[Angeheade]

I didn't watch the speech. It's gotten to the point where I don't want to see him or hear him. But I read the transcript. And the first word that came to mind was - pathetic.

I thought the Baltimore Sun this morning had a good take on the speech.

When you look at what President Bush actually proposed last night, you begin to realize how little there was to it. Adding more than 20,000 troops is a move in the wrong direction, but the U.S. has been around the 150,000 mark before. More money for reconstruction and jobs is a good idea, but $1 billion is a tiny fraction of the money that has already been spent and largely wasted. Holding the feet of the Iraqi government to the fire sounds great, but the president, despite his protestations to the contrary, offered no reason to suppose that what hasn't worked in the past will work any better in the future.

It's not a change in strategy. It is instead an intensification of a strategy that has been a failure for nearly four years. At a time when America should be extricating itself from Iraq, it is an escalation. It is too small to make a significant difference in the war - but it will nonetheless put more American lives at risk, and, unbelievably, it includes the transfer of an Army infantry battalion from eastern Afghanistan, where it is badly needed. If the reinforcement should prove unsuccessful, it lays the groundwork for further escalations to come.

The White House had made much of the president's prime-time address, but in the end it had a whole lot more "stay the course" in it than Mr. Bush was willing to let on. There are two obvious explanations for this: the president's desire to thumb his nose at the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, and his desire to pick a fight with the Democratic Congress. I agree - the increase in troop strength isn't much of a strategy - it's merely "staying the course" with more bodies. And in choosing to escalate, Bush is ignoring the Iraq Study Group (and the recommendations of his daddy's buddies), ignoring the advice of many/most military leaders, ignoring the views of Congressional Democrats and a growing number of Republicans as well, and - most importantly - he is totally ignoring what the American people said very clearly two months ago in voting polls across the nation.

I know the comparison has been made before, and people either see something there or not, but I honestly haven't seen a President like Bush since the dark days of Nixon.

The hearings with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, scheduled for today, are, however, far more significant. Here are the main questions we'd like to see put to them:

• Will you explain to the country, please, how you expect the president's proposals to end the sectarian warfare in Iraq?

• Are 20,000 extra troops what the situation requires, or simply what's available?

• Are they going to be fighting primarily with Sunni insurgents or with Shiite militias? Can you explain why Americans should be fighting against both sides in a civil war?

• And how precisely does this promote reconciliation, which is what actually matters, and which is a political rather than a military task? Good questions. If Gates and Rice simply parrot the "stay the course" rhetoric of Bush, nothing will be gained. But they are good questions that deserve honest answers. Does anyone really think that honest answers will be forthcoming?