The thing of it is, I'm not sure there's such a big difference between a lot of those "12 month time-table" people and those who favor staying the course.  Not in substance, at least.

That is, I suspect in six months many of those people will still be saying "Let's give it another year", in another six months they'll be saying the same thing, etc.  I think it's more of a symbolic position (that is, these people don't favor an indefinate presence in the region but aren't really committed on a time table) than a popular ultimatum at this time.  But that's just my impression.

The President may not be able to get the people behind his Iraq strategy again. But does he really need to?

The administration is simply attempting to bleed off some of the passion.

They have already done this with Iran.

It will be intresting to see if the republicans will be able to regain some Momentum with the news that Rove won't be indicted and that Zarqawi is dead.  It's a little unseemly that the republicans would use someone's death for political purposes, but that's republicans for you.

They know what's coming, and they're fighting back.

This latest strategy is nothing but political smoke and mirrors. The President is not interested in getting more people to support his policy in Iraq - that is simply impossible. What he is doing is trying to divide the Democrats so that our position is so muddled and incoherent, that come this November, the Republicans will make a "devil you know" argument.

maybe I need more coffee, but shouldn't this:

Just shy of a majority of the country believes America should be getting in Iraq even after the dog and pony show put on by George W. Bush.

be this:

Just shy of a majority of the country believes America should be getting out of Iraq even after the dog and pony show put on by George W. Bush.

What the poll does not ask is just as important and telling.  The poll does not ask those who support withdrawal at a later date or sending more troops what would be the goal they hope to attain in time.  Do they want to stay to make sure the iraqis can take over security in Iraq?  Or do they want to stay until the current government is functioning properly?  Or do they want to stay just long enough to make sure that if Iraq goes to hell in a handbasket it won't spill over into neighboring countries and become a regional, low level - or high level - war?

It's great to talk about withdrawal strategies.  The problem is that today's Republican-led debate on the Iraq War shows that they are not serious about anything other than "Stay the Course." Watch on C-SPAN.

The only way to even bring up withdrawal on the floor of the House (rather than spout off on TV or in op-ed columns) is to sign the Discharge Petition for H. Res. 543 to force the House Leadership to hold a real debate on the war.  543 will work if it gets a simple majority (218 signatures), but it can only work if people all around this country call their reps and ask them to sign.

543 calls for a debate under an open rule, which means that ANY amendment can be proposed, discussed, and voted on.

Visit Open Iraq Debate to see if your Rep has signed, and how you can call them to ask them to sign 543.

When people have various options like this, I feel like it can skew the results.  If you asked, "Should the U.S. begin withdrawing troops as soon as possible or should they stay as long as Bush feels they need to finish the job" you'd probably have a lot more people wanting withdrawal.  And the bottom line is as long as Bush is commander in chief, saying a "withdrawal when needed" basically means at Bush's discretion.

Read an analysis that discusses the impact the Democratic message on Iraq may have on the midterm elections...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

You forgot to mention the fact that the earth is flat.

The press is bombarding the public with the message that now that Zarqawi is dead, the insurgency will collapse. So, of course, Bush seems vindicated. Wait a month or two until it becomes clear that the violence is not going down.