The General's Moment

"After this exchange was reported in the New York Times, Bremer fought back. He gave the Times two letters from that period: one in which Bremer told Bush what he was doing; and a reply in which Bush patted Bremer on the back for doing a good job. The former envoy also wrote a Times op-ed piece in which he claimed that a) he was only following orders from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; b) top officials and officers in the Pentagon and the White House had approved the move; c) disbanding the Iraqi army was a good idea; and d) there was really no Iraqi army left to disband anyway.

"It is a stunning fact that--despite the massive library of in-depth books, tell-all memoirs, and investigative articles about every tactical decision regarding this war--we do not yet know who made this key strategic decision.

"Bremer is right about one thing: It wasn't him. Though he wouldn't be so self-demeaning as to admit it, he was a mere errand boy on this point."

The Dems, of course, are coming under growing pressure from the left, which National Review's Byron York dissects:

"With its full-page 'General Betray Us?' ad in the New York Times, MoveOn.org has once again put itself at the forefront of the antiwar movement. And if past patterns are any guide, a number of Democrats are embarrassed, and even angered, by MoveOn's actions but are afraid to reveal the true extent of their feelings. MoveOn simply has too much fundraising clout -- and a fear-inducing inclination to attack Democrats who stray from the MoveOn line -- for many in the party to take it on . . .

"The thing that should trouble party leaders is not that MoveOn is capable of silly stunts. It's not even that MoveOn is capable of making slanderous comments about U.S. military officials. And it's not that MoveOn is against the war in Iraq, which polls show many Americans believe was a mistake. Rather, MoveOn's latest campaign is a continuation of a drive to oppose not just the action in Iraq, but the war on terror in general, and, in a larger sense, America's use of military power in its own defense."

Citing top MoveOn official Eli Pariser, York says: "Not long after the 2004 elections, Pariser famously said of Democrats, 'Now it's our party. We bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.' The next few days could be crucial in determining whether he was right or not."

But should the opposition be limited to a "movement"? At American Prospect, Courtney Martin tackles this question:

"How do you measure a public's responsibility to end war?

"I sat drinking beers among family friends on a recent Sunday evening, discussing just this topic with a group of people hailing from both coasts and many places in between, spanning political persuasions from loyal Republican to anarchist, and at all stages of life, from a recent widow to a puppy in love. We were boomers and echoes of the boom, the moneyed and the starving artists. And we were all totally stumped as to what our responsibilities as citizens were in a war, that -- regardless of party affiliation or tax bracket -- we all agreed was a colossal failure.

"Why haven't we been more outraged? And if we have, why hasn't it manifested in desperate action?"

On the campaign front, I notice that Fred Thompson is having trouble making the sale to his natural allies on the right. David Frum pronounces Fred's bid "sort of empty. Fred Thompson's candidacy invites comparisons to Ronald Reagan's. Both actors, both older men, both easy and natural presences. But Reagan had a clear vision of what he wanted to do as president. If Thompson has it, he is not sharing it.