Big headline today in the Washington Post highlighting some divisi0ns within the Bush administratioin over what to do in Iraq. Wow! You'd think presidential administrations had never seen arguments before. Except they have---there are ALWAYS opposing viewpoints in the White House. Factions in the Clinton administration fought to the death over welfare reform. In the Carter White House in the late 1970s, it was Cyrus Vance vs Zbigniew Brzezinski. In the Johnson White House regarding Vietnam, it was George Ball and (eventually) Bill Moyers against the world. In George Washington's first term as president, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson fought tooth and nail with Alexander Hamilton.
Internal administration debates aren't that big of a deal. And in any case the article actually demonstrates that, now, there's a lot of unity in the administration concerning Iraq, as Ed Morrissey demonstrates very well.
Another problem with surge critics can be seen in today's NY Times front-page piece on it--the article makes a big fuss about the fact that sectarian conflict in Iraq has been slowed, but not ended. What surge supporter claimed it was?
