[Torie]

Reports are meaningless. Bush keeps the key leaders informed in any event. Obviously, the only thing of any meaning is a timetable, and no commander in chief can agree in advance to something, which is contingent on events. A more meaningful discussion, would be what events trigger a withdrawal or drawdown. Is it progress, or a lack of progress because Iraqi troops prefer for Americans to take the tough jobs, or because it appears to be more about getting involved in a civil war, rather than terrorists, or what? But having a meaningful discussion is typically too dangerous for politicians to engage in, because it disrobes them too much.

[DoughtyOne]

I pretty much agree with your comments.

If these were consultations behind closed doors with leaders of both parties, I might be more willing to relent. We cannot get into a situation where the leftists in our nation can telegraph just how long the terrorists need to hang on.

If we do, the terrorists will plan their efforts as well as possible to destroy our ability to train and leave. We will simply lose. And when we do, it will destroy our capability to wage the War on Terrorism.

IMO, any semblance of peace in the West hinges on a viable Iraq after we have left. If Iraq crumbles, the West is in serious trouble.