? In a time of war.

And M Simon, quite a few also believe that those tax cuts are going to send interest rights up, crimp the economy and that the enormous deficits run up as a result will have further serious repercussions.

Few people actually still cling to Laffer-curve arguments about increased revenue. The evidence does not support them.

Eric, the campaign ad against Cleland attacked Cleland's actual voting record. Attempting to insulate his voting record with the non sequitur of his earlier service is not a legitimate argument.

Coulter can be a nasty bit of work, and the job on Cleland wasn't pretty. Odd, though, that with all that's been written about the column, and her subsequent column justifying it, they're not easy to find online. It seems the chatter about Ann Coulter gets far more hits than her actual columns.

So, if anyone wants to check what she said, in toto, here's the original:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter021204.asp

And here's the follow-up:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter021904.asp

I do not find a mention of "traitor" in them. In fact, the first one is mostly about Bush's Vietnam-era narrative. Her columbs typically are put together rather randomly, like a Three Stooges short, and the Cleland stuff enters about two-thirds of the way through:

Moreover, if we're going to start delving into exactly who did what back then, maybe Max Cleland should stop allowing Democrats to portray him as a war hero who lost his limbs taking enemy fire on the battlefields of Vietnam.

Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman — or what Cleland sneeringly calls "weekend warriors." Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam.

There is more than a whiff of dishonesty in how Cleland is presented to the American people. Terry McAuliffe goes around saying, "Max Cleland, a triple amputee who left three limbs on the battlefield of Vietnam," was thrown out of office because Republicans "had the audacity to call Max Cleland unpatriotic." Mr. Cleland, a word of advice: When a slimy weasel like Terry McAuliffe is vouching for your combat record, it's time to sound "retreat" on that subject.

Needless to say, no one ever challenged Cleland's "patriotism." His performance in the Senate was the issue, which should not have come as a bolt out of the blue inasmuch as he was running for re-election to the Senate.

And so forth.

I think she managed to point out that Cleland's injuries, the visible signs of his service in Vietnam, were not connected to the heroism of that service, which the record shows was genuine. But she omitted all mention of his geniune heroics in her initial column, which you can take as a smear or as high polemics.

Frankly, I didn't realize Cleland's terrible injuries were not received in combat until I read her column. But knowing that doesn't change my respect for his service, or my right to agree with him or not on a case-by-case basis.

Robin, I was addressing two items re: Cleland that I brought up in my post briefly. One was about the smear of his military record, the other was the shameful treatment he received in that campaign. So not as non sequitur as it might have seemed.

Talking about his voting record is fair game. Insinuating that he is in league with Osama and Saddam is quite another. Dems and Reps both get dirty, but that shouldn't prevent us from rejecting certain memes no matter the messenger or target.

>>And M Simon, quite a few also believe that those tax cuts are going to send interest rights up, crimp the economy and that the enormous deficits run up as a result will have further serious repercussions.

"Tax cuts" without spending cuts aren't real. But spending cuts are made impractical as a result of institutional logic -- the State can only get larger until it destroys the tax base. Bush's "tax cuts" do have the effect of deferring any economic implosion, hopefully until the political opposition takes power.

Successful

-Emphasis on intelligence.
check

-Focus on population, their needs, and security.
Check, afaict.

-Secure areas established, expanded.
Check, to limited extent. Pushing further depends on T&E.

-Insurgents isolated from population (population control).
How?

-Single authority (charismatic/dynamic leader).
What levers does US have to create a charismatic Iraqi leader?

-Effective, pervasive psychological operations (PSYOP) campaigns.
What are our unused psyops capabilities?

-Amnesty and rehabilitation for insurgents.
Politically very complex in Iraq. AFAICT we're doing what we can.

-Police in lead; military supporting.
Constrained by A. Quality of police and B. Continued level of insurgent violence.

-Police force expanded, diversified.
expanded - check. Diversified - clarify? IP is locally recruited.

-Conventional military forces reoriented for counterinsurgency.
IA seems to be training mainly for counterinsurgency.

-Special Forces, advisers embedded with indigenous forces.
Advisors are there, as shown in embed articles. SF deployment? Do we know that?

-Insurgent sanctuaries denied.
Permanent denial requires more boots on the ground.

Unsuccessful

-Primacy of military direction of counterinsurgency.
US responsbility shifting toward US embassy. Iraqi direction under civilian pols.

-Priority to "kill-capture" enemy, not on engaging population.
Not clear that engaging population being neglected. accusations that softer approach failed in Anbar, and elsewhere. May require better language skills, which again, means T&E Iraqi troops.

-Battalion-size operations as the norm.
?? A distinction between USMC activities in Anbar and IF activities in Baghdad, Mosul?

-Military units concentrated on large bases for protection.
Again, US forces compared to Iraqi forces?

-Special Forces focused on raiding.
I dont know what the US SF are doing

-Adviser effort a low priority in personnel assignment.
???

-Building, training indigenous army in image of U.S. Army.
???

-Peacetime government processes.
????

-Open borders, airspace, coastlines
Coast line and airspace in Iraq seem to be under complete govt control. Borders is a question of numbers.