Taking a look at the lastest Opinion Research Corporation survey commissioned by CNN (.pdf), the results on Iraq are noticeably mixed. Close to two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the Iraq War and a 54 percent majority opposes the President's veto. More than three in five Americans back the position that House Democrats appear to be taking at this juncture -- making continued funding contingent on achieving benchmarks but not setting a firm withdrawal date.

While these numbers augur well for the Democrats as they continue to fight President Bush and his blindly loyal Republican allies in Congress to bring an end to the Iraq War, the results to one of CNN's questions on Iraq is at least somewhat troubling. When asked who is responsible for the fact that American troops have not yet received additional funds, 44 percent say the Democrats in Congress while just 34 percent say President Bush.

Now the results of this question may have been affected by the questions immediately preceding it. Specifically, the fact that the two previous questions asked whether if Republicans and the Democrats "strongly support, only moderately support, or do not support the U.S. troops currently stationed in Iraq" could have primed respondents into blaming the Democrats over the President because of the all-too-often believed contention that Republicans are more supportive of American troops than Democrats.

Nevertheless, it is important not to dismiss the results of this question off hand. Even if priming issues led to slightly skewed results, there remains the possibility that a decent chunk of the electorate is, at least at the moment, predisposed to blame the Democrats for President Bush's veto of the Iraq funding bill. Even if it is plain and clear to me and you that it was the President's move, not that of the Democrats, that delayed money going to the troops, many Americans (and probably not just Republicans, though I haven't seen the cross-tabs from the CNN survey) don't see it that way.

As such, a greater effort should be made to explain to the American people just exactly what is happening inside the Beltway because apparently they are not getting the whole story for whatever reason. The Americans United ad buy excoriating the President for his veto is a good start, but it should only be a start. If, say, the insurance industry is willing to spend $100 million or more to try to block universal healthcare coverage, would it not be worth it to at least spend a decent fraction of that amount on television ads explaining the battle on Capitol Hill and enlisting the support of Americans behind the cause of ending the war?