Jiminy God, these people all suck. How do they have the energy to maintain these charades of reports and hearings? I know I'm exhausted just reading them about them.

Nothing changes. Except, of course, the lives of U.S. soldiers, their families and the Iraqis. But nothing changes for the 99+% of us here in the U.S.

"We need more time!" and "If things don't improve in three months time, we'll have to reassess!"

Rinse and repeat.

I've advocated a more moderate position but maybe it's time to get extreme. Or past time. Sigh.

is a she. And according to wiki, a supporter of the Church of Scientology.

Oddly enough, that "reflecting" comment makes me trust you more.

Reflecting. Even that sort of bullsh-t talking point wouldn't make it past an Ari Fleischer or a Karen Hughes. So perhaps not everything Crocker says will be mere Bush puppetry.

Reflecting. That sounds like some genuine, non-poll tested, desperate bullsh-ttery.

And that gives me hope.

The Iraqis are reflecting. Pondering. They're deep in thought...

Bush, Petraeus, ponder: Osama bin Laden wants to keep us in Iraq to damage U.S. credibility and prestige, to distract us from Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to provide an Al Qaeda haven and training ground in Iraq.

Bin Laden lying? No, says Bush: [fake quote]I have the utmost confidence in Osama bin Laden. He's doing a heckuva job.[/fake quote]

Sorry Repubs, but MoveOn's Petraeus ad was tough but fair, and the website actually includes supporting documentation for the content of the ad.

Meanwhile, are military leaders and the military architects of the war somehow immune from criticism? And I seriously doubt that Petraeus, a general who wrote the counter-insurgency manual, really needs the likes of Cornyn and Boehner shielding him from criticism.

Noting that Petraeus has said that he's recommending that the U.S. military presence in Iraq be reduced to pre-surge levels by July 2008, Lieberman just declared: "One of the things that has most surprised me over the last few days is that every member of Congress hasn't cheered when you said that."

So Congress should cheer that The Surge (a sudden and brief influx of troops) was in fact "a surge" (sudden and brief) ?

Ah, the bar is low.

it isn't really Petraeus' job to ask "will it make us safer?" His job as a military man is to accomplish the mission. And his mission is security.

But security isn't a long term plan. It's a means to an end. What's the endgame? These are really questions for Congress and the President.

Aside: I've been having trouble finding transcripts. Here are some (or click on my signature): http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

I doubt Elisabeth Bumiller will be alone in her praise of John McCain. With his "Straight Talk Express," McCain was a media darling. He fell out of favor, but the press loves a good "comeback kid" story. His performance at the most recent Republican debate (watched by no one) gave them all the incentive they needed. Look for more fawning over John McCain in the months to come.

These were non-hostile fatalities as opposed to hostile ones.

According to icasualties.org, of the 3,774 confirmed U.S. Iraq casualties, only 3,093 were hostile. The other 681 were non-hostile. Why, it's like those 681 didn't even die at all!

Or at the very least, they probably would have died anyway if they were at home in the States. They could have choked on a chicken bone or been struck by lightning. Or they could have died in a car accident here. Although, I've gotta say, I like my survival odds for "car accident in the U.S." a lot better than I like my survival odds for "car accident in Iraq."

You are on a roll: "unaffiliated psychotics" and "craven keyboard warriors."

Keep 'em comin' !

Ah, no other White House Press Secretary talks out of both sides of his mouth quite like Tony Snow.

We'll miss your smarmy flair. Here's hoping for at least a few great Dana Perino and Gordon Johndroe moments.

Sigh. St. John is absolutely right with “Had we taken the time to review the thoughts, beliefs and actions leading to 9/11, and act differently on the outcomes of those reviews, today would be very different.”

The thing is, anyone who asked those questions was labeled part of the “Blame America First” crowd—dissed and dismissed, labeled as treasonous.

So instead of learning from the past and understanding more about the U.S.’s relationships with the Muslim world, we have what RichEmery notes in an earlier post: no logic, no accountability and no respect for those who dare to question the status quo.

You mean the Republican 2008 presidential candidates? As compared to Democratic Diversityfest 2008?

Zing!

You're probably right, RichEmery. Which prompts the question: does Ted Olson have a conflict of interest? As Attorney General, wouldn't Olson be interpreting the Patriot Act and other 9/11-related laws? Doesn't he have a personal stake in bending the law to catch anyone at all connected to his wife's murder?

Although I'm pretty certain we're not allowed to suggest such things.

I had the same sentiment, Garry Owen: "If I were an Iraqi and Bush shook my hand...I'd be on the very next aircraft out of there and I'd change my name, shave my beard and move to Timbuktu."

And doesn't this incident demonstrate the problems with the "new approach" of "bottom-up reconciliation?" You're working with local tribal leaders and warlords. The type of people likely to be overthrown or die violently. This strikes me as a high turnover population.