I cannot for the life of me understand why the Democrats should be so timid about the prospect of being accused of defunding the troops at this point. What would happen if they simply refused to send Bush a bill without timelines in it? They could tinker with some of the other details, but stand firm on that central point. They could send him bill after bill including timelines if necessary. And every time he vetoes one or attempts to smear them for failing to support the troops they could scream to high heaven with the truth... that HE AND HE ALONE is responsible for blocking the funding that the DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS keeps passing! The public, who overwhelmingly want firm action to bring this misbegotten misadventure to an end, would applaud! What the Democrats should fear is the backlash of anger and disillusionment that they will face if they fail to do what they wwere elected to do and force a change in the administration's disastrous Iraq policy

Thye "compromise" that is being reported looks way too much like a complete capitulation, and will certainly be portrayed as such by the Republicans and their CORPORATE CONTROLLED CONSERVATIVE MEDIA. That only plays into all the stereotypes of weakness that the Democrats are constantly having to battle and will make it all the harder for them to stand up to Bush decisively in the future, on this or any other vital issue.

Glen, you have done an excellent job of expounding on the risk that the continued occupation of Iraq will lead to the wider conflict with Iran that all too many in the administration seem to be pining for. But I think you could have explicity mentioned these other things as well:

. The risk of straining our military beyond the breaking point.

. The risks of economic and social disaster involved in pouring so many billions of dollars into Iraq, resulting in ballooning the national debt to unmanageable proportions while leaving critical needs here at home going begging.

. The risk of so many more casualties, both dead and grievously injured, and the ever growing toll thaey take on us, both emotionally and ecomically.

. The risk involved in continuing to fan hatred against us, not only in the Middle East but throughout the world.

For Bush to say that it's "certain" that there was no wrongdoing in the firing of the U.S. Attorneys is quite disingenuous. That is hardly certain at all. And the reason that it is not certain is because all the investigations, hearings and questions have not led to a clear and satisfactory conclusion as to exactly who made the firing decisions and why...mainly because of the extraordinary evasdiveness and stalling by members of the administration.

I'm getting a little tired of hearing the argument that the underlying crime could never be proved so Libby shouldn't have been prosecuted for lying about it. Wasn't Libby's evasion and lying one of the things that made the underlying crime so impossible to prove? The failure of Libby's supporters (who seem to be predominantly hard core Bush supporters) to recognize and admit that he actually did something wrong is so frustrating. Apparently, to them, nothing can ever be wrong that serves Bush and/or his agenda.

If, God forbid, there should be another attack of the magnitude of 9/11 on American soil, what it would prove is how hollow and meaningless all Bush's rhetoric about keeping us safe here at home has been. The truth is that he has used the excuse of protecting us from terrorism to pursue a war that actually has much more to do with oil, ideology, profits for his big corporate sponsors and his complex relationship with his daddy, while failing to take recommended measures to improve the security of our ports, chemical plants and nuclear facilities. After all of Bush's speechmaking we are still frighteningly vulnerable. The only reason that there have been no further 9/11 type attacks up 'til now is that the terrorists evidently have decided that it is in their own best interests to keep things going as they are. As things are they have us bogged down in a seemingly endless quagmire situation, bleeding out our precious resources, both economic and human, while the hatred against us grows ever more inflamed and new recruits flow into the jihadist ranks with every passing day. That's how Bush is "protecting" us!

I have long been disturbed by the very points brought up in the article about how disproportionate our level of military spending (I won't use the term "defense" spending, since it is obvious that, despite the comforting implications, this spending is not totally geared to defensive purposes) is in relation to the countries we consider the greatest threats to us, and to the entire rest of the world. We really need to be asking ourselves some serious questions about WHY it should require a level of spending so many times greater than others in order to defend ourselves properly.

It is also worth pointing out that, in spite of this level of spending, we have long heard, and continue to hear, stories about how the troops don't have the proper body armor, or the right armor for their vehicles, and they have to depend on CARE packages from home to supply them with certain basic everyday necessities. SO EXACTLY WHERE ARE THOSE HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS GOING? I would really like to know just how much of them have wound up in the pockets of Bush and Cheney's best friends and biggest corporate sponsors.