Thompson's Slow-Pitch Softball

The war debate kicks into high gear today, and here are the latest numbers:

"Americans trust military commanders far more than the Bush administration or Congress to bring the war in Iraq to a successful end, and while most favor a withdrawal of American troops beginning next year, they suggested they are open to doing so at a measured pace, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. . .

"Only 5 percent of Americans -- a strikingly low number for a sitting president's handling of such a dominant issue -- said they most trust the Bush administration to resolve the war, the poll found. Asked to choose between the administration, Congress and military commanders, 21 percent said they would most trust Congress and 68 percent expressed the most trust in military commanders.

"That is almost certainly why the White House has presented General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker as unbiased professionals, not Bush partisans."

Nearly two-thirds say the United States should withdraw or begin reducing forces now.

As more Petraeus leaks dribble out, Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum makes a discovery:

"BURIED LEDE ALERT . . . Fred Kaplan has a good piece in Slate about the upcoming Petraeus report and what Congress needs to ask about it. But I was more taken by an astonishing statement at the end of the piece from Stephen Biddle, a member of Petraeus's advisory panel. Here's his comment about the current plan to restore stability to Iraq via a 'bottom up' strategy of working with tribal leaders:

"Biddle also said (again, expressing his personal view) that the strategy in Iraq would require the presence of roughly 100,000 American troops for 20 years -- and that, even so, it would be a 'long-shot gamble.'

"Holy cats. This is coming from a 'key proponent' of the tribal strategy? 100,000 troops for 20 years only gets us a 'long-shot gamble' of success? What the hell do the pessimists think?"

In the last two presidential campaigns, the job of Matthew Dowd was to sell Bush as a leader. Now that he's broken with the president, here's what Dowd has to say about the war, on the Huffington Post:

"1. In the public's mind, the Iraq War was a mistake, and continuing the status quo is simply continuing on with a mistake. As a result, most Americans now view the situation in Iraq as a 'rearview' mirror issue -- meaning that the public believes it is time to focus on the process of ending our involvement and getting out quickly. They see American troops as targets in a place we aren't wanted, and they desire a plan which achieves responsible withdrawal in the quickest and safest way.

"2. The public does not see withdrawal from Iraq as a signal America doesn't support the troops. In fact, the public sees removing the troops from harm's way and having them in a place where the mission is supported, welcomed and understood as the most proper way to support our troops.

"3. The public is waiting for leaders from both political parties to stand up to the president and say enough is enough. They would like this situation resolved -- and soon -- and there is no other solution acceptable to them other than bringing the troops home. The public will support leaders who would use funding decisions as a way to encourage and push the president to resolve this situation quickly."

Well, the White House can't dismiss him as an anti-Bush partisan, right?

The NYT has the perfect lead on this stunning development:

"When is some information too much information?

"In an interview with Glamour magazine, Michelle Obama reveals that her husband, Barack, is so 'snore-y and stinky' when he wakes up in the morning that their daughters won't crawl into bed with him."

Michelle says she doesn't want to "deify" her husband. No chance of that.