You have to understand how desperate Bush & Co. are to keep this war going. If they can't sell it on "spreading democracy" or "honoring the sacrifice," or whatever, they'll keep it going because we have a new enemy to battle. It's easy to forget that the war isn't just the war, the fighting, the us-against-them. It's also a huge amount of money being spent every week, most of which is going into the American economy. When we pull out our troops, when those supplemental spending allotments dry up, there are going to be lost jobs, foreclosed homes and a sober recognition that this country has a hell of a bill to pay. Bush doesn't want that, on top of all the other ways he's crapped on his own legacy, to come up on his watch. Let the next president deal with the economic repercussions of the borrow-and-spend war Bush started. In light of that, Bush & Co. are going to do EVERYTHING they can to keep this conflict going.

I assumed the same, that they were taking NON-VIOLENT criminals. But according to Tim, that's not always the case. I do worry about burglars in the army. Hopefully we won't have another pair of thugs like Bush/Cheney in the White House for a long time, but just in case I'd prefer that our armed forces be of the highest quality, full of young men and women who are full signatories to the American social contract.

Nothing in the LA Times, the NY Times or the WaPo (at least nothing you don't have to do a site search to find) about Pace's repudiation of the Bush/Cheney line re Iran's involvement at the "highest levels" of government. Pace is no doubt being re-educated at some undisclosed location and will soon hit the mics to say that he had incomplete information, that in fact the Iranian gov't is involved.

It looks like Gen. Peter Pace couldn't be "re-educated" into parroting the administration's line of bullshit, so they backed off of their "certainty" that the "head leaders" of Iran were giving orders to kill Americans. Maybe Pace remembered another Gen., a former head of the JCoS named Colin Powell who now lives in quiet ignominy for not speaking what he knew to be the truth.

While Bush spouts his commitment to "protecting our troops in harm's way," by going after Iranians who may or may not be actors in this conflict, his surge is sending troops to Iraq without up-to-date armor that would protect them against the very munitions he claims the Iranians are supplying.

There has got to be an impeachable crime in here somewhere. There just has got to be!

Anyone who describes him/herself as having "burst on the scene," as a writer has been drinking his/her own Kool-Aid for too long. We've been spared Anne Lamott's self-love for some time now; must we launch into a Camille Paglia self-love-fest?

With all respect, you don't know what will happen if we pull out of Iraq, nor does anyone else. There is every bit as much reason to believe (and I mean "believe" because it is an article of faith and nothing more) that as soon as we're gone the various factions will look at one another through the smoke and rubble and say, "We'd better knock it off before we completely annihilate each other." Or that Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia et al. will exert their authority and put a stop to the fighting. I'm not saying this or that's going to happen, but either scenario is just as likely as the one you describe.

Anyone who claims to know the outcome of a U.S. withdrawal, please lend me your crystal ball so I can take it to the race track!

As for Dr. P, I agree with another poster than Salon ink would be better spent on a thoughtful, articulate, intellectual conservative point of view, expressed here in the spirit of cordial debate.

Bush, Rumsfeld, et al. were not talking about all this unpredictability of warfare stuff before they called for the invasion. We were not told the plans would likely change as the situation on the ground changed. They were solidly in the business of telling us exactly how it was going to go, how it was going to turn out, and when.

Don't you get it, Tony? That's what has everyone so pissed off.

This is exactly what Rove's pupils are brilliant at: choosing the vocabulary, setting the terms of the debate. And who can blame them, it's a great tactic. But it never would have worked, from day one, if they hadn't had a lazy, uncritical and careless mainstream media machine to parrot their words, regurgitate their press releases, treat their straw men and diversions as front page news, take a big fat pass on the hard work of seeking out and publishing the truth. For my money, there's our weakness as a nation; had the press done its job, the scam wouldn't have worked.