Public Skeptical Of WH Report's Truthiness

More data, this time from the WaPo's polling unit, on public reaction to the WH Gillespie-led bullshit offensive:

From the start of the Bush plan, the White House communications office had been blitzing an e-mail list of as many as 5,000 journalists, lawmakers, lobbyists, conservative bloggers, military groups and others with talking points or rebuttals of criticism. Between Jan. 10 and last week, the office put out 94 such documents in various categories -- "Myths/Facts" or "Setting the Record Straight" to take issue with negative news articles, and "In Case You Missed It" to distribute positive articles or speeches.

Gillespie arranged several presidential speeches to make strategic arguments, such as comparing Iraq to Vietnam or warning of Iranian interference. When critics assailed Bush for overstating ties between al-Qaeda and the group called al-Qaeda in Iraq, Gillespie organized a Bush speech to make his case.

"The whole idea is to take these things on before they become conventional wisdom," said White House communications director Kevin Sullivan. "We have a very short window."

Despite the desperate maneuvering (and it is desperate... internal dissent is growing), public attitudes are pretty set. Except for a 5-6 point swing in wavering Rpublicans that moves some poll answers from appalling to merely dismal, the vast majority of the public thinks the war was a mistake and wants troops withdrawn.

Most Americans think this week's report from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus will exaggerate progress in Iraq, and few expect it to result in a major shift in President Bush's policy. But despite skepticism about the Petraeus testimony and majority support for a U.S. troop reduction in Iraq, there has also been a slight increase in the number who see the situation there as improving.

The findings, from a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, underscore the depth of public antipathy toward the Iraq war, the doubts about the administration's policies and the limited confidence in the Iraqi government to meet its commitments to restore civil order.

A 'slight increase' is just that. For example:

10. As you may know Bush has sent approximately 28 thousand additional U.S. military forces to try to restore civil order in parts of Iraq. Do you think this increase in U.S. forces has made the situation in Iraq better, worse, or hasn't made much difference?

14. Do you support or oppose legislation that would set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq by next spring?

Bush's job approval rating overall remains mired at 33 (no change), and his approval on handling Iraq is at 34 (up 3). That's what 'slight' really means.

This joins the CNN poll (Majority mistrustful of upcoming Iraq report) in suggesting that "the depth of public antipathy toward the Iraq war, the doubts about the administration's policies and the limited confidence in the Iraqi government to meet its commitments to restore civil order" continue, not just on the blogs but in the public and within the Administration. Washington blowhards like David Brooks may try to paint the blogs as lefty fringe, but the numbers don't lie. We represent the mainstream here, and polls confirm it.

Republican refusals on cooperation in planning a change in Iraq policy ("stay the course" is a failed policy) are built on sand. Democrats maintain an 11 point lead in the poll on who is trusted to do a better job in Iraq, and Iraq remains the major issue on people's minds in the poll. And let's review the basic question:

Do you think the number of U.S. military forces in Iraq should be (increased), (decreased), or kept about the same?

The only question is do Republicans figure it out now, or wait for 2008 when they will have plenty of time to think about it on their way to new job counseling?