I would like this Administration to put out a report as it was written by the people who actually did the research. I recognize that this Administration didn't invent spin (that was installed the first time George Washington put a polish on a report to Congress and has been getting a workout ever since), but this Administration has used it to a degree that negates the value of anything it has to say.

It's like the old Soviet joke about the headline for a report on a two man race between an American and Soviet Olympic runner: "Glorious Soviet Athlete Comes In Second in Race, American Comes in Next to Last". Amusing the first time you hear it, but it's really tiring to have to live the joke and it's getting people killed.

I hate to break this to you Junior, but all during my military service I knew that the military exists to achieve political ends through the threat, or application, of deadly force.

While I do not consider military on military killing to be murder per se , although in some instances it may be, it's hard to look at what we so nicely call "collateral damage", i.e. the accepted killing of innocent civilians, as any else but. Perhaps not criminally, but certainly morally.

Maybe if you'd stopped by your TANG unit a little more frequently, you'd have picked up on this. But then again, given your record on executions, maybe not. It seems that you're quite comfortable with killing to achieve political ends.

Quick, look over there - a bright, shiny object!

C'mon people, you remember the drill - this Administration creates its own reality. After all, we've always been at war with Eastasia.

Saying that they changed status from from "not met" to "partially met" is meaningless.

Pyrian asks what the difference is between a partially met and an unmet milestone, the answer is that there is no difference. If you put a milestone a mile from the starting line and only walk 5200 feet, you didn't walk a mile. But I guess that Iraq is now the foreign policy of tee ball.

I guess we can say that a partially met milestone is nothing more than an unmet goal still in the spin cycle.

If you believe like I believe, that the security of the United States and the peace of the world depend upon a democracy in the Middle East and Iraq, then you can see progress. And I'm seeing it.

This is about as close as Junior's ever come to admitting that his evaluation has an "I want it, therefore it is true" basis.

He reminds me of Peter Pan trying to get all the kids in the audience to chant "I do believe in fairies" to save Tinkerbell's life. It makes for a great show for children, but I think I prefer my military and foreign policy decisions to be a little more fact-based.

"When you hold a hearing, you tell our enemies how our system works," Turner said.

And when we cease having oversight hearings Mr. Turner, what we will have left will be a dictatorship dressed as a Republic.

Tell me Mr. Turner, why do you hate America? And in this case, I'm not at all sure that I'm being ironic.

Commander Codpiece stated that he wanted to be a "War President", do you really think he's going to give up his bright shiny toy that Uncas Dick & Rummy gave him? Fat chance! People dying you say? That's OK, it's nobody he knows.

While I certainly agree with you, and I've tried this line of argument before, it's like talking to a rock.

The usual response is that straight people don't have a right to: get married, join the military, etc either. I pointed out that this was then extending special privileges to a favored group, which was patently unfair. I was informed that "perverts have no rights" or that no one who had been in the military would advocate letting "queers" in (amazing how quickly the names come out). I offered to get my DD214, but the other party had lost interest by then.

Look, Senate Democrats need 67 votes (enough to override a presidential veto) to change Iraq. There aren't 67 Democrats in the Senate, so you do the math.

And George Bush needs 51 to keep funding his "War President" fantasies. He never seems to have trouble getting those. The Dems do have a theoretical, at least, majority and they control the schedule. Nothing gets on the floor that the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader aren't willing to see there. I would imagine that if the "emergency" funds didn't get appropriated, that would effect a change.

So, let's all stop tooting that "Poor us, we don't have a veto-proof majority" horn. The tune has gotten old.

Now why'd you want to go inserting reality into Junior's fantasy land?

Seriously, this little foreign adventure can not be maintained if we start expecting accountability and solid metrics. As I type this I am listening to Petraeus blow smoke and sunshine up Congress' ass. If he believes what he's saying, somebody needs to swipe his rose-colored glasses. If not, there's a cell at Ft. Leavenworth for him.

Political progress is just fine, thanks. It looks once again that the Dems will vote to fund George and Dick's Totally Bogus Adventure until at least the next Petraeus report, in hopes of persuading the Republicans not call them bad names, like "weak on defense". Whereupon, the can will be kicked another 6 mos. or so down the road so we can play yet another round.

Oh, you mean political progress in Iraq. What's that got to do with anything? Hell, if there was any of that, we might need to leave.