Bret Stephens wonders on the debut episode of the “Journal Editorial Report” on its new home at Fox News:

Gigot: Also, he seemed to be trying to influence our public opinion, too, by saying, look, you are on the run in Iraq. You are hurting Afghanistan. Pull out. And appealing to opinion polls in the United States.
Henninger: He cited our opinion polls three times.
Gigot: But I think he’s paying too much attention to al Jazeera, and Reuters, and other news outlets which want to paint a negative impression of how the war in Iraq is going, because in fact the American people don’t want to pull out of Iraq.
Strassel: No, he’s fundamentally misjudged. I mean, this clearly was an effort, a hope, that by offering a truce he could goad those who are not for the war in this country to sort of come out, or people who have been sort–expressed a lot of misgivings about the war, to come out and say, look, we should pull out. But you know the Democrats are not taking that bait. And this is just part of the line of him constantly misjudging the American will to do these things.
Stephens: No, but it’s really interesting. I mean, you really have to read the text of the tape, what he says. He talks about the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. He says Bush doesn’t have a plan for victory in Iraq. He said, Iraq has restored our–meaning al Qaeda–al Qaeda’s energies. He says the war has wasted billions of dollars. He talks about that ridiculous show aboard the aircraft carrier, referring to Bush’s speech. I mean, minus the terror threat, this is a Maureen Dowd column.
[laughter]
I mean, it tells you something about what he’s attempting to do. As you said, he is attempting to validate the critiques of the war.

In case you missed it, last week the left-wing blogosphere got intensely riled up last week when Chris Matthews pointed out a few similarities between Osama’s rhetoric and Michael Moore’s. I love that people keep making the comparison. It holds up no matter how many Democrats demand an apology from anyone insensitive enough to put the arguments side by side and infer the obvious.