Slime the Messenger

Hersh also spent some time last night with MSBNC's Keith Olbermann.

Hersh: "You heard the White House spokeswoman say today we're interested in a diplomatic track. Well, all [Bush] has to do is start talking to them, and then you get diplomacy. And he's not talking to them. He has no interest in talking to people he doesn't like. He doesn't want to talk to the Syrians, the Iranians, Hamas. . . . If he would talk to them, I could say to you that there was some reason we might not go to war. But the only thing you hear, from inside, is that these guys really want to do it."

As for the White House attack on his credibility? "This was light," Hersh said. "Usually they go after me personally. When I did Abu Ghraib-- stuff on Abu Ghraib -- they had a deputy assistant secretary of defense accuse me, literally, he said, of throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks -- and this is when I had photographs in print. So this is a pretty light response to say: 'How dare you commit journalism?'"

More From Podhoretz

Podhoretz, one of the patriarchs of neoconservatism, reportedly met with Bush several months ago to urge him to bomb Iran.

Now, Thinkprogress notes: "In a C-Span interview that aired this weekend, Podhoretz states his fervent belief that Bush will attack Iran before he leaves office."

Said Podhoretz: "I believe President Bush is going to order airstrikes [on Iran] before he leaves office. Because he has several times said -- at least twice to my knowledge -- that if we allow Iranians to acquire nuclear capabilities, 50 years from now, people will look back at us the way we look back at Munich and say 'how could they have let this happen?'"

Washington Wisdom Gets Set On Its Head

I've written before about the wide gulf in opinion between the Washington punditocracy and the American people when it comes to the war in Iraq. Inside the Beltway, for instance, Bush and General David Petraeus's razzle-dazzle worked its magic last month, buying Bush more time. Outside the Beltway, not so much. Similarly, inside the Beltway, the "middle road" in Iraq involves modest, non-binding limits on Bush's policy. Outside, the consensus is that it's past time Congress demanded a speedy withdrawal.

And what's the one thing that the Washington elite considers absolutely unthinkable? An act of political suicide? Tantamount to coming out against the troops? That would be cutting funding for the war. (Case in point, via the AP: Senate Democrats on Monday helped pass a defense policy bill authorizing another $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The vote was 92-3.)

But now, according to the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, it turns out that cutting funding for the war is supported not just by left-wing moonbats and foul-mouthed bloggers -- but by an overwhelming majority of the American people. That's right: 70 percent.

Rejecting the Bush Agenda -- And Then Some

Jon Cohen and Dan Balz write in The Washington Post: "Most Americans oppose fully funding President Bush's $190 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a sizable majority support an expansion of a children's health insurance bill he has promised to veto, putting Bush and many congressional Republicans on the wrong side of public opinion on upcoming foreign and domestic policy battles.

"The new Washington Post-ABC News poll also shows deep dissatisfaction with the president and with Congress. Bush's approval rating stands at 33 percent, equal to his career low in Post-ABC polls. And just 29 percent approve of the job Congress is doing. . . .

"Part of the displeasure with Congress stems from the stalemate between Democrats and the White House over Iraq policy. Most Americans do not believe Congress has gone far enough in opposing the war, with liberal Democrats especially critical of their party's failure to force the president into a significant change in policy. . . .