Once again a lack of statesmanship has our politicians "spinning", and faking sincerity for political expediency.  Many politicians have stated if they knew in 2002 what they know now, they wouldn't have voted for the war.  Well, if the Congress knew in 1939 what they knew on December 8th, 1941, we would have been at war with Japan a whole lot earlier.  If I knew in 1985 what I know now about Microsoft, I would be extremely wealthy. These BS excuses are common throughout all professions and careers, but politicians have raised it to an art form.  Every person has to make their best guess as to what they should do based upon what they know at the time.  To say, as John Edwards has said, that his vote for the war was a mistake says more about his leadership skills than the actual vote and transparently political apology do.  If his vote was a mistake, then he must have known something others didn't and voted incorrectly.  Alternatively, he may be saying that his vote was a mistake because he was lied to, which wouldn't be a mistake but a deception.  No, what he and other politicians are doing is following the polls and altering their convictions appropriately.  Is this leadership?  If the vote was a mistake, why was it?  Is it because most people now think the war is going badly?  If 80% of the people supported the war in Iraq, which side would Edwards and the other politicians like him be on?  They would be trumpeting their vote as an example of a "profile in courage".  What we need are men and women who look at the available data, make the best decision, and stick with the decision until the correct course becomes clear as data becomes available.  Some may say that is what is happening now, and that the Democrats are moving ahead to halt the war based upon new data over the last few years.  That is patently false.  What the Bi-Partisan Congressional Surrender Caucus wants is to either preserve their own skins or humiliate George Bush.  Those who want to save their political careers are opportunists and poll-driven weenies, but that's what we, unfortunately, have come to expect from politicians.  However, those who want to embarrass Bush must do it using the lives and service of our military personnel.  A shameful and cynical manipulation of those doing selfless and dangerous duty.
What I would like to see, obviously in that I am a Libertarian, is a third way where freedom takes precedence over government and the aspirations of governmental personnel.  Should we be in Iraq-No, shouldn't have gone in the first place.  BUT, we are there and we should do what we can to bring the war to an end that is in the best interests of AMERICA, not the sleazy politicians.  Statesmen and stateswomen, polish your resumes.  You will be in huge demand in 2008, especially if the crowd of weenies running for President doesn't garner some more impressive candidates by next September. 

Many people on both sides have commented on the debate around the efforts of a portion of our Congress to pass a non-binding reolution around the troop surge.  The left says it's a way to register the "American People's" war weariness, while the right says it will embolden the enemy in Iraq.  BS to both of them!  Both sides in this "fight" are seeking political advantage, BOTH SIDES. The left are looking to say something tough without actually doing anything about it.  They are bullies who, when it comes to actually putting their own skin in the game, balk.  I would respect the left's efforts if they would come out and say, "Look, we don't like the war, we think it's wrong, and are voting to defund the effort to help hasten the return of our troops to the US."   
The right is trying to gloss over their past mistakes under the banner of patriotism.  They should admit that mistakes were made and that they are looking at precise milestones to determine future efforts.  IF THESE MILESTONES ARE NOT REACHED IN THE DEFINED TIME-WE ARE LEAVING!  Be unequivocal and clearly define the timelines and milestones.
Nobody wants the troops put into harm's way needlessly, but you can't have politicians run a war.  It never works.  We have Vietnam and the beginning of the Civil War as proof of that.  The politician's role is to define the larger goals, with concrete measures, and then let the military complete them.  Micromanagement doesn't work.  It stifles creativity and creates roadblocks to adaptation to the situation on the ground.
The troops deserve the freedom to accomplish their mission, which needs to be clearly defined, without the ambiguity of political expedience on both sides threatening to pull the rug out from under them.