The lies on display tonight begin from the basic premise that what Bush has proposed is in any sense new. Consider for instance the claim that this time in Baghdad there will be sufficient forces to "hold" territory. We have been told this at every stage -- most recently in the November 2005 "National Strategy for Victory" and the subsequent "Clear, Hold, Build" sales pitch by Condi Rice. This is nothing new. But it is cynical in its expectation that you won't know the difference. Bush proved tonight he will never stop lying to you, and the lies will only compound the worse it gets.

The biggest lie is this: Bush is escalating the war while claiming, again and again, that the U.S. mission is a "support" mission. An additional U.S. force of 21,500 is portrayed to us as a "change (in) our strategy to support" the Maliki government -- a force of Shiite Iraq that Bush repeatedly claims is a "unity government." It doesn't matter if Bush believes that Maliki will lend his 18 Army and national-police brigades to every Iraqi neighborhood, regardless of sect. In Operation Together Forward, Maliki proved that he won't. Indeed, that's why Bush is playing footsie with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a different Iran-backed Shiite cleric masquerading as a unifying figure. Everyone who has served, has friends or family who have served, or who can open a newspaper on a consistent basis knows that when the Iraqi security forces are competent, they are an instrument of sectarian repression. This will not change as long as each sect believes it has more to gain from war than through negotiation, and nothing Bush has said or can do will change that. As a result, U.S. forces are not engaging in a "support" mission -- unless "support" means only that they are the life support for the U.S.-backed political process.

Two years ago, I argued that the only hope of bringing Iraq together and saying that politics, not war, tangibly improved Iraqis' lives was to withdraw. Bush refused to do that, and the window for withdrawal to benefit Iraqis has closed. Now withdrawal will not have any positive consequences for Iraqis. But it will have less-bad consequences for the U.S. national interest, allowing us to mitigate the effects of a failed war and denying al-Qaeda the growth potential it requires by miring it, and not us, in an Iraqi civil war. Am I certain about this, Jason? No. But an assessment of the situation suggests it is the best strategy on offer for our interests, and the one most likely to yield its intended effects.

What we have as an alternative is an escalation of the war in the guise -- as Bush put it -- of bringing it to an end. In short, we must fight the war so we can cease fighting the war. These are the only two options on offer. If you care about this country, you, dear reader, must choose, and have the courage to stand with your choice -- for the 3,018 so far and the more, the many more, that Bush plans to send to their deaths for the sake of his vanity.