Why is no one pointing out the most obvious flaw with the McCain argument? I have yet to see anyone in the press attack the basic premise, which is fundamentally flawed.

The military's job is not to form U.S. policy, but to execute the policy that the President forms. The military commanders need to be consulted on how to get out (or what to do if you stay in), but not on whether to get out. It is not their job to decide if the war is worth the effort and sacrifice.

I cannot believe that McCain is getting a pass on such a fundamentally flawed view of the job of the Commander in Chief. Whether we should stay in Iraq IS a political decision, not a military one. Rumsfeld's problem was not that he refused to see the failure, it is that once the decision to invade was made, he didn't listen to the military commanders about troop strength and post-war security. Once the decision was made to invade and the objectives were established, the military's job was to advise the White House on the best way to achieve thsoe goals.

The American people are going to elect John McCain or Barack Obama to make the decisions about where and when we commit our troops. We are not going to elect Petraeus to make those decisions. His job is to ensure that the objectives that the President gives him are accomlished efficiently, with as little danger to American troops as possible.

Invading Iraq was a distastrous blunder. The invasion was backed up by lies aboout Hussein's ties to al qaeda, who killed 3000 Americans on 9/11.

Al qaeda and their Taliban allies are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They should have been dealt with 7 years ago, "good targets" or not.

Getting out of Iraq is the right thing to do, but so is crippling al qaeda.

Obama has talked about sending more troops to Afghanistan, but, as the article points out, he has also been critical of the political situation in the country. It seems a little early to be criticizing a strategy that will be fleshed out later based on the latest intelligence and military advice. Our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan right now. If a "surge" can help protect them, then who is Juan Cole to suggest that doing so would be improper.

We outsourced the Afghan War and bin Laden and pals are stronger than ever. We can't make that mistake again. We can't make the Russian mistake either, but a forceful, well-planned, comprehensive attack on the al qaeda support network is JUST what we need.

As for Obama's remarks about Pakistan, perhaps they should be slightly retooled for future use, but they are not off the mark. If Bin Laden is in downtown London and the British won't get him, we should do it ourselves. Obama's comments about going into Pakistan uninvited were predicated on having reliable, accurate information about high value al qaeda targets in that country. The Pakistan governments do need to know that if they won't help us get these targets, we WILL do it ourselves. Hopefully we will never have to, but putting the cards on the table is the right thing to do.

I think that Mr. Cole is selling Obama short in assuming that in taking a tough stance Obama will proceed recklessly, as Bush did in every aspect of his "War on Terror". I have seen nothing to indicate that President Obama would not proceed carefully and thoughtfully.

Anyone else out there old enough remember a time when reporters were vast wells of knowledge going into interviews and no politicain would dare go on live TV and lie his ass off because he KNEW that the reporter would have the facts and call him on it?

A fifteen year old with broadband, Google and a mike to Couric's ear could disprove in seconds the false claims that these people are making. These aren't little mistakes on McCain's part. They are flat out lies. When he lies like this on live TV, he should be called on it on live TV.

But Katie looks so much cuter in a skirt than Murrow or Cronkite did, and isn't that what REALLY matters.

No question about it, Sebelius is the best choice. Hilllary fans might get a little agitated at first, but that should not be the deciding factor. However, if her is going to pick her, it should be sooner rather than later, to give them more time to adjust.

This is exactly what I have been thinking about the movie. It will be good or it will be bad, but it will be ammo for the Republicans if it is released before the election. I would think that the summer of 1994 and a certain other anti-Bush film would make this clear.

If a few women are tricked into reading something substantive when going for their chick lit fix, it isn't all bad. Sure we all need escapism, but too many readers of chick lit (or Tom Clancy and Clancy-like "writers") don't read anything but chick lit (or see above).

I say we slap a Clancy cover on Bugliosi's The Prosecution of George W Bush For Murder and trick some of the semi-literate males who read Clancy novels into reading something worthwhile. Slap a chick lit cover on it, too.

Movie studios do it all the time. Remember Spiderman? The ads on shows that pull a heavy female audience focused on the upside down kiss, while the ads on male oriented shows focused on the action.