Over the Top Times-Bashing

Ah, here's a liberal commentator, Vanity Fair's James Wolcott , taking the other side:

"I didn't bother listening to talk radio, but I'm sure they're baying for blood between commercials for bladder control.

"What a gummy uproar. One so loud and ferocious that there almost has to be some follow-through, otherwise you are going to have one frustrated batch of highly indignants. They want the administration to show the Times and the rest of the press who's boss. The neocon contingent is already dismayed with the tiptoeing around Iran's nuclear program. . . . If the pushback against the Times peters out, if the posse disbands shortly after mounting up, the White House is going to look weak in the bugged-out eyes of its mutant defenders. It'll be interesting to see if the controversy builds or fades over the next few days, and whether or not the Times-bashers will be compelled to call their own bluff.

"In the meantime, whatever one thinks of the Times's performance leading up to Iraq and the Judith Miller debacle, the ugly threatmongering and barking ('For the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous') of Peter King shouldn't go unchallenged. Let him climb the Empire State Building if he wants to work off steam."

In case you missed this WP poll , more Americans would like us to get out of Iraq -- but not immediately:

"The survey found that 47 percent of the country now favors setting a deadline for troops to exit from Iraq, up eight percentage points since December. Opposition to a firm timetable for withdrawal stands at 51 points, down from 60 percent seven months ago.

"Among the 47 percent who favor a deadline, nearly half say U.S. troops should be out of Iraq within six months, while a third favor giving the military a year to leave. Those results are virtually identical to findings from the December poll."

And if you don't believe The Washington Post, check out USA Today :

"A majority of Americans say Congress should pass a resolution that outlines a plan for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday. Half of those surveyed would like all U.S. forces out within 12 months."

Wasn't that, um, like, the Democratic plan, at least the non-Kerry version?

The White House seems to be backing off the other big NYT leak -- that Gen. George Casey has submitted a troop drawdown plan that would take effect if conditions permit. Dick Polman is skeptical:

"Perhaps it's absolutely total coincidence that Casey is suggesting that a phased troop withdrawal begin on the eve of the '06 congressional elections, at a time when Bush's poll numbers (and the congressional Republicans' numbers as well) are in the tank primarily because of Iraq. Even if . . . the coincidence is real, what it actually demonstrates is that the Democrats were right to raise the issue of withdrawal (with or without a timetable) in the first place. And if the timing is not totally coincidental, then it demonstrates that the Democrats have an accurate reading of the public's mood, and that they got there first. As one Democratic strategist said to me today, 'If we can't jump on this right away, and show that what the Bush administration is planning is basically a confirmation that we were right all along, then maybe we should just disband.' "