Does this mean we stop supporting the troops?

With a new poll out showing that just a third of active-duty troops support Bush's handling of Iraq, that question would seem to put the right-wing punditocracy into something of a quandary. Liberals have had a tough time over the last couple of years claiming that it's possible to support the troops but oppose the war, and now it appears that you can only support the troops if you oppose the war.

One thing's for sure-- we can still count on the steely-eyed, firm-jawed dithering of Fearless Leader.

By mid-September, Mr. Bush was disappointed with the results in Iraq and signed off on a complete review of Iraq strategy — a review centered in Washington, not in Baghdad. Whatever form the new strategy takes, it seems almost certain to include a “surge” in forces, something that General Casey insisted earlier this year he did not need and which might even be counterproductive.

That's three and a half months with no decision from the Decider-- and a whole lot of corpses. But in a situation this violent and chaotic, it's tough to know which option leaves you with the best chance of looking good (or at least not retarded) in history books.

One other thing-- was I the only person who thought of Colin Powell when it was made public that Gerald Ford opposed the invasion of Iraq? It probably wouldn't have made any difference to Sonny Boy, but since when is discretion the better part of valor when the alternative is thousands dead, hundreds of billions squandered, and America's standing in the world shot to hell?