Your blog posts are insightful. I will take them into deep thought and consideration. Your point of view is very smart and intellectual. Charlie…

IOW, the surge. Which wasn’t even in place before the very gasbags that screamed for it the loudest were already calling it a failure.

It doesn’t get any more transparent than that.

Polls can never provide a full enough picture to be adequate indicators of what the public wants, and determining war-time policy by a cynical pruning of what they say is the road to disaster.

Getting into the debate hard numbers about public ignorance enforced by the MSM could only help.

“…let’s suppose that the democrats’ winning control of Congress was a signal from rank and file Republicans that the base was dissatisfied with its performance on immigration, earmarks, Abramoff and other issues.”

On the other hand, let’s acknowledge that every major recent poll shows that Iraq is the public’s top concern, and that according to at least one, that Congress make “significant changes in U.S. policy in Iraq” was considered:

Extremely important: 40%
Very Important: 37%
Somewhat Important: 15%
Not Important at all: 7%
Unsure: 2%

That being the case, inaction by Washington on Iraq could conceivably account for not only Congress’ low rating but also Bush’s historic low as well.

In our little town in the mid coast, the angry lefties are left sputtering when they figure out that their monopoly is being challenged, and they are beside themselves when someone actual introduces facts, logic, and reasoning into the debate. Oh, they still rely upon – let’s face it – mendacity to make their points, but it is entertaining to watch them talk themselves into a rhetorical box canyon.

But you’re right, Snowe and Collins are RINOs in the purest sense…however, if you were privy to their opposing Democratic candidates, you would have the surreal experience of actually appreciating the fact that they represent the state. The alternative? Much, much worse.

The Democrat viewpoint inverts and ignores a few things. First, while 3,600 American soldiers have given their lives for our freedom, the fact remains that it took 4 years for the jihadists to snuff out those lights. Before we got into Iraq, on 9/11, it took the jihadists three hours to snuff out almost as many people. And since we’ve been in Iraq, there have not been any attacks on American civilians, barring contractors who have operated within the theater of war.

Additionally, during this same period, jihadist attacks have escalated, not just against Britain which is our ally, but against all sorts of other people who have nothing to do with Iraq (attacks in the Philippines, Indonesia, and Russia spring to mind).

In other words, despite Democratic rhetoric, as to both Americans and many other nations, there is no corollary between increased jihadist violence and involvement (or lack of involvement) in Iraq.

The Dems’ posturing therefore is especially despicable because it’s selling a bill of goods to credulous Americans who are not tightly tied into the news and have not realized that (a) American civilian risk peaked before we entered Iraq and (b) worldwide civilian risk from jihadists in countries unaffiliated with the Iraq war continues to escalate dramatically.