Bush has not lost support for the war in Iraq because the American people have weak resolve. Comparing him to Roosevelt or Lincoln is wrong and downright ridiculous when you compare their records before each committed our country to war. Bush has lost support because he has lost all credibility. He has been wrong on almost every evaluation of the threat and strategic decision. WMD, Al Qaeda connections, strength of the resistance, popular support for the resistance, number of troops required, de-Baathification, projected cost in lives and money, need for multilateral support, etc. The list goes on. Not only have he and his administration been totally wrong on these issues, they have refused to admit their mistakes to the point of seemingly psychotic self-delusion (some still don’t). If your financial adviser lost $20,000 of your money in a bad investment, would you give him more to make the same investment or would you at least consider not doing it or even choosing another financial adviser. The problem is Bush has zero credibility when it comes to US foreign policy as a result of his own lack of experience, obsessive commitment to neo-con ideologues, poor decision making and unwillingness to concede that he may have been wrong and getting bad advice from Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. Cutting off the funding or leaving Iraq is probably the wrong thing to do but questioning whether we should continue to follow a leader whose track record is so unsatisfactory is absolutely a rational response. Hopefully, in the next election, the American people will recognise the importance of selecting a candidate who has broad experience and a diversity of political and cultural perspectives.

My main issue with Democrats being asked "What is your plan for this Iraq situation?" I am not trying to be divisive between Republicans and Democrats because many of us on both sides feel the same way on the subject. For those like me who has been against this Iraq war from the very beginning, the answer would have to be, "If we had followed my plan, there would not be an Iraq war...because we wouldn't be there! We'd still be hunting Bin Laden!"

Now to the person who would like the people in the media to refer "Mr.Bush" to "Mr.President" when he start acting like a President maybe he will get some respect as one! The last time i checked this is still a free country & we have the right to call that "JERK" what ever we want!

I am not a fan of our President, but that aside, the fact is that he IS the Commander-in-Chief of this country, and whether he is right or wrong he is in a better position to know ALL the facts than any of us.

Take a look at history. During the Civil War President Lincoln was thought to be completely and totally inept. Yet, in spite of everything that went wrong for several years of that war, Lincoln was untimately responsible for winning the war and holding the union together. I suppose if he had listened to the critics and acted on their wishes we'd probably be able to buy slaves on the internet these days.

And yeah, Iraq may well be an unwinnable situation. And pulling out sure sounds like a quick and easy solution. Still, there are always unknowns.

What if pulling out turned out in the long run to be a bigger mistake than staying? Our attention is focused on Iraq, but few of us seem to realize that Iran is the real enemy. What if leaving gave Iran the opportunity to move into Iraq? I keep hearing that the only reason we went into Iraq was for the oil. Well, think about it--what if we leave and Iran gains possession of Iraq's oil? I know they have a fair amount of their own, but such a move would add to their resources. It would be a nice addition to the nuclear capabilities they have their sights set on, right?

And consider this: We don't want to think about it, but what Iran wants is all we infidels either dead or subdued. So let's pull out of Iraq and let them gain a bigger and better foothold in the Middle East, right? Does that really sound like a smart move?

Another point worth noting is that if war with Iran should come, it would be good for the U.S. if we had access to some real estate for a base of operations in the region, so could it be that President Bush is looking ahead and preparing for a situation which might well be even worse than the Iraq situation?

None of us are in a position to know these kinds of things. Look back at Franklin Roosevelt's presidency during the years just before WWII. He knew all the facts--things the average citizen did not know--and he knew our country would be forced to fight, yet the American people were dead set against becoming involved in a war.

This country paid a horrible high price for the freedom we enjoy today. The loss of life was overwhelming. Was it worth it? Was there any other way? Why don't most of us realize that these days (right now!) mirror the situtation our country faced in the late 1930's.

I'm sure I'll come off sounding as though the loss of so many of our soldiers in Iraq is a trivial thing, but believe me, that is not the case. Still, I would like to make one more point. Are you aware that in this country that every year we have about 45,000 people killed in automobile accidents?

Amazing! Yet, we pretty much live with it. We don't get a count on the news every evening telling us how many people died in car crashes that day. Nobody advocates that automobiles be banned.

Not so where the Iraq situation is concerned. We are made very much aware of every death in Iraq--deaths where somebody died fighting radical Islam, not just because somebody was yaking on a cell phone or something and ended up killing another individual.

So put it in perspective. At the rate we are losing lives in Iraq it would take close to FIFTY YEARS for the total number of deaths in Iraq to equal even ONE YEAR of carnage on U.S. highways!

So, I personally would not like to see us cut and run in Iraq. Our enemies are surely elated over the reaction to the President's speech. They see this country lacking the will to fight. This does not bode well for our future as it only emboldens those who would bring us down.

I say we need to support the President. He is, after all, our Cammander-in-Chief. I don't often agree with him, but I'm giving him my support on sending more troops.

the only good thing about the bush speech is that congress will pass this recommendation - one would hope that the democrat-strong congress will use a heavy hand to squash this nonsense.

how bush has avoided impeachment is beyond me - are the american people not seeing what the rest of the world sees? as a few writers have mentioned below, this war has been "justified" through lies and an agenda based upon greed and securing oil for american big business.

we are all to blame for allowing this to continue - we should be pushing our own governments to discontinue support of this war and we should be insisting that the united nations take a firm stand in not allowing the u.s. administration or the other security council members do as it pleases around the world.

what is the answer in iraq? i don't know, but it's all but certain that increasing troops in the region will only be adding fuel to the fire. come on congress, now is the time to stand up and show some guts.

President Bush has once again changed the reason for our invasion of Iraq to fit his political point of view. Failure? You have already failed President Bush as both a trustworthy President and an honorable American. Every day the number of American troops killed in Iraq grows along with your failure, your failure to change your position from hypocrit to honest. The Civil War that now plays out in Iraq is between Iraqi's, much like our Civil War between the North and South, no other countries should be involved. Al-Quida was not in Iraq until we were and once again evidence of our continuing failure is in their growth.

Mr. Williams would you please ask all your newspeople to refer to our President as President Bush not Mr. Bush. Weather anyone agrees with his political points or not he is the President of the United States and deserves that RESPECT. That is a tradition and value of this country that should never change.

One idea that I have not heard discussed was to use the Tigris River to divide the city politically. Put the Sunni on one side ...the Shi'a on the other until stability can evolve at some future time. Berlin was divided for decades and when the time was right it was reunited. Even though this may not fit Washington's concept of a democratic Iraq, it could help to reduce tensions there. I know that segragation is not a popular concept in America ,but in this case, it would be worth considering.

Yeah, Andy I do have a solution. Airplanes - Lots and lots of airplanes and all of our troops are flying home on them. Iraq is NOT WINNABLE and the President needs to cut his losses and leave the table. He is only making the situation worse, anything we do there now only encourages more and more people to join the various terrorist organizations. If that doesn't sound like a solution to you, how about this. Let's send the children and grandchildren of all these hawks like Bush, Cheney and the big-wigs at Halliburton. Let's start with the Bush twins, seems they could use a little break from their bar-hopping!

Bush may not be king now but all he has to do is declare a state of emergency and invoke Executive Order 11921. Then he'll be able to round-up all his critics and send them to the 300+ FEMA camps that are already set-up and manned. If you don't believe me look it up.

Robert Pike:

Excellent evaluation! I think you are spot on for accuracy.

If the war on Iraq was by "coalition of the willing", why is the surge in troops restricted only to The US?So have the other countries already left after seeing the "mission accomplished" banner?

The President will accomplish three objectives. First, the price of oil will rise, and this will generate more profits for oil companies. Second, the military complex will receive more funds from the federal government's spending on militarism, as more military hardware will be needed for the so called Iraqi army and for our military to counter Syria and Iran. (We may need to spend more funds for Somalia because our enemy there owns very advanced military equipment!!!). Third, more killing will be unfold in Iraq, as the President reminded the Iraqi people again that some Iraqis bombed the Imam in Samara. Combine these three goals coupled with 'Abu Ghraib' democracy, the violation of human rights, and the killing in Haditha, we shall reach the lowest point in the history of human civilization, which has been called progress and liberty. The best option is to leave Iraq; otherwise, those people will fight us for centuries to come, because Arabs do not like to be occupied, so are the Persians.

I really only have one or two things to say. First, it is a little worrisome when the leader of our country is telling his people what is unacceptable/acceptable to them, instead of listening to what they feel is unacceptable/acceptable; and second, when the leader of our country is using logical fallacies, such as scare tactics (Argumentum ad Metum) to corral the support of his people rather than logic, reason, and a valid argument to begin with.
A couple other ilogicalities that I noticed Mr. Bush use tonight (and every other time he gives a speech for that matter) include: Circular Argument, Either/Or Fallacy, Begging the Question, Slippery Slope, and of course, The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

Not exactly all that constructive for such a prominantly placed individual. Not to mention scary as all hell. Allowing Bush to run this country is like giving a gun to a child. A little two trigger happy for my liking.

Where do I go to avoid the broadcast at all costs? Divide the country like Bosnia - it's the only way at this very late point. More troops - as in 500,000 were needed right from the start to prevent sectarian violence in a country well known for such tensions. The fact that we did not raises the issue of whether we "deliberately" wanted a civil war to destabilize the entire region and PROVOKE a broader war.

The U.S. and UN should restore, within the borders of Iraq, the historical homelands of the Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurds as much as possible and give the people self governance in running their mini-country within reason. The national government will be much like the European Union - setting up rules, regulations, standards, currency and national laws as well as international relations. All three will provide for the national defense.

This is what the Kurds have been fighting for for years as well as the Shi'ites against the Hussein led Sunni minority government.

Give them what they want and maybe the fighting will stop. At least it won't increase the violence.

I find it interesting that those that disagree with the President simply call him names. The only solution offered in this blog is to withdraw. Think about the consequences of withdrawel. We went for the wrong reasons, we stayed for the wrong reasons but we have to finish the job. Bush has made mistakes at every corner but we have to move forward. Everyone has the right to free speech but I really hate speech that is not reasoned. Stop the name calling and join the rest of us to find solutions to the problems the President created.

Bush said he didn't listen to polls and has shown he doesn't.

He is also trying to use the military to solve a political problem. Until the Shi'ite and Sunni are willing to sit down and iron out the problems for themselves the fighting will not end.

Brian I listen to the speech and it had alot of the past speech language. I don't agree with the President because no one country can rebuild and change a country by themselves. We needed other countries to join in this invasion. Bush chose to go it alone and use taxpayers money to do it. Now we're all alone as other leaders say I told you so. Even the UK isn't getting involved. Bush said it takes responsibility for the mistakes well those mistakes cost the US 3000 plus dead soldiers and thousands of injuries. He lied for 4 years now he wants us to trust him. He will allow thousands of more soldiers die on this already failed invasion. PM Maliki isn't strong enough nor do the Iraq people believe in him as a leader. History has shown that when you have support of the other world leaders you can succeed as we are alone we will surly fail. The American people were right to withdraw and the President is wrong to go it alone and have thousand more soldiers die.

After hearing the address that was just presented by the president it has become clear that so many had their mind made up befor the president even spoke. So many have forgotten the results of dodo politics that resulted in the losse of life in the millions in our history. Whene Are we going to learn that political correctness will not stop those intent on destroying american lives.

What I don't understand and would like a clarification of is at what point is the 'War' officially over. Saddam Hussein is dead and his military destroyed. There are no weapons of mass destruction. Bush even announced "mission accomplished". Congress never declared war on the insurgents. What legal and/or Presidential rights does Bush have to continue this war??? Why can't Congress take away his war powers with the argument that the war is now over???

Anyone have a better idea?

I believe there are oil contract to be finalized by the end of March and this is just a scramble to keep the public from getting us out before they are signed. It's just a shame, a real shame...dan

Is it just me, or is this utterly ridiculous. Pretty much EVERYONE out there, regardless of party affiliation is saying this situation is a mess and we need to pull out. The only real wrangling is over how soon we should pull out. And what does Bush do? He INCREASES the number of troops over there!! What the-?! In my rudimentary understanding of the founding of this country, one of the reasons we have a President instead of a King is because we wanted someone who was ACCOUNTABLE to the will of the people. What is going on?!

He was acting like a king before and he's acting like a king now (forgetting that this IS a REPUBLIC) - how many $$$ and how many lives do we need to expend before King 'Dub-derhead is dethroned?

It was about OIL, not IRAQ in the first place and it remains about OIL NOW - FIRST-LAST-ALWAYS