When you ask these guys about a plan for withdrawal, it's not a matter that, "Okay, some day we're going to have to get out of there, so what are you thinking?" It's not about a DoD that's "covered all bases and contingencies." It comes down to a very controversial view of the context of withdrawal. If Bush/Cheney's wet dreams come true, our withdrawal will be something like guests leaving a successful dinner party, all cheery farewells and thank-yous. If the outcome the rest of us fear comes to pass, it will be chaotic, bloody, disorganized and tragic. So, when Clinton asks for a plan, given her take on the war, she's really asking, "Have you made provisions for a full-on retreat under fire?" How can they answer this question? If they answer that no particular provisions are necessary because by the time we leave Iraq will be pacified and living under an orderly democracy, they invite the ridicule of the world. If they reveal that they have plans for a panicky airlift, they admit the possibility that things might not go as they hope. If they say they have no plan at all, we're back to the ridicule thing. So, you see, it's a lot more than the gender of the questioner, it's the question itself that is a dreadful tar baby for Gates and his DoD.

I swear to God, this shit is going to give me an ulcer!!

A fish rots from the head down, and even the maggots won't touch this one.

This is the problem I've always had with the "talking cure" of psychiatry/psychology. Make no mistake; a little of it, in the middle of a crisis, can be a good thing. But endless weeks and years of focusing on one's problems produces, in my experience, a person who is overly focused on his/her problems and not necessarily in a constructive way, who is more neurotic and not less.

W just kept firing generals until he found one who'd drink the kool-aid. When robots like Newt G. or Tony S. or whoever say, "We're not going to let politicians run the war, we're going to let our commanders on the ground run the war," I want to hear someone remind the 'bots that Bush is a politician, not a war hero -- and that there have been many commanders on the ground whose advice was not taken.

Hooray!

But, other than the obvious (Lieberman), who are the Dems who must've voted with the Reps to keep the ayes down to 52 (with four Reps on that side)? Those are the ones we should take out and string up.

Aren't you thinking of "Fatherland?" That's the one the Nazis used. Anyway, if a "report" this vague and meaningless were offered up in the business world (except perhaps by a stock analyst), someone would be fired, pronto. Ridiculous!

So glad this is becoming part of the conversation. I remember the first time I was flying across country and saw another jet pass just below us (1000 feet seems like a lot until you see a plane zoom under you that close). It was pouring out black smoke like a garbage truck. I had always seen jets from the ground, where all that's visible is that pristine vapor trail, but let me tell you if you haven't seen it already-- up close, it's pure diesel smoke.

George Bush weeps with the families of the dead at WR Hospital? In what universe?? Not this one.

Okay, finally someone besides myself has mentioned the possibility that the plug on the internet can be pulled at any time. Is this true, technologically? I wish someone in the know would either allay my fears or confirm that a sufficiently small number of actors could in fact turn off the web that it becomes a real possibility. Because if so, I guarantee that it will happen someday, if not sooner.

I don't understand this surprise at the way much of the media revels in little gotchas like Edwards' hair, etc. In today's hyper-competitive environment, the media are no longer selling news, they're selling entertainment. Entertainment for the masses, like a good sitcom (and there have been a few), relies on little jokey catch-phrases being repeated over an over to an audience that feels in-the-know, on the inside of the humor process, by dint of the repetition. So, every time you mention John Edwards, you give a little wink and a nudge at your audience as you find a clever way to refer, directly or even better, indirectly, to his $400 haircut. This is how entertainment works. It's the only way to make money on the scale that large corporate media needs to make money, and others who want to get on the bandwagon emulate the formula. So, surprise, surprise. "News" is trivialized accordingly. You can rail against it all day long, it isn't going to change until A) there's a mass die-off in the media's sheep-like audience, or B) the sheep wake up and realize they're being infantilized and exploited. Anyone want to hold their breath waiting for that?

He's intelligent and articulate, as right-wing pundits go, but when he talks about Bush as he did today, he sounds like a schoolgirl with a crush. What's going on there??