You are with us or against us

Those are the words used by George W. Bush shortly after 911. It's become obvious over the last few months and years it wasn't al-Queda he was talking about but anyone who questioned or opposed Bush/Cheney policy. That now includes nearly 60 percent of the American people. When they attack those who are critical of the war and point out that they deliberately misled the Congress and the American people they are attacking the majority of Americans. But since the facts are not on the administrations side attack with more false and misleading rhetoric is all they can do. But it's not working anymore and the reality is it won't work again. I discussed a post by publius at Legal Fiction:

Bush always had a strong emotional element that defied rational argument. That’s also why many Democrats like him pre-Iraq – for emotional reasons. Bush performed well after 9/11 and forged an emotional bond with the public. People liked him – and when people like you, that’s all you need. But in reality, Bush – i.e., the image of Bush-as-strong-competent-President – was always something of an illusion. To continue to support him in the face of increasingly bad consequences, you had to continue believing in the illusion forged in the aftermath of 9/11. At that time, people needed something to believe in – all of us did – and Bush filled the void for many.

But the thing about illusions is that eventually give way to reality. And once people see through them, they’re hard to re-establish. Slowly but surely, the veil of illusion is being lifted. One by one, people are coming to see the man behind the curtain for what he is. For some, Katrina was the last straw. For others, it was Miers. For me, it was Iraq.

"But the thing about illusions is that eventually give way to reality." And that's what has happened. The illusions surrounding the mis-adventure in Iraq are no exception. The Cindy Sheehan's were never going to end this war, it was always going to be the hawkish types like Rep. John P. Murtha who realized that "stay the course" was not a plan and that Iraq had indeed become a no win quagmire. The Senate resolution, while it had no real substance, was also a no confidence vote for administration policy and a realization by Senate Republicans that the country had turned against the war. As E. J. Dionne Jr. says this morning:

This will be remembered as the week when President Bush lost control over the Iraq war debate. His administration has perhaps six months to get things right. If the situation in Iraq fails to improve significantly, public pressure for withdrawal will become irresistible.

[.....]

If the administration cares more about the long-term outcome in Iraq than short-term maneuvering to punch up its polling numbers, it will pay attention to Murtha's defection and the Senate's warnings. Like it or not, Bush doesn't have much time to arrange a decent result. The administration will lose its Iraqi bet altogether if it fails to deal with this reality. The president's problem is not with partisan or dovish Democrats but with members of his own party, with dispirited hawks and with loyalists who are losing heart. They need to believe Bush has a plausible approach to the endgame. As of now, they don't.

And from pro-war hawk Andrew Sullivan who appears to be eying the reservation's open gate:

We have a crisis of confidence in the war. Read Congressman Murtha's speech. (Hat tip: Rod.) He's no MoveOn lefty. The president and vice-president are fighting back on the issue of their alleged deception before the war. As I have written here, I believe that the WMD intelligence fiasco was an honest and forgivable mistake, not a conspiracy or pre-meditated deception. The worst the administration was guilty of was occasional rhetorical excess in a very emotional period. But I do believe that the failure to prepare for the post-invasion phase, the far-too-late acknowledgment of the insurgency, the amateurism and pig-headedness of the early occupation, and the sanctioning of torture: all these required even those of us who believed in the war to call the administration on its incompetence and arrogance. What we need now is a very clear indication that our effort to train the Iraqi military is progressing, that the troops are well-equipped and cared for and that the political process isn't degenerating into sectarianism. The fact that Bush's and Cheney's recent fight-back speeches were not about these vital matters is not a sign of their regaining strength. it's a sign of their continuing and deepening vulnerability.

Of course the problem is that while Bush has lost control of the Iraq debate in the US the administration never did have control of the situation in Iraq so he can't turn it around in six months.

If we pull out of Iraq now will the it result in a bloody civil war? What do you think it is now?
Three Bombings in Iraq Kill Nearly 100

BAGHDAD, Nov. 18 -- Three separate bomb attacks in Iraq killed nearly 100 people Friday morning, among them 90 Iraqis killed when attackers strapped with explosives detonated inside two Shiite mosques north of Baghdad.

In Baghdad, suicide attackers exploded two vehicles loaded with bombs outside a Baghdad hotel housing foreign journalists early Friday, collapsing at least one neighboring apartment block and sheering off walls around sleeping families.