That’s part of what is so unfortunate about the current Democratic rhetoric – it seems entirely tactical and based on a reflexive hatred of President Bush.

Well, maybe Dean’s rhetoric, but Murtha’s? That I can’t agree with. He didn’t really seem to be condemning the President. He seemed genuinely concerned given the info he was recieving from top military officials.

However, I still think staying the course and getting much smarter about winning the peace is needed. Whether this President is up to that task is a different story altogether, but I certainly hope he is.

Though often put into technical terms, the issue is not the mechanics of withdrawal. Rather the debate should be over consequences – whether, in the end, withdrawal will be perceived as a forced retreat or as an aspect of a prudent and carefully planned move on behalf of international security.

I wonder if the former perception (i.e. a forced retreat) is part of the thinking of Howard Dean et al – that is, whether their latest round of cut-and-run agitation isn’t so much an attempt to force a premature withdrawal from Iraq (which is probably futile at this point) as an attempt to “pre-spin” the eventual withdrawal, whenever it comes and regardless of the circumstances, as a retreat from what the Bush administration is supposedly only just then recognizing as a lost cause, but which Dean et al recognized as such way back in December 2005 (if not sooner).

I think we can also count on whatever remains of the insurgency in Iraq to join in on the spin-doctoring effort once the U.S. withdrawal actually begins.