When a President does what he wants and leaves the american people out of the decision making process, it is a problem. This president should know that the american people are very upset with his decisions, on just about everything, from Bin Laden, Iraq, gas prices, trade deficits, Katrina, etc. His approval ratings are low and even his own party is questioning his way of thinking. I think the President should start listening to the american people (the ones who vote him in) instead of his inner circle. The President is trying to sell the need for continuing this war, when many people in this country do not trust what he is saying. When we went to war with Iraq and the President said that Saddam had WMD's and that he was an immanent threat to our security, the american people were behind him, but now that we've seen the truth and the deception that went on to get support for the war, it's hard to buy the Presidents story. The President stubbed his nose at the U.N. and the international community at the start of the war, so we had to basically go it alone (with just a few allies to back us). He cannot continue this way of thinking with the american people. The President cannot fight this war in Iraq alone, he needs the american people as an allie, but he has lost us too.

It really irritates me that people who have no military experience at all (vet, dependent, family of soldier) speak with an all-knowing authority about what should or shouldn't be done in this war. I find it appalling that these people have labeled those of us who dare question our presence in Iraq as "cut and run mentality; cowards; traitors, etc." I am a military dependent of 27 years (my dad). I have seen the effect of what war can do to the soldiers and their families; I've experienced the long months and sometimes years away that soldiers have to do. I've seen my mother struggle to keep up the appearance of "everything's just fine" when my dad was gone for 18 months. Yes, it is part of military life. We also know that there's a possibility of going to war and we really cannot choose which war to participate in or if we should go at all (unless you become an all of sudden conscientious objector). When our military goes to war it's supposed to be to defend our country and our interests. Going into Iraq was not defending our country: Iraq did not attack us. Remember all of the 911 attackers were Saudi (a light bulb should go off here people). Initially we went to Iraq on the premise of WMd. Ok, they were there before, but Sadaam had 10 years to hide them elsewhere (out of Iraq). Then the premise was switched to getting rid of Sadaam - a good thing for everyone, but then we should have set up an interim government if that's what was asked, left a peacekeeping task force and LEFT the country. Then the premise was switched to helping develop a democracy for the Iraquis who never asked us to (a) remove Sadaam in the first place and (b) develop a democracy. We (and by that I mean the government, not the people) decided that Iraq should became a democracy. I truly believe that the people of Iraq should decide that -- and I suppose the elections reflect some of that desire -- and also the Iraquis should decide if we should stay or go. Afterall, it is not our country, our possession, our anything. If it is to be a true democracy, then let her people decide if that is what they want.

As to the charges that the insurgents will start a civil war. Newsflash: The insurgents will continue their attacks on their own people whether we stay or not. That, unfortunately, is the nature of the Middle East. People have been blowing each other up for one reason or another or no reason at all for hundreds of years with no end in sight.

It is not unreasonable to ask the President and his henchmen when we can expect a pullout or even a pull back to begin. The announcement will not cause the insurgents to sit on their butts and wait us out and then attack their fellow countrymen to engage in a civil war. That's actually going on right now. The biggest civil war is in Africa right now -- thousands and thousands of Sudanese are being slaughtered and we don't blink an eyelash. No WMD or Sadaam, so we don't really care. There's nothing of value there that we want, so we don't care.

I would gladly encourage both of my sons to sign up for at least two years of military service and proudly serve their country even if it means going to war. But if they do go to war, it's for a legitimate reason, not to make their "commander-in-chief" look all-powerful because his weaknesses and liabiities far outweigh any strengths and assets he possesses. And before any of you say that what I just said is treason, I do respect the office of the president and any respect I have for Mr. Bush at all is because he holds that office, but I don't have to like the man, agree with the man or support the man. You can be against the war and support the troops because they are doing their duty. I would bet my life that if you polled them, the vast majority of them would tell you that they hate what they have to do as soldiers and they don't want to be in or agree with how we can to Iraq, but it is their duty to do so. I'd sign up for duty today, but my age precludes that.

Dear Brian, These people have been at war with each other for millenia and I don't believe we will ever 'win'. It is a pipe dream at best to think that there will be 'peace and democracy' in the middle east. If we stay, the insurgents will continue to blow themselves up taking many innocent people with them. If we leave, the same thing will happen, just no Americans involved. It may be that the only answer to the Iraq problem is to divide it much the way Yugoslavia was and give each 'tribe' their own region.

Dear Brian,
I was news editor of the weekend nightly news at NBC for twelve years. I left in 1991. This is the first time I am watching NBC Nightly News again. You are putting on a fine program and it appears that, for the first time in many years, NBC News noticed there are some people out there who are not rich.
Keep up the great work.
Best, Rich Berman

It's great that finally a member of Congress has the courage to address the war. It's unfortunate - but predictable - that the Republicans have responded in the manner they have. Well, "as above, so below". If the White House can get away with impugning those who oppose it, why not the Republican Congress? The American people deserve to know what the "plan" is for closing out our occupation of Iraq. My greatest fear is that the White House has no exit plan because none was ever intended. Rather, the couse is one of conquering the region (Iraq, Syria, Iran & ?) to ensure long-term control over oil reserves and the distribution of wealth to a few (individuals and corporations). To make public this course would be disasterous. Better to keep silent and distract the American people with more photo opportunities. It is unfortunate that Bush II did not learn from the experience of his father. The elder Bush realized - and was well counselled - that a protracted urban war in Iraq could not be won. To be successful in waging war, it helps to have some war experience to be able to discriminate. Clearly, the current Administration has none.

I have been behind our President relating to cleaning
up this mess in Iraq. Although now it is time to give
the American people a time table as to when we will
bring the majority of our serviceman home.

The insurgents will NOT stop their attacks until the US troops leave. On the other hand, if the US troops leave, the insurgents (who are mostly Sunnis) could start a civil war with the Kurds and the Shittes which could end with Iraq splitting into three separate countries. If you think this possible outcome is to be avoided at all costs, then the choice is to keep the troops in Iraq. If you don't think this possible outcome is a disaster, which I don't, then following Murtha's plan for a six month pullout seems plausible.