I must say this really does make my day. “None of the Above” has surged into the lead in the new GOP primary poll out from AP/Ipsos. The only thing funnier is that this is even surprising. McCain’s campaign has imploded. Giuliani’s the fading pro-choice contender, which is sort of redundant. People seem to be catching on to the fact that Fred Thompson is a one-term senator and lobbyist not Reagan 2.0. And that leaves you with Mitt Romney, the avatar of transcendent phoney-baloneyism.

Okay, I’m done.

Let me echo Atrios’ point here about the hand-wringing consensus on Iraq among so many prestige pundits and return to the point I made back in June on TPMtv about the importance of decision in war leaders.

There does seem to be this pattern developing in which members of the WaPo-Bush consensus, having been heedless of caution when the wind was at their back have suddenly become devotees of prudence and the go-slow or rather no-go approach now that their favored policy has collapsed.

Physical courage isn’t the only test of war leaders. Decision is also a key virtue. In many respects it’s the key virtue for leaders since in the modern day they are seldom themselves in any physical danger. Yes, withdrawal may be a disaster. In fact, there’s little doubt it will be a disaster for some players in Iraq, probably many players. But we’re so deep into the pit at this point that our decision-making is inevitably constrained now to choosing from a range of disastrous policy courses and figuring out which is least bad. That’s life.

I think one of the reasons for the paralysis Atrios notes is that making a major strategic choice forces us to come to grips with the disaster that is already on our hands. Perpetuating the slow-motion disaster that is the status quo is necessary to sustain our denial. But there is no virtue in paralysis and ‘humility’ isn’t something that comes with a lot of credibility from those who had so little of it when they got us into this mess in the first place.

And one other point. I know there are many people who are for immediate withdrawal. No delays. Out in a matter of months. But I don’t think that’s a majority position even among those who are strongly against the war. That is because the situation is so bad and so unpredictable that it is hard to make categorical decisions before we’ve even got the practice started. Speaking only for myself but I suspect speaking for many others as well, the key is that we start the process. The key is that we make a category decision that the US occupation of Iraq is more the problem than the solution. Everybody is for leaving Iraq — as Fred Hiatt might say. But saying we’re going to have to make a decision in six months or after this or that improbable development means never.

For those who are trying to create a straw man argument between staying and leaving in a mad dash, that’s a false dichotomy: what’s necessary is that basic strategic decision — which I think almost everyone save the president and his acolytes have made. I think quite a few people who are deeply against the war realize that getting out may not be easy or quick. The issue is starting — not considering starting in six months, or a month, or after the Iraqis stop killing each other or after the Sunnis and Shia work out their differences about Ali and the family of the Prophet or anything else. All of those equal never because a clear-eyed look at the situation tells you that leaving is never going to be easy or free of bloodshed or, perhaps most importantly, free of the need to recognize that the whole thing was a terrible idea, a war built on deception and deceit at every level.

Spencer Ackerman on the curious refusal of the National Intelligence Estimate on al-Qaeda to broach the Iraq War’s contribution to al-Qaeda’s strength.

In today’s episode of TPMtv we look at President Bush’s largely successful effort to get the press to report the story in Iraq as though bin Laden’s al Qaeda is the main enemy we’re fighting in the country …

There’s a lot of news today. But don’t miss this article in the Post about the mechanics and possible consequences of withdrawal. The piece surveys a lot of interesting ground. And I’ll just try to touch on some of the highlights, if that’s the right word for it.

One point is the divergence between war gaming of a withdrawal from Iraq being done in the White House press office and in the Pentagon. The idea that Iraq will be taken over by al Qaida doesn’t even come up in the military’s thinking. Their war-gaming focuses on civil war, partition and possible intervention by neighboring states — no picnic, but not sufficiently threatening to the American public to be useful to the White House.

Another daunting point centers on the purely logistical difficulties of getting out. The situation in a destabilized country can change very quickly once the word gets out that the occupying power is pulling out. There are some harrowing examples from the Soviet pull-out from Afghanistan, particularly cases where they literally had to fight their way out of certain areas. A key issue here is that when you figure not just how many people but how much equipment the US has in Iraq you can’t just airlift everything out.

To me this is an argument not to remain in denial for so long that we literally have no choice but to get out quickly. We still have time to manage a phased withdrawal which is integrated with a political plan. Not clear whether that will be the case in a year when we will no longer be able to sustain our current deployment.

Must be pretty complicated. Sen. Stevens (R-AK) gets another extension on his senate disclosure filing.

One of our sharp-eyed TPMtv sleuths CS just caught White House Homeland Security Advisor Frances Townsend saying Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Mesapotamia (aka al Qaeda in Iraq), a group that appears to have no operational ties to bin Laden’s group are in fact “the same organization.” (For background on the distinction, see this morning’s episode of TPMtv.) We’ll bring you video soon.

Late Update: Here’s the clip:

Later Update: The Bamboozle Continues:

There’s been a lot of discussion on the blogs today about whether the Republicans can short-circuit the Democrats’ plan tonight simply by making a quorum call. We called up some experts on parliamentary procedure and senate rules in particular and they say it’s not true. Here’s our report.

A political scientist looks at the data and claims that Rudy is heading for a hard fall in the polls. That and other political news in today’s Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.

It’s amazing what people will do when they’re into politics.

One thing I know a lot of you are going to do is stay up all night watching the filibuster hijinx in the senate. We’re going to watch a lot of it here at TPM. But we’re not going to be able to watch it all. So we want you to help us find the key moments for a highlight reel we’re going to put together tomorrow morning.

So if you’re watching tonight and you see some really choice moment, jot down the time and the time zone you’re in with some very brief explanation of what the incident or statement was and then send them in to our contact email on the upper right side of the site along with the subject heading “Filibuster Video”.