i don't think so

a new poll indicates that the public opposes bush's plan to raise troop levels in iraq by a 61-36% margin. presumably that poll was generated by asking people whether they approve or disapprove of bush's proposed increase. just three weeks ago another poll showed that if you ask the public what they want to do in iraq (without referencing the "surge" plan), only 11% of the public said they wanted an increase in american forces. no matter how you ask the question, the american public is solidly against any form of escalation.

the media pundits for the most part, seems to be just as disconnected to the public mood as the president. the chattering class has supported the iraq war from the start. although these days they do talk about the problems in iraq and administration screw-ups, they still can't accept that withdrawal is a viable option, even though that position is also supported by a "sizeable majority" of the public. and how does the political reporter for the washington post react to all this?

Washington, D.C.: I am somewhat surprised at the debate about the surge. In October, The Post's own polling showed that 19% of voters favored an immediate withdrawal. Yesterday, CNN reported that more than 50% want an immediate or by year's end withdrawal. Still, the politicians debate more or less, not sooner or later. Why won't the politicians follow the polls when it comes to leaving Iraq?

Shailagh Murray: Would you want a department store manager or orthodontist running the Pentagon? I don't think so. The reason that many politicians are squeamish about hard and fast goals of any kind in Iraq is that there is no simple response or solution -- it would have emerged by now. A withdrawal by year's end carries enormous, very serious implications.

my question for murray: would you want the same group of pundits and reporters, who pushed the war so relentlessly in 2003, running the pentagon?