Maybe it's still a novelty when some Bush hack admits a bit of truth, but it shouldn't matter much.

Serious people do not still get excited when the Bush admin is, again, shown to be full of shit. Serious people wonder what we’re doing about it -- what's going to happen to our Republic.

Since the GOP is not going to save the day, I suggest Salon and War Room focus on the underbelly of the Democrats, so the base can turn that party back into a lean, people-powered machine that serves the public. After all, the Democrats are the only "small-d" democratic lever the nation has, so it damn well better be a good one in its own right. To that end, the argument that it’s "better than the GOP" should be trashed -- that's a standard that isn't at all serious.

Victory being having 100,000 or more troops in Iraq when the current administration leaves office. Whatever happens after that isn't their fault.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

The prize W wants is the "prestige" of bringing democracy to a Middle Eastern nation, and his place in history that goes along with that prestige. (In my opinion: ain't gonna happen.)

The prize Dark Dick and his cronies want: OIL. (In my opinion: they won't give up until they've got it, no matter how many dead it takes.)

If George Bush provided a neutral direction on Iraq - do what you think is best - what would you do?

Let them have their war. Only a small portion of the US populace is involved in actually fighting the war. There's no draft and taxes are lower.

The truth is the the Bush & Co know the war is lost. They are simply staging things to create the impression of some kind of progress so that when Congress pulls the plug, they can say that the Dems snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Winning that illegal enterprise is practically impossible. Why would any ranking military parson want the jobs which are now in question? Even under Hitler some Generals had the guts to speak out against agggression (viz Colonel General Ludwig Beck, Army Chief of Staff in 1938 who opposed the invasion of Checoslovakia) and rather retired than become war mongers. Afterall the US is not quite Nazi Germany (yet),even if Bush and Cheney act like it was. And the department in question is DEFENSE, so why would any intelligent person support an invasion based on lies, deceit and greed for oil? Unfotunately it took another six years before the German Army tried(and failed) to get rid of bushman of their day. Lets hope that the Bush period is over by January 2009, better yet why not impeach him and Cheney.

Go, team, go! Fight, team, fight! Win, team, win!

Yo, Lindsay(sound of creaking closet door opening), what you mean by "WIN"? Scoring more points than the opponent? Putting a 1 in the W column? Killing more of them than they kill of us?

Anytime I hear the term "WIN" in a discussion of Iraq, I know IMMEDIATELY that the speaker is a magical thinker. The only winners in Iraq are the corporations making MONEY off the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings. So, Lindsay, if you mean that we are winning because Halliburton stock has soared, then hell yes, we're winning. It's just the dead that are losing.

1) They don't care what you think.

2) The Dems who make Iraq the one the only the supreme issue will find themselves more or less in charge but with little real power to effectuate anything in 2009 given the thin margins they have. As a result there will be at least 2 full years of absolute non-governance until the Congressional elections of 2010 at which time the Dems will loose one House.

3) The US will be in Iraq until at least 2013 anyway - that's the best guess for when Iran becomes a nuclear state and drives the US out. While at the same time the US will establish full diplomatic relations with Iran.

Thats no problem because, except in Chicago the dead can't vote.

Leaving aside the fact that no one in the Administration and none of the cheerleading Republicans and "Independents" (You listening, Joe?) have operatinally defined "victory", this was pretty direct:

Graham: The question is not whether it's desirable to win, but the likelihood of winning. We all know it's desirable to win, but the likelihood.

What's up with that? Is he trying to cultivate media drools for being independent? Standing up to the President?

Can anyone tell us exactly or even generally what "winning" means in Iraq today? What, if we were to define winning, would we see in Iraq so that it could be said that we "won"? If winning is accomplishing the mission, this mission was lost long ago. Seriously, what is "winning" and who will define it?

You've sold out the sacred trust to not vainly throw away the lives of those under you.

Are you hoping that whatever piece of shiny-shiny the coke-snorting deserter pins on your hollow chest will let you sleep at night? Will the promised cushy job on some board you'll get for disposing of your spine be able to buy you enough therapy?

Bah, who am I kidding. You're a high ranking officer in the US military. If you had any integrity or morals you would have blown your brains out months ago.

I have no doubt that Mullen is your equal... a hollow would-be man trying to prove to the world how valuable and worthy he is by sacrificing others while he benefits from their hard work.

Seriously, what is "winning" and who will define it?

The answer to this question is given only to those who need to know. You, me, Iraqis, the American public, Congress, our allies and the rest of the world don't need to know, so quit asking.

Is a very very problematic short cut to failure in most large complex projects be they wars or industry.