The Endless War

"There's no longer any doubt about the master narrative of the Bush administration. Their purpose is to re-litigate the 1970s. Nixon's downfall, let alone all that followed, clearly has stuck in Cheney's craw. All his New American Centurions were so scarred by the fall of Saigon and the Church Committee reforms that even Morning in the Gipper's America didn't do enough to restore the imperial executive and the American imperium. So now we watch as FISA and FOIA are dismantled, checks and balances are declared Congressional overreaching, and the bully pulpit is being used like Stalin's commissars used scissors and a paste-pot to purge and doctor the historical record.

"I'm putting my money on an attempt by GOP culure warriors to expunge disco from the national memory."

Andrew Sullivan sees the president blaming the critics:

"His speech Wednesday actually managed to shock. You might think that, in wartime, a president would acknowledge what no one denies is a terribly grim decision in front of us - whether to pursue a clearly unwinnable war in order to govern a clearly ungovernable country - or withdraw and redeploy in ways that will doubtless lead to even more bloodshed. But no. There is no gray here; no awful decision for the least worst option; not acknowledgment of his own moral culpability for such a disaster. There is instead an accusation that those who reach a different judgment about the course of the war are, in fact, enemies of the troops."

The offending passage: Our troops are seeing this progress that is being made on the ground. And as they take the initiative from the enemy, they have a question: Will their elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under them just as they're gaining momentum and changing the dynamic on the ground in Iraq?

Meanwhile, this little problem surfaced:

"A stark assessment released Thursday by the nation's intelligence agencies depicts a paralyzed Iraqi government unable to take advantage of the security gains achieved by the thousands of extra American troops dispatched to the country this year," the NYT reports.

"The assessment, known as a National Intelligence Estimate, casts strong doubts on the viability of the Bush administration strategy in Iraq. It gives a dim prognosis on the likelihood that Iraqi politicians can heal deep sectarian rifts before next spring, when American military commanders have said that a crunch on available troops will require reducing the United States' presence in Iraq.

But the report also implicitly criticizes proposals offered by Democrats, including several presidential candidates, who have called for a withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq by next year and for a major shift in the American approach, from manpower-intensive counterinsurgency operations to lower-profile efforts aimed at supporting Iraqi troops and carrying out quick-strike counterterrorism raids."

At the New York Sun, Ryan Sager provides a little polling perspective after Rove's charge that Hillary has the worst negatives of any White House contender ever:

"A new Rasmussen report shows that however high Hilary Clinton's negative ratings might be, Mitt Romney's are worse.

"44% of likely voters would vote against Mr. Romney, as opposed to 43% against Mrs. Clinton. The Romney-haters include 25% of Republicans who say they would definitely vote against the former Massachusetts governor. While none of this means voters couldn't change their minds over the next year-plus, it's amazing that Mr. Romney scores so high despite his low name-ID this early in the game. Only one other Republican outdoes Mrs. Clinton on this measure: Newt Gingrich."