In response, he proposed that the "one way to truly ensure we end this war" was to elect a Democrat as president in 2008.

That surely changes what it is being implied he said.

So he is not talking about being the minority in 2008 at all if we don't end the war.

Let me say that again:

He is not talking about being the minority in 2008 at all if we don't end the war.

He is saying that we may need to win the WH in 2008 in order to end the war.

Dean said what he did today in The Democratic Radio Address (a "fact" left out of the original post here). To put his words in total context let's read more of what he actually said:

The Democratic candidates for president all stood united and firmly committed to responsibly ending the war in Iraq. This week, they each spoke passionately against any misguided stay-the-course plan that keeps our men and women in uniform policing a civil war.

The Democratic candidates have made it clear that they will not ignore the will of the American people and our military experts.

Democrats in Congress have stood up to this President and fought hard to keep him accountable. They passed a bill that established benchmarks with consequences and set deadlines to bring our troops home.

But the President vetoed it.

The American people hired Democrats last November to ensure that we end this war. So let me be clear, we know that if we don't keep our promise, we may find ourselves the minority again.

But we have to face the reality that Republicans in Congress are standing with President Bush as he stubbornly wields his veto pen in the face of overwhelming opposition to this war from the American people.

Democrats in Congress will continue to work hard to hold the President accountable and to pressure him to responsibly end this war. We want to ensure that we refocus our military efforts on fighting terrorist networks which are resurging in Afghanistan and that our brave troops have the resources they need both on the battlefield and when they come home.

But there is one way to truly ensure we end this war.

Elect a Democratic president in 2008.

There is one way to ensure that we have a commander in chief who understands that America needs a defense policy that is tough and smart, and ensures an effective strategy to keep America safe at home and around the world.

Elect a Democratic president in 2008.

He message is clear. We will continue to fight to end this war but if unsuccessful we need to Elect a Democratic president in 2008.

The same applies to polls. GWB attacks polls simply because they don't say what he wants, but it can also be wrong to follow them just for that reason. A short while back, a single poll showed 60% willing to accept abortion as a woman's right but, in that same poll, nearly 55% were willing to say abortion is murder. You must examine the questions asked and the underlying truths to assess what people polled believe, and even then it may be equivocal.

Voicing opposition today to the Iraq war typically means believing it was wrong to start and/or wishing it never had occurred. Anyone would agree that he/she wants the troops to come home. But it is a dangerous political error to manipulate those factors to create a false impression the public would support immediately getting out, OR to believe the public would not turn on your party with a vengence when disastrous consquences occur, whether predictible or not.

Actually, the most diabolical GOP solution to the Republicans' Iraq mark of shame would be to let outraged Democrats dictate a precipitous withdrawal, and then to just let nature take its course. I hope they're not that sinister (or smart). Because the corrolary to the pottery barn rule is that if you jerk it away from someone and it comes apart, you own the broken pieces. Forever. The public knows well now the Bush problem and will support Democrats as long as they act responsibly (Kevin Drum's point the other day, I believe.)