It's to the point that I would sooner believe anything I read in the National Enquirer than in the once-prestigious, now slime-soaked rags of record.

And yet you link favorably to Hugh Hewitt?

Tell you what Micky, just as an intellectual exercise, let's pretend that your post isn't simply a partisan soaked drool cup.

I downloaded the 3 pages the White House declassified from the 9 page key findings of the 35 page NIE report. I haven't read it yet, but it looks like it'd take about 5 minutes. Knowing how little has been cherry picked for public disclosure, I wouldn't be surprised whatsoever that you and Hugh would find some stuff to back your side of things.

In fact, if the thing is truely a professional document, and addressed reality, both the right and left should be able to pick out things that back their arguments. If it didn't, an agenda would be obvious. Reasonable minds can disagree.

Reasonable minds would not use the words "cut and run" or "cherry pick". The phrases themselves belie the agenda of the user. I know when I use a phrase calculated to rub a nerve, do you? Or do you just naturally think that way? It's impossible to tell the subtext.

As an intellectual exercise, do you think you could possibly be more condescending in your presentation of the very real dilemna we face.

Invading Iraq made things worse, Bush was wrong and has misled us. I'm willing to move on from that and face the reality of the future in which an increasing number of Iraqis want us out, more than half of their Parliament want us out, a slim majority of Americans want out, and our mere presence makes the situation worse -- yet the perception of the jihadist that they beat us will also make things worse, if we leave a security vacume it will make things worse.

Things are getting worse while we stay, in large part because we're staying -- yet leaving will increase the awfulness of the worseness. (It ain't poetry, but you get the drift.)

If I can accept that leaving Iraq precipitously will make things worse, can you accept that the phrase "cut and run" is a glaringly simplistic mischaracterization of the alternatives to "staying the course" offered by various Democrats?

If we take the politics out of the equasion, the realistic way to do things is to double or triple down on our bet, and go in with overwhelming force to completely secure the country. The political reality is that we can't.

We don't have the manpower without a politically unfeasible draft. We can't call on NATO for help until we fix our mess and mend the fenses we've broken since invading Iraq. The UN won't help unless the country is relatively secure. (Just take a look at the problems getting a minimal UN presence in Lebanon, or doing anything effective in Dafur.)

I'd support increasing our presence there, and if this truly was the clash of civilizations Hewitt and his ilk believe it is, they ought to act like it and call for a greater committment to the effort. They ought to call for a draft -- make the case. They ought to be willing to fund the thing too through a moritorium on tax breaks -- maybe call for a one-time tythe for the effort, a surtax on Exxon as a contribution for securing access to their oil over there.

I'd start by drafting every single Halliburton and Brown &Root contractor, and paying them the same thing GI's get for the same work. I know Dean's been trying to get a job rebuilding over there. I wonder if he'd still want to if the pay weren't at mercenary levels? (Hey, this is an intellectual excercise, not a slam fest so don't take it that way, Dean.)

For whatever reasons, we can't/won't commit any more than we have. So what else is there but a phased withdrawal? It simply makes no sense to ask any more Americans die for this unless we're fighting to win. We took Berlin in less time than we've been in Iraq, and although we stayed there another 60 years, we weren't losing our kids at the rate we are today in Iraq at any time during our occupation of Germany or Japan, not to mention an inability to keep civilians safe.

It's time for results, not rhetoric.

We've got 2700 dead Americans and nothing to show for it. We've got 20,000 wounded, brain damaged, missing limbs, even more truamatized for life, for what? This is despicable, a calous disregard for humanity, a sacrifice that has born rotten fruit.

Note this. Whatever the NIE concluded on what the situation is today and it's causes, that is based on observable facts -- our presence in Iraq today is making today's situation worse by creating more terrorists. Yet, anything it says about our withdrawal is at best an educated guess, based on the premiss that the Iraqis will be unable to step up and choose order over chaos.

It's presumtious to claim that this government, that didn't anticipate planes slamming into buildings, that didn't anticipate levees breaking, that didn't anticipate looting, that didn't anticipate an insurrection, that didn't anticipate sectarian violence, that knew WMDs were a slam dunk -- knows just how disasterous it would be if we started to redeploy our troops out of harms way.

I know it's a choice between the frying pan or the fire, but it's just plain stupid to trust the kiddies playing with matches to fix this anymore.

I didn't read Mark's long-winded post, mainly because I have a life. I got as far as "cup of drool" before I started scrolling to see whether my time could be more entertainingly spent sloughing my father-in-law's foot callouses. His feet are nice and soft now.

I realize that lawyers make their living on only presenting the facts that are good for their own client's case, and only admit to other, less convenient truths when forced by an opposing attorney of equal or greater ability, but life is not like that.

Hugh Hewitt, and everyone else who has pointed out that the leakers cherry-picked the NIE, actually cares about his own reputation. He's got a nice gig and isn't about to jeopardize it by becoming known as a purveyor of half-truths and falsehoods. This concern is not shared by the publishers of the nation's most famous newspapers because they think that they are in the club that gets to say who's popular and who has to sit at the geek's table. They can only get their asses handed to them so many times before they find out that no one's buying their fish wrap anymore.

You get the last word, Mark. Enjoy. I'm going out to clean the sidewalk with a toothbrush and baking soda. Hot dog!

Rush claims members of congress have had the full report since April.

You know, I've go another bone to pick with Mr. Mike the Rock. When you want to have credibility, you put your name on things, your full name, and do your homework. For all we know, you're just a sock puppet.

He's not, and yet we're supposed to take him seriously. He won't believe anything printed in the NY Times because he heard Hugh Hewitt say it lied, or shouldn't have printed a leak, or whatever.

But really the best part is that he says he wants to engage in an "intellectual excercise," which is the very last thing he actually does.

I think his idea of exercising his intellect is putting his fingers in his ears and humming "Closer My God To Thee."

Honestly, what a rube.

"What's your point, Ted?"

If members of congress have had it since April why are we only hearing about it now?

I will say, as I read the report, I find nothing earth shattering. I think almost anyone here could have written the report for a lot less money.

If members of congress have had it since April why are we only hearing about it now?

Because it was classified. We shouldn't be hearing about it at all.

I've often thought we should post signs at the Iraq border that say:

Jihadists, get your martyrdom here!

We just request that you stop and register with us and leave some DNA. That way, when you achieve your martyrdom, we can notify your next of kin.

Have a great Jihad!