Gates is comming out with a book(who woulda guessed) in which he says there was no serious debate about iraq, well thats old news, anyway just one more nail in the coffin of intelligent preperation on iraq.

Aside from having the same smirk as her boss, I don't know how Perino can spout the nonsense she does and still be able to look at herself in the mirror.

mikeeg- I think you mean George Tenet, the former head of the CIA. He particularly pillaries Cheney, who comes off with all the subtlety of a pit bull. Its clear from the previews that 9/11 was used as the pretext for a decision that had been made earlier to remove Saddam Hussein. There was no debate about trying to contain him- 9/11 was obviously the catalyst that Cheney was looking for to sell the idea to the American public. Any intel that pointed to a connection with al queda and Saddam- no matter how weak or flawed was used, as well as seriously compromised info on Iraq's WMD's. We were duped, and the media went along for the ride, not feeling comfortable in asking hardball questions. The whole affair will prove to be a dishonorable smear on our nation's reputation.

Dana Perino has a degree in communications from the University of Southern Colorado which explains her inability to intellectualize the current situation in Iraq. They just don't get at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

The "defeatism" is entirely the fault of the posers in the WH that "planned" this abortion. I'm sick of neocon ideologs whining about EVERYTHING except the root cause -incompetent "leadership." Bush and Cheney (and Rice and Rumsfeld and Perle and Wolfowitz and Negroponte and Bremmer and everyone else that ever got within spitting distance of the corporate take-over Bush calls an administration) are LIARS.

Kim my bad thanks for correcting me, I will have another coffee and wake up.

Lets remember prior to invading iraq, Army chief of staff testified several hundred thousand troops would be required(he got sacked) so bush sent 150,000. bush 1 then defense secretary cheney and Schwarzkopf said why going into baghdad would be bad, 1991 speech by cheney said likely unable to maintain stability in baghdad, cause of sectarian rivalries.On Frontline interview Schwarzkpf said US would have major burden and we would be stuck "like a dinosaur in a tar pit". Yet bush and co. say "nobody could have forseen" so bush/cheney knew the problems before hand and went into a quagmire anyway. Its the bush/cheney republicans mess but democrates and America will have to clean it up.

Lee, unfortunately we can't make a guy who has never had to accept full responsibility for his actions realize that he is full of crap. Bush/Cheney are the real problem here as you have pointed out they both like to spout the mantra of the sky is falling and only we can protect you. You are 100% correct in the defeatism part, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld all sold the military and us down the river when they capped the number of soldiers for this fiasco in the beginning. If only the people that got so hot and bothered over Clinton's lie would get hot and bothered over all of the different lies and reasons as to why we are in Iraq, just maybe we could get some resolution of this fiasco. By the way people should start asking questions to their elected officials as to what kind of cost is being considered when we have to replace all of the equipment that is being expended in Iraq.

The "slam dunk" comment by Tenet was only admitted by him in the book as he reffered to Saddam Hussein as being a BAD GUY, NOT that he had weapons of mass destruction.

...and of course Tenet was the scapegoat; that is this administrations only means of defense these days...or ever, truth be told! Their M.O. is now so obvious it slaps the American people in the face daily, if not hourly. Over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.

I would really love to see Colin Powell come out with a book about what went on at the WH and the State Department during the lead up to the Iraq War. If he wrote honestly this would be the book of the decade. Tenet was hung out to dry just like every other person the WH has used to deflect criticism of itself.

May just be a coincidence, but the percentage of support for Bush's war almost perfectly matches the percentage of those who travel in packs and howl at the moon.

Robert - Powell is the only person to get near that writhing, festering ball of malfeasance incarnate with an ounce of integrity, and even though that was stolen from him (big surprise) I don't think he'll do that. I think he'll take his medicine. I marvel that it went unnoticed that the only member of the BushCo cabal with a trace of diplomatic talent was the retired general. It must hurt to be him - also the only one who wasn't a craven chicken hawk coward. After that pitiful act at the UN they stab him in the back. But I still don't think he'll write a book - soldier's code on this one, straight down the line. Imagine Obama/Powell.

General Petreaus has been in Washington the past few days. He says that the "surge" will have to be in place for a "long time" in order to amount to success. He also says that ist is important that the government of Iraq begin to come up with solutions to some of the benchmarks they themselves have set. The first one he mentioned was th oil sharing program, the second the allowing of Baathits back into the government. We would not have a Baathification issue if Paul Bremmer and the U.S. had not just kicked all the Baathists out in the first place. Interesting that he noted the oil plan first. Also, the Iraqi Parliment is due to recess for two months soon. So, effectively, while the main part of the "surge' with all the troops begins in June, the government will be in recess.Our presence increases, their Parliament recesses.I think it is going to be a very difficult summer for all involved.

"Tenet: No 'serious debate' on Iraq war" -- How is this not the top headline on msnbc.com and every other news Web site out there? You journalists are lazy and need to understand what the true value of news is. It's about more than the politicans' press releases you essentially run unedited. It's about more than the unedited press conferences you show on TV, with the only questions usually being stupid questions. It's about more than what the bloggers are saying. It's about What's Happening To Our Country.

How about this for kick in the rump. News Flash suspected militants (170?) rounded up in Saudi Arabia and also big weapons cache found in Saudi Arabi. Guess who's in bed with the Saudi's? I'll give you 3 guesses all of which are gone - the BUSH FAMILY. How about that and Dubya claims Iraq is the center of the war on terror. Correct me if I am wrong but the majority of the hijackes on Sept 11, 2001 were from Saudi Arabia.

Excellent question Patrick. Perhaps the media have indeed been the last to catch on. What drives stories is sales and what sells is All Anna Nicole All the Time. They are right about that, of course. The harsh reality of the coup d'etat in Washington is more than most can bear to know. The sad fact is that news is now entertainment and entertainment is news. In a piece in today's LA Times titled "Media as Lapdog," Greg Palast (an investigative reporter who had to move to London to get his stories published because his work doesn't fit into a sexy sound-bite) notes that British newspapers and the BBC showcased his investigation of a successful Rove-inspired scheme to suppress African-American votes in Florida in 2000 by illegal, racist, chicanery. Rove's henchmen gloated in public that no American news source picked it up, though it broke world-wide just weeks in advance of the November 2004 election. In his words, no American journalist contacted him, although headlines blared the story around the globe, "(not) because the story was false... (rather because) it was complicated and murky and it required a lot of time and reporting to get to the bottom of it." We have family in Europe who cannot believe what passes for "news" in our "mainstream media." One relative remarked the last time she was here, "We wonder why America has gone mad. Watching your news programs here explains a lot."

If All Else Fails, Blame the Democrats Posted on Apr 27, 2007 Truthdig.com By E.J. Dionne WASHINGTON—President Bush and Vice President Cheney cannot make the case that their Iraq policies have succeeded, so they are doing one thing they do very well: taking a serious argument over the future of American foreign policy and turning it into a petty partisan squabble. This is not really an argument over the “surge” of troops into Iraq. It is a fight over whether we will make an open-ended commitment to keep combat forces in Iraq for many years, or whether we anticipate pulling most of them out within a year or two. Even if the surge succeeds in a narrow sense—by reducing the number of Iraqis killed in sectarian violence in Baghdad—there is no guarantee that the overall situation in Iraq will be any better, no guarantee that Iraqi leaders will take the political steps necessary to end the internecine killing and create a stable government, no guarantee that we will make progress against al-Qaeda. Although he conveniently appeared in Washington as Congress was voting on war appropriations, Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, did not play politics Wednesday in assessing the situation there. He spoke, rightly, of progress in Anbar province, a Sunni stronghold, but then added: “The ability of al-Qaeda to conduct horrific, sensational attacks obviously has represented a setback and is an area in which we are focusing considerable attention.” The president’s comments this week were less measured. “I will strongly reject an artificial timetable withdrawal,” Bush said, “and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job.” Let’s parse that statement. The notion that Congress has an “artificial timetable” suggests there must be such a thing as a “natural timetable.” But what would that be? Presumably, the president would reply: When we achieve victory. But what is the definition of “victory” in the murky mess we’re in? The administration offers only generalities that lead us nowhere. And it’s beyond chutzpah for a politician who has lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. for more than 2,280 days to attack “Washington politicians.” Didn’t Gen. Petraeus get his orders to pursue the surge from a certain Washington politician otherwise known as the commander in chief? Or take Vice President Cheney’s statement on Tuesday: “Some Democratic leaders seem to believe that blind opposition to the new strategy in Iraq is good politics.” Cheney assumes that opposition to the administration’s policies must be “blind,” rather than a considered, rational response to four years of failure. And the opposition must be rooted in “politics” and not in principle, presumably because reasonable people cannot possibly have good cause for disagreeing with the administration. What Bush and Cheney are doing is not just wrong. It’s dangerous. If they were interested in success in Iraq, they would have turned down the partisan rhetoric long ago. A substantial majority now opposes their policies. The last thing the administration needs is more polarization, which clearly has not worked in their favor. The president needs to persuade Americans that a decent result in Iraq is still possible. Above all, he needs to answer the essential question: If we shouldn’t have timetables now, how long does he think we’ll need to keep combat forces in Iraq? Two years? Five years? More? And to what end? With the president set to veto the supplemental spending bill that includes calls for withdrawal, the whole burden of proof in this debate should change. The burden should no longer be on those who say we are reaching the limits of what military force can achieve in Iraq—partly because we never sent enough troops in the first place, and also because our military is stretched to the breaking point, limiting how many forces the Washington politician in the White House can now offer Gen. Petraeus. Instead, the burden of proof should be on those who have offered years of bravado and false optimism. Why are Americans supposed to believe Bush’s current claims? Why shouldn’t Congress continue to pressure the president to bring our combat troops home on a reasonable schedule? And why doesn’t the president start talking seriously to Congress instead of just shouting at Democrats? Pretending he is in the middle of an electoral campaign will do nothing for Bush if what he wants is to rally the country behind a sensible way forward in Iraq. Petulance isn’t working, and before long, many Republicans who have stuck with the president so far will run out of patience. E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is postchat(at symbol)aol.com.

Patrick in Minneapolis I agree with you. Journalism is no longer an honorable profession. However, the populace only knows what gets reported to them--spins and all. Money and power control the media as well as the government.

Right on Terry! It's a sorry state of affairs when our govt. doesn't even give the appearance of trying to hold the Saudis responsible in any way for its citizens participation on 9/11. Add to that the fact that the Saudis stymied previous efforts by the U.S. to apprehend other terrorists (1995 bombings in Riyadh, SA, the 1996 Khobi towers bombing, and the 1998 embassy attacks in Africa) you wonder what do they have to hide? And if SA is trying to hide those perpetrating these attacks, or obstructing our efforts to bring them to justice, aren't they terrorist sympathizers?

Each time the media reports that King George will continue having his way and be allowed to play with our country and our future like an overgrown spoiled little tyrant, it makes me wonder about the gullibility of US Citizens. My first question: is King George saying anything now he has not been saying for the past 5 years? i.e. everything is going good in Iraq – “TRUST ME”. My second question: are King George’s minions saying anything now that they have not been saying for the past 5 years? i.e. everything is looking good in Iraq, give us another 5 or 10 years and 5 or 6 more trillion dollars and we will win this war. My goodness we have only killed a “few” over 3,000 of our soldiers so far and that is nothing for a war. Of course we will have to kill a “few” more in the next 5 or10 years, but want it be good to have all that oil for our big, rich oil companies? WE have told congress to quit funding the war, but we have also told congress if King George vetoes the funding bill, we should go ahead and give him the money he wants so he can continue to play. Doesn’t that make you wonder about the gullibility of US Citizens?

Dubya will never sign a Bill from Congress which puts a deadline for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. From the get-go, his intention has always been to set up a permanent US presence there. The US does not spend billions on facilities designed for permanency (i.e. military bases, & a fortress-like embassy,) if it has an intent of an eventual evacuation of those facilities. Not only has it always been the intent of the Bush Administration to remain in oil-rich Iraq for the forseeable future, but it has also been their intent to do the same with oil-rich Iran. However, because of unexpected setbacks in regard to a peaceful US occupation of Iraq, their plans regarding Iran have been temporarily stalled.

Patience, Leonard, patience: if all the pundits and predictions are correct, the enitre 2 elected branches of government will become vetoproof Democrat majorities in '08, and they can solve the Iraq debate, once and for all, without pesky Republican interference, and carry out the "will" of the people. Can't wait. P.S.: if the pundits are correct, ONE of those candidates last night will be the next President...Hear any solutions to Iraq last night?

So why didn't that coward Tenet scream his head off about this fact of "no serious Iraq debate" FOUR years ago before this mess?? He waits to say this in his book. Unbelievable!! The monsters in the White House were involved with 9/11 because it gave them free reign to destroy everything in their path: our rights, freedoms, privacy, The Constitution, Iraq, our Treasury and probably Iran next. Martial law is coming folks. Plz watch this Google video: 9/11 Press for Truth

An example of a thoughtful post which does not fit in a sound bite is David's 1:05 submission. It is worth taking a moment, reading it, reflecting on the reasonable and clear presentation of a completely articulated point of view. This is not the usual "news" fare. Our reluctance to slow down enough to read a well constructed, longer, post illustrates the reality that most of us do not have the time, nor do we take the time, to read or think in depth. Perhaps when we demand journalism with integrity that does not insult our intelligence, we may return to the greatness only a well-informed nation can merit.

Did anyone catch Bill Moyers show on PBS Wed. evening? Bill Moyers Journal / indictment of the beltway Press and the Bush administration. Great show. You can still listen on the PBS web site or read a transcript.

Each time the media reports that Bush will continue having his way and be allowed to play with our country and our future like an overgrown spoiled Child, it makes me wonder about the gullibility of US Citizens. My first question: is Bush saying anything now he has not been saying for the past 5 years? i.e. everything is going good in Iraq – “TRUST ME”. My second question: are Bush’s minions saying anything now that they have not been saying for the past 5 years? i.e. everything is looking good in Iraq, give us another 5 or 10 years and 5 or 6 more trillion dollars and we will win this war. My goodness we have only killed a “few” over 3,000 of our soldiers so far and that is nothing for a war. Of course we will have to kill a “few” more in the next 5 or 10 years, but want it be good to have all that oil for our oil companies? WE have told congress to quit funding the war, but we have also told congress if Bush vetoes the funding bill, we should go ahead and give him the money he wants so he can continue to play. Doesn’t that make you wonder about the gullibility of US Citizens?

Why didn't Tenet go out of the WH screaming the lack of facts in this manufactured war? This one is easy; he writes a book and makes his own money out of this disgrace. And the President's Men continue to financially benefit from it.

"All The President's Men"-novel-Woodward/Bernstein

News Hole is reporting that the Iraqi parliament has decided to take the entire summer off. Talk about standing up!

I don't care how they do it whether it be in our on court system or the world court, someone has got to be held accountable for all the lies, false intelligence, 100's of thousands DEAD, invasion and destruction of a foreign country, and the money wasted. We have got to restructure or government so this will NEVER happen again but our beloved politicians promised that after Vietnam and now we are seeing exactly how good a job they did. Iraq will never be anything more than another Israel, Sunni, Shite and Kurds killing each other accept it!

Before the invasion of iraq the Army chief of staff testified before congress that several hundred thousand troops would be needed(he got canned) instead bush sent 150,000 troops. After 1st gulf war pres. Bush and Defense Sec. dick cheney and Gen. Schwarzkopf said why invading Baghdad would be extremly bad. 1991 speech cheney told of inablilty to keep baghdad stable cause of sectarian rivalries. Schwarzkopf on news program "Frontline" said the US would bear the burden and we would be stuck "like a dinosaur in a tar pit" if we went into bahgdad. So everyone in the wh knew what would happen and invaded anyway, so bush/cheney have the burden on their shoulders about losing in iraq altho its good Americans who are dieing and paying the price.

David - Excellent post! Well worth reading! It was well written and quite true. I hope to see more from you in the future.

Well, if the republicans want to call this bill a "defeatist" bill, I guess they may be right in calling it that. This bill, and the others like it, that will be sent to President Bush WILL help defeat the republicans if they don't sign on with the democrats to override the president's veto. We won't just have a democratic president in '08, weill also have a House and Senate with larger democratic majorities. The republicans better "smarten up." We are serious and we are tired of this war.

Yes, Mark Thieme, David's post was the most thougtful I've seen on the boards in a long time. Please remember, the candidates last night had less than a minute to give their reponses, hardly enough time to explain a complicated plan. Biden was the only one who came close to it. Conservative message senders complain the Dems don't have a plan to resolve the war in Iraq. I've asked this question of them before, w/o receiving a response. How woud YOU do it? I'd like to read an honest, un-vitriolic, well-thought-out response.

Iowa Mom, I watched the Moyers special and found it very enlightening. Wrong is wrong and the Washington Establishment has been almost entirely wrong on this thing from the beginning. The only people who were right when it could have saved us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars were ignored and even ridiculed.

Great article by E.J. Dionne, David. One of the best i've read lately. Too bad it won't make the front page of nbcnews.com or cnn.com (or even bbcnews.co.uk) anytime soon. Perhaps we'll all figure it out in '09. Cheers, matt

For those who took the time to read David's post of 1:05, perhaps it should be pointed out that David is apparently quoting columnist EJ Dionne here, to whom he gives proper attribution in the post. It was a great read and appreciated. Thanks David.

I remember everyone ridiculing Scott Ritter.He was a U.N. weapons inspector from the U.S. who insisted Saddam did not have WMD's. He was called a traitor and a fool.

#####IMPEACH BUSH AND CHANEY#####...END OF STORY!

"The cruel war is waging, Johnny has to fight...Tomorrow is Sunday, Monday is the day that your captain will call you and you must obey"-Cruel War-Peter Paul and Mary

The Bushites are twisting the meaning of words: "surrender" means that an army puts down its weapons and is taken captive en masse by the enemy. There's not going to be any U.S. surrender in Iraq, as in Vietnam where the US Army did not surrender to North Vietnam when that war was lost. And the war in Iraq _is_ lost. When the Republicans start yelling "who lost Iraq?" and try to pin this disaster on the Democrats, the Democrats should reply that George W. Bush is the cowboy who lost it. Because it's the absolute truth.

What? Setting a deadline for withdrawal sends the wrong message? Why? Do the enemies think that we're going to stay forever? They don't think we're going to eventually leave? But doesn't this send the wrong message to the Iraqi government. They would be inclined to think they don't have to govern and protect their own country because we're not planning on leaving? Does any of this make sense to anyone? I really want to understand.

"The Bushites are twisting the meaning of words" it's their life blood - any semblance of the truth damns BushCo for what they are.

King al Abdullah of Saudi Arabia says he will not meet with Prime Minister al Maliki. The king says that al Maliki has no control over the Iraqi government.Guess that means he no longer recognizes the al Maliki government.Guess we'll find out what that really means soon enough about future Iraq-Saudi Arabia realtionships.

How many lives have been destroyed by this conflict (I don't want to call this a war, since this is not the definition of war)? How many more lives will be destroyed so that HE can try and save HIS legacy. I don't want to be cruel about this but would he end this if HIS daughters had to go and participate in this conflict. Don't tell me HE understands the sacrificed of those who lost theri lives and the family they left behind.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):