So now it's okay to compare Iraq to Vietnam, when they think the comparison supports staying there?

There was chaos in SE Asia after we left Vietnam? That's a revision of history I haven't heard from them before.

If anything, Vietnam gives us an example as to why we SHOULD leave Iraq. After a decade of chaos while we were there, a year after we left everything stabilized. The domino theory was proven false, just like Bush's theory of mid-east chaos will be proven false. Iraq will settle into the three loosely affiliated confederations it should, with relatively little bloodshed.

When I read about this my first reaction was that it smacked of PR. Republicans calling up Tim Russert (because we know he didn't pick up the phone) to be so candid about such candor...someone wants to look serious about voter concerns without actually doing anything about those concerns.

I'm skeptical too of Bush's supposed reaction. Not much on the record that he takes well, or seriously, blunt face-to-face opposition or criticism of his war. Just sorta seems like this sort of public "bombshell" was part of a message approved by the White House.

I saw Tim Russert report this and from his tone & demeanor you'd have thought someone was going to war. All he needed was some "serious" background music to add to the drama he invoked. It's pretty sad state of affairs when congressmen talking "frankly" with the president is high drama. Of course, we all know it's just part of the spin on riding out the occupation.

While the US media stays focused on those representing a minority of Representatives, it - and Salon - have missed the parallel-tracked sales pitch that both VP Cheney and an Iraqi representative named Mowaffak al-Rubaie have been simultaneously pulling in each of our respective halls of congress/parliament.

Oddly in both cases it now appears that there is much going on below the surface that smells. In the case of Mr. al-Rubaie, foreign media [and a very few US outlets] have reported the AP wire story that Mr. al-Rubaie submitted [was forced to submit?] a petition to the leader of Iraq's parliament signed by a majority of the Iraqi parliament -144 signatures - calling for a vote to set a timetable ending the US occupation. It appears Mr al-Rubaie forgot [!!] to tell Congress this interesting fact regarding this petition, however, and NO media in the states have picked up on his dual role in pressing for longer occupation while having to submit a request toend the occupation. Moreover, it also appears [reading an Intl Herald Trib article] that there are moves afoot in Iraq to quash the vote.

I am truly tired of reading about our minority representatives' new-found strength and would love to see some investigative reporting about our countries' parallel majorities and the parallel attempt by our countries' recalcitrant leaders to quash that voice and/or sell an occupation that both majorities oppose.

What is most telling is that the part of the story that seems to be noted for its remarkableness is that Bush was spoken to bluntly. That should be a huge indicator and indictment of his him and his presidency that 6 years into it, blunt (characterized as honest and forthright) talk is considered newsworthy.

I agree with others who've commented; it feels like a PR piece -- GOP "moderates" pretending to talk tough and walk tall, in hopes of salvaging their electoral hopes in 2008, trying to confuse their constituents into thinking they're not tied to this war the way that Bush is, even though blood's on all of their hands.

No doubt when September rolls around, the Bush League will trot out more illusory progress reports, and those same GOPeons will toe the party line.

The weird thing about it, for all of the comparisons to Vietnam, is that if the Iraqi equivalent of a Tet Offensive appears, a sort of point of no return for the policy there, I can really see that being spun into a sign of progress -- like "Look, they're getting desperate! We've got'em on the ropes!" or "We can't back away now, or we'll lose credibility!" (yeah, what credibility? everybody else asks).

For all their talk, I think the war will keep going, regardless of the progress, or lack thereof. Which is why the Democrats need to take stronger stances on this. The GOP just won't do it (at least until it gets spun into "The Democrats' War").

Why should it be remarkable that other publicly elected officials -- with duties, responsibilities and powers of their own -- speak "bluntly" with this or any president? How did we ever get to this bizarre state where we defer to The President as though he were The Pope or The King?

Honestly -- you halfway expect some of these Republican members of Congress to kiss Bush's ring when they meet. (Insert your own joke here about what they actually ARE kissing.)

This latest Republican delegation that claimed to talk turkey with Bush may be the first rumbling of the final necessary revolt against our current Iraq policy -- similar to the group of senior Republicans who visited Nixon in 1974 as impeachment loomed. Sure, it's awfully early (at this late date), but MAYBE we've witnessed one of those turning points that become clear months or years later.

We leave. The VN declare victory. Cambodia collapses. Well we know how that ended. VN invades Cambodia in 1979, kicks out those butchers. Then there were a few border wars with China. Yeah other than that it was smooth sailing after we left. Oh and yeah those several hundred thousand boat people who fled VN after 1975. Well never mind it's all good.

It was a complete PR maneuver. It makes the Republicans look "in touch" with the people's wants, and it makes the President look like he's listening to advice.

and it gives GOP presidential candidates a chance to step away from Iraq.

It's up to the democrats to hang this albatross right around their neck and let them walk all the way through town square.