Rumsfeld, Wolfie, and Cheney said this war was going to last a matter of months.

That is a lie. You know damn well what he was referring to when he said that. If you thought it he meant the duration of our involvement, I have a bridge to sell you.

Do we really want to have a country were the troops feelings are more important than policy?

Personally I don’t care how the troops feel about our discussion.

Now that some feel they have a majority, we start to see the true feelings. Not so concerned about the we-support-the-troops-but-not-the-war meme. Tell me, did you do any troop spitting-on last weekend?

If Bush fails to follow the orders of his own bosses, what exactly can the people, either directly or through Congress, do short of demanding his resignation or impeachment?

It seems to me, they already have. Unfortunately, not a single valid reason to do so under law. I was wondering, what do you do with the media and some elected officials, when they have launched a comprehensive campaign to tear down a President, undermine his efforts and those of our troops, and even go so far as to support the enemy, during a time of war?

Well, at least it was a productive discussion until you guys showed up. Be careful how hard and fast you run with this thing, you may just turn around to find out you are alone.

Notice that Freeman's main complaint was that they were stretched so thin. This is the direct consequence of the Presidents refusal to properly fund the war effort and has been obvious since day one of this war.

What I can not understand is that for 8 years the right complained bitterly about how Clinton was destroying the military. Yet the same people completely support the current Presidential policy of fighting a war with exactly the same military
structure he inherited from Clinton. Either the complaints about Clinton were not justified, or this President should have done something to expand the military besides calling up the reserves.

Somebody tell me what is wrong with this analysis.

The primary source of disrespect and ingratitude
of our troops is this incompetent President and the people who give him unquestioning support --
although the number of those individuals is finally contracting.

They are more connected than they were during peace time as well.

My husband was serving during the early 90's, and he didn't have access to email or other instant communication (he was in the Navy, and there wasn't a telephone system available, at least not for chit chat). I have friends whose husbands are serving in Iraq now who have more real time communication with their spouses than I ever had with my husband during his peace time service.

If Bush fails to follow the orders of his own bosses, what exactly can the people, either directly or through Congress, do short of demanding his resignation or impeachment?

Personally I don't care how the troops feel about our discussion. They report to the American people. If we do not want them to do what they are doing, their proper response is to salute and withdraw.

But the fact of the matter is that over 70% of the military agrees with the majority of Americans anyway. So worrying about the morale of a small minority of malcontents in the military does not make sense to me.

This thing has been going on four years and the military is nowhere near bringing stability to Iraq. Bush has said quite clearly that Rummy, Wolfie, and Dick are exemplary and have done great jobs. Given the fact that the civilian leadership has made no mistakes, the logic assumes that the mistakes have been made by the troops. They are responsible for seriously messing things up there. Accountability should start with them.

My problem with much of the harping, is that it encourages the terrorist. It also has the affect of creating stupid ROE that are for home political purposes and not military or foreign local political goals. Part of the blame lies with Bush for allowing it, although he has taken many political hits for what he has done. After all he does live in a political environment. .

Indeed. Of course, that cuts both ways. If we had a Churchill, FDR, or Reagan as the spokesman for the cause, it'd surely help. Then again, Tony Blair has been quite eloquent and hasn't managed to persuade much of the British public.

Our troops are not living in their vehicles or tents, they are now largely in FOBs with access to cable and network news.

Fair point on the FOBs. Our troops are much more connected now than in 1991.

Some wars are controversial and it’s a vital part of our political process that debate not be stifled.

Yes, a RESPONSIBLE political process, not acting like a blathering idiot on a street corner, and not using the war for political gain towards an upcoming election. Remember when our politicians had the skills to get their point across, while respecting their adversaries? Remember civility?

I would also point out one fundamental difference between this stage of OIF and ODS: Our troops are not living in their vehicles or tents, they are now largely in FOBs with access to cable and network news. They hear all of the stupid comments.

The media driven nature of politics has ruined the way this sort of debate should be done. Too much of the discussion is sound bites and bluster before the cameras rather than reasoned, logical discussions showing respect for others opinions even when there is disagreement. Today it's more petty and childish than it is adult and responsible.

These are hard decisions being made and people are passionate about where they stand but civil discourse is a necessity. Painting the US Capitol with graffiti is an example of lowering the bar for active participation.

Again, it's the way we talk about it as much as where we stand.