The military are not a load of "nation builders". They are a force to destroy anyone who attacks the United States. Trying to use the military like a police force is never a good idea and this article demonstrates at least one of the reasons why. In that sense, Iraq is much worse than Vietnam where we did have an enemy to fight. In Iraq, there are only the two sides of a sectarian civil war who mostly attack us only because we're there and attacking them.

It is long past time to get out. Many predict that the violence will increase. That's only an opinion, not an established fact. I personally think that it will decrease because I think the violence is exacerbated by our presence. However comma regardless of the resultant level of violence, only the Iraqi's can sort Iraq out. I have immense sympathy for the unfortunate Iraqi's upon whom we have visited this horror. I can only conclude, since I know that The Current Occupant sleeps like a baby, that he lacks any kind of conscious.

Also, as a six year Air Force veteran during Vietnam, I retain a tremendous respect for our military. I think they are the finest in the world. However, the United States is trying to use a hammer instead of a screwdriver to dislodge a screw. The military is the hammer. That is not a task for which they have been trained and, equally unfortunately, if the hammer succeeded in dislodging the screw, the structure it held would be destroyed.

Glenn, I'm surprised that you didn't take the opportunity to explain why, in your usually clear and concise terms, our current media is so barren. You suggest that there wasn't enough discussion about [fill in the blank] that was coming from the White House. In fact, there are two kinds of journalism in newspapers (and, by extension, any other news media outlet): reporting and reportage (stealing a line from Peter Cook and Dudley Moore)

Reporting occurs when an objective event is reported. Let's say a traffic accident or roadway construction or a change in the way the government calculates the inflation index. A reporter may rely on as few as one source in writing about something that falls into the category of "just the facts, ma'am" although the more witnesses the better.

Reportage occurs when the reporter tries to educate the public about something which is not strictly factual. Much of what comes out of the White House falls into this category. The subjects of reportage are complex with many facets and many potential consequences. You can't have one source for this sort of reportage. You need multiple sources to tease out the nuances and facets of the subject. Relying on one source (read the US government) means that you will only have one point of view. The reporters who make it sound as if by asking tough questions they are doing their job aren't. In fact, they are only beginning to do their job (assuming that the questions aren't just softball ones). They need other sources who know about the subject and who will bring out the nuances, facets, and disagreements. The beltway media doesn't do this. They think that having only one source or a few sources all of whom are in the government or sources who have all the same mindsets is the same as getting multiple sources and it simply isn't.

So a majority of the American public want a time table &etc to get us out of Iraq. I read in the AP wires portion of Salon that a majority of Iraqi legislators want foreign troops out of Iraq with a time table.

I read in your post that the congress has no intentions of setting such time tables.

WTFO?

when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. - Will Rodgers.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

The first amorphism says that when you find that what you're doing has deleterious consequences, you need to be doing something different. Mr. Shrub et alia specifically refused to do that earlier this year when they decided to do more of the same (which they labled 'a new strategy').

The second amorphism says that you can't apply different rules to different people. Mr. #2-in-the-axis-of-evil specifically pointed at people who wanted to do something different ominously saying that they need to be responsible for the consequences of their policies. First of all, Mr. #2-in-the-axis-of-evil probably has as much of a clue as to the consequences of a pullout of American troops as he did about the cakewalk we were supposed to have had when we invaded in the first place - which is to say nothing at all. Secondly, I don't see Mr. #2-in-the-axis-of-evil, Mr. Shrub, Mr. Perle, Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Feith et al taking responsibility for their policies. These policies have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's, the destruction of what was left of Iraq's physical infrastructure, the creation of millions of refugees, and the daily visitation of the horrors of civil war on otherwise innocent Iraqi's. Are these men living in penury after having been stripped of their wealth to pay for the consequences of their policies? No. Their idea of taking responsibility is to make you and I pay because they are spending our tax dollars for any 'reconstruction' efforts. Everyday they live in nice houses, eat good and plentiful food, and sleep on soft mattresses; simple pleasures generally denied the Iraqi's. If they had been forced to take responsibility for their actions, they'd be rotting in a damp, dark dungeon infested with rats and spiders.