Once Nancy and Harry hear about this, and whine to CNN management, Michael Ware may be looking for a new job:

JIM CLANCY: "The Democrats are pressing for a deadline, be it at the end of 2007, 2008 to bring all U.S. troops home. How is that going to affect General Petraeus, the Iraqi government and the Iraqis themselves?"

MICHAEL WARE: "Well, Jim, certainly in terms of the Iraqis and the war that's being fought in the streets and the deserts of this country, I mean, what's happening over there, what the Democrats are saying about timetables may as well be happening on the planet Pluto for all that it counts, to the bloodshed and endless combat that we're seeing day in, day out. All that it does, anyone setting time frames like that without real pre-conditions, anyone trying to put artificial deadlines upon this conflict is only aiding the enemies, so-called, of America, al Qaeda and Iran. It allows them some leverage to know when to put the pressure on, to know that the clock is ticking and to know where the pressure points are.

"So, in terms of the battle, day-to-day here, General Petraeus isn't looking more forward than five or six months. He's trying to make this surge work. But in terms of the broader strategic framework, it serves only America's enemies."

Quite the faux pas, to tell the truth. As Finklestein notes, actually being on the ground in Iraq can be quite clarifying. Between this, and Brian Williams' cautious optimism, perhaps the MSM is coming around, even if the Dems aren't.

Michelle Malkin went to Iraq to check out the ground
conditions, maybe you and leland could be
equally manly.

Oh, ferchrissakes, anon moron.

Did your mother have any children who lived?

CNN becoming Fox News? Well their female anchor talent sure leaves something to be desired in the "hottie" department.

LOL

Robert

What else is new? Channel lineup: GOP 1, GOP 2, GOP 3, GOP 4,..., GOP 518, and the Weather Channel, soon to be known as the Exxon-Mobil Meteorological and Environmental Truth Channel. It's always interesting to see how each cable "news" organization tries to dress up "War is Peace" in different ways to make themselves seem less like a state-run claque.

CNN has a soft spot in my heart, and colon, for the way they usually approach the task: Solemnly asking their unopposed regime guests to consider the wildly unlikely possibility of being wrong on some minor point, then looking pensively into the camera. Real incisive interviewing there, Paula-- just make sure to brush your teeth afterward.

Sounds like someone needs a hug, Brian.

"Between this, and Brian Williams' cautious optimism, perhaps the MSM is coming around, even if the Dems aren't."

The supposed liberal bias of CNN may actually swing it toward yet more cautious optimism, if the surge works out (at least as relatively successful *experiment*. At the currently budgeted troops levels, it can hardly be more.)

Take a look at this study, done by the Pew Center in 2004/2005:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=948

Just scan the bar charts, and you see (naturally) that the Dem party constituency labeled Liberals is sharply more, well, *liberal* than the other two major voter groupings (Conservative Democrats and Disadvantaged Dems.) However, take a look at the section "Iraq Attitudes Polarized". Though Liberals are less likely than other Democrats to favor preemptive military action, and (by 87% to 11%) also far more likely to say that the war in Iraq was a mistake, they actually *favored* keeping troops in Iraq by 52% to 44%. What the Pew report calls Disadvantaged Democrats (68%), and the Conservative Democrats (64%), went with "Bring troops home now".

Well, OK, that was then. This is now. I don't doubt that most Liberals are anti-surge, and that a sizeable majority of them now favor early or immediate withdrawal. However, if Liberals have swung one way, they can swing another. (You hate us because we're flip-floppers, remember?) Being better educated, they are less likely to dismiss informed opinion just because it doesn't sit well with them. (We Liberals call that being "reality-based" ;-)

Barack Obama's proposed De-escalation Act, when read closely, isn't all that different from Bush's announced Iraq policies. It just sets dates and puts Congress more firmly in the co-pilot seat. If the surge starts working by any reliable measures (a big if, in view of reports that Petraeus himself gives it only a 1 in 4 chance, and in view of how hard it can be to measure progress in Iraq), expect to see Liberals -- the base of the Democratic party -- start to divide again. Not that they are likely to pull Obama's public position toward the pro-war direction in any event. Obama is not a Liberal's Liberal, and he can't be: he's trying to get elected, after all, and Liberals are not the majority of Dem voters. Plus, he needs some centrist Independents. However, nothing in his legislation, as drafted, absolutely prevents a major troop increase. It just has to be contingent on success, that's all.

The role of MSM players like CNN will be key in in any such shift: if they simply report the facts, and if the facts indicate real progress, the trend over the last year in favor of adding troops (from single digits last year at this time to between 25% and 35% now) may gain momentum from an unexpected demographic: smarter Liberals who, whatever their disdain for Bush, can't help but respect a well-educated, highly intelligent, and successful professional like Petraeus. After all, he'll remind them of *them* (or of their vain image of themselves, anyway.) And if their hearts could bleed for Iraqis before, their hearts may well start bleeding again. As well they should: what a tragic mess it's been so far, and overwhelmingly a tragedy for Iraqis.

"Sounds like someone needs a hug, Brian."

Who?

CNN becoming Fox News? Well their female anchor talent sure leaves something to be desired in the "hottie" department.

You have that right, Robert!

I vote for Giselle Bundchen to read the news in brief(s).

I vote for Giselle Bundchen to read the news in brief(s).

Hey, they could hire Melissa. Even if she continued to deliver the news in French, most men wouldn't care. Or it might just add to the experience.

Rand, Melissa could tell me that the GOP had taken over both the House and the Senate and that Obama lost in 2008 and I would still be smiling. Even better how about Melissa gives us the news and Giselle does the weather? That would force Giselle to have to walk around pointing to things like hurricanes, which would add to the excitement.