XM Radio has me listening to C-SPAN in my car these days. The debate yesterday was challenging.

Fresh off a trip to Iraq, a visibly tired McCain lit into the "liberal left" for advocating retreat in Iraq and then went behind closed doors to brawl with a fellow GOP senator over the war.

In what one senator called "the most serious fight that I have seen in my time in the Senate," McCain clashed with Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, over the Arizona senator's assertion that the most dangerous threat facing U.S. troops in Iraq was Al Qaeda members.

Voinovich, who recently urged President Bush to change his war policy now, shot back that Al Qaeda "wouldn't be in Iraq" if American forces weren't there, according to people who witnessed the exchange.

Partially, thats correct. Al'Z wasn't really associated with Al'Queda until long after the insurgency was in full swing. If there had not been an insurgency, they would not be anyone in Iraq calling themselves Al'Queda. The problem is only partially with "Al'Queda in Iraq". They are a problem which seemed positioned to remove itself from the equation willingly over a year ago. The problem is with Shia militants. Shia militants are even less reasonably considered "Al'Queda" than Iraqi Sunnis. Conservatives seem to like to use the word "Al'Queda" to refer to any middle eastern militant group and its a transparent attempt to overstate the connection between 9/11 and our present problems.

It is doubtless that there will be extremely negative consequences associated with pulling out of Iraq. You cannot take years of arrogant mistakes and make them go away by withdrawing. It is certain that staying in Iraq also has negative consequences. There is no direction from here that is going to work out great. The question is whether the costs of staying in do or do not exceed the costs of pulling out.

The problem is that the voting public will never hear a straight answer on that question from anyone, just as they have not heard a straight answer from anyone about anything related to this war.

The conservative base is interested in a hard line because they like them some killn'. Their candidates are going to have to insist on taking a hard line regardless of how reasonable it is, and so the conservatives are going to insist that staying in Iraq is a good idea long after it is completely obvious that leaving would cost less, both because it speaks to their base, and because its a perspective that avoids admitting that they were wrong before. Some day the United States will pull out of Iraq, and for the rest of time there will always be some conservatives who think it was a bad idea regardless of what the circumstances are.

The liberal politicians believe that they were elected to get the US out of Iraq. This is only partially true. They were really elected because of the federal mismanagement of the immediate aftermath of Katrina. However, the mainstream press will not talk about New Orleans at all no matter what, because they are afraid that any further public criticism of whatever the hell is being done down there will spark widespread rioting. So Iraq is all you have left. So thats what the political dialog is about. Its all about Iraq.

Democrats cannot take the same position as the Republicans. Obviously they are at least there to put some pressure on the Republicans, and they are at least doing that, but they are doing it by insisting that the costs of being there are too high, and they are going to insist that the costs are too high regardless of whether or not that is true.

So all you and I are going to get is hyperbole. Hyperbole from Republicans who will insist that everyone who ever looked at a mosque and owns a firearm is associated with Al'Queda and they are going to enslave the entire middle east and blow up the entire midwest if one single soldier is withdrawn from Iraq. Hyperbole from Democrats who will insist that everything in Iraq will be just fine if only we would leave. You're not going to get a reasonable analysis and you're not going to be able to have an opinion one way or the other unless you base it on partisan prejudices or you are basically just going with your gut.

The sad thing is that I no longer suspect we've got any smart people in a box somewhere who quietly tell the politicians what the right answers are in spite of what they have to say on television in order to get elected. If politicians actually listened to those kinds of people we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

Iraq Debate Prompts Senate Cloakroom Clash, Presidential Hopeful Defends Bush As White House Lobbies GOP Senators - CBS News