How about a plan rather than another book?

What's new? We have another book about everything that Pres. Bush did wrong. Before you invest $25, let me give you a heads up.

Woodward writes that Pres. Bush is stubborn and won't listen to critics. He writes that Iraq is going to hell. Woodward does not give us any solutions but he writes that everything is bad.

What's new about Woodward's message? Have we not heard this before?

Speaking of Iraq, it might be more useful (and it won't cost you $25) to check these two articles:

Who's Really in Denial? It's not President Bush. by William Kristol:

"Bush, on other hand, understands that the only acceptable exit strategy is victory. (If, as Woodward reports, he's been bolstered in that view by Henry Kissinger, then good for Henry. Invite him to the Oval Office more often!)

To that end, Bush should do more. He should send substantially more troops and insist on a change of strategy to allow a real counterinsurgency and prevent civil war.

But at least he's staying and fighting. And the great majority of Republicans are standing with him.

The Democrats, as Bush has put it, "offer nothing but criticism and obstruction, and endless second-guessing. The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut-and-run."

So there really is a profound difference between the parties, as Democrats are happy to acknowledge, since they think Iraq is a winning issue for them.

The Democratic talking point is this: We're against Bush on Iraq, but we are as resolute as Bush in the real war on terror (understood by them to exclude Iraq).

Except that they're not."

Also, check this one Iraqis draw closer to self-sufficiency By U.S. Army Maj. General William B. Caldwell IV, spokesman for Multi-National Forces-Iraq and is currently stationed in Baghdad:

"Iraq's new unity government is moving forward and will continue grappling with tough political challenges, such as how to balance power between central and regional governments (federalism) and how to divvy up the country's oil revenues. But Iraqis have succeeded in setting a road map for resolving these essential issues. We must maintain the patience to allow their critical efforts to come to fruition."

The Democrats continue to invest all of their hopes and dreams in books and movies about Pres. Bush. It would be better for Democrats to give us a reason to change leaders, i.e. a plan!

As David Brooks said on PBS last Friday:

"I think we essentially have a debate in this country between one party that does understand the breadth of the problem but has messed up the implementation of the central front in the war on terror.

The other party, the Democratic Party, which is very quick to criticize, but so far has not really offered a strategy for how you deal with the terror, not only in Iraq, but around the Arab world."

P.S. Speaking of Woodward's book, let me reprint this great post by Paul Mirengoff of Power Line:

If this is Sunday, it must be another Washington Post front-page hit piece against the Bush administration.

Two weeks ago, it was Rajiv Chandrasekaran's false and misleading attack on the Iraqi reconstruction effort.

Last week, it was Karen De Young's one-sided report on the National Intelligence Estimate, as fed to her by anti-administration leakers.

This week, it's Bob Woodward claiming that that "secret reports countered Bush optimism" on Iraq.

Woodward's piece is a joke from the opening paragraphs.

There he juxtaposes President Bush's claim that "years from now people will look back on the formation of a unity government in Iraq as a decisive moment in the story of liberty" and the beginning of a retreat by the foces of terror, with an internal report predicting that 2007 would be a bloody year in Iraq.

But there's no contradiction here.

Bush was not making a prediction about the level of violence in Iraq in 2007; he was stating that the formation of the government signaled the beginning of the long-term demise of terrorism.

This prediction may be too optimistic, but it hasn't been shown to be, nor would a prediction about the long-term that turned out to be overly optimistic prediction amount to deception.

Back Talk has more on the Woodward hit piece. I guess we can expect the Post to lead with "drive-by" attacks in the Chandrasekaran, De Young, Woodward style every Sunday until the election.

UPDATE: Mario Loyola at NRO's Corner explains why Woodward himself is guilty of deception."