Beyond the great speech by VP Cheney, today's punditry was full of worthy counterpoints to those who have argued that we should, for lack of a better term, 'cut & run'.

Ralph Peters delivers a fusillade from the verbal blunderbuss today, and the results are not pretty:

No matter how great your team, you can't win the game if you walk off the field at half-time. That's precisely what the Democratic Party wants America to do in Iraq. Forget the fact that we've made remarkable progress under daunting conditions: The Dems are looking to throw the game just to embarrass the Bush administration.
Forget about the consequences. Disregard the immediate encouragement to the terrorists and insurgents to keep killing every American soldier they can. Ignore what would happen in Iraq — and the region — if we bail out. And don't mention how a U.S. surrender would turn al Qaeda into an Islamic superpower, the champ who knocked out Uncle Sam in the third round.

Mac Owens takes a slightly more diplomatic tack, but the point is the same.

Rep. Jack Murtha (D., Pa.) initiated a fierce debate last Thursday when he launched a scathing attack on Bush's Iraq policy, which he labeled ''a flawed policy wrapped in illusion," and called for a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Murtha claimed that such a timetable would provide the Iraqi government with an added incentive to have their own security forces take control of the conflict.......Murtha's proposal would validate Zawahiri's belief that the United States is irresolute and weak and that the Americans will take the first opportunity to "run."

Strategypage points out what many in the military have realized for a while:

American troops are developing a hate-hate relation with  journalists. The basic problem is that soldiers and marines in Iraq have access, usually via the Internet, to what the mass media is saying about what they think is happening in Iraq. These news reports, all too often, do not reflect what the troops experience.

W. Thomas Smith writing over on National Review Online shows what real reporting about the war should be like. Full of fact (both good and bad), and supported by plenty of background:

Insurgencies are not put down in a fortnight. But considering the successes in the recent counter-insurgency sweep in Iraq's Al Anbar Province, one fact becomes obvious to anyone with so much as a sliver of an understanding of ground combat operations: Eliminating the insurgency in Iraq is best left to those who best know how to do it.........And despite what the cut-and-run crowd would have us believe, American troops on the ground are not deceptively recruited pawns in some unfortunate military adventure. U.S. soldiers and Marines in Al Anbar and elsewhere in Iraq know exactly what they are doing, and why. They also see the fruits of their labors, which, to their consternation, are rarely reported.

Jack Kelly points out a fine example of why people have little tolerance left for blatant idiocy in the MSM:

The lying bastards at the AP, on the other hand, published this paragraph in their story on Cheney's speech:
"Cheney backed away from earlier administration characterizations of Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., as a coward and instead clled [sic] him "a good man, a Marine, a patriot."
No one in the administration called Murtha a coward. No Republican in Congress called Murtha a coward. The closest anyone came was freshman Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH), who repeated on the floor of the House what a constituent, a Marine reserve colonel currently serving in Iraq, said....

Lastly, the always worth reading Generation Why? has some good links about what another Vietnam Vet politician has to say:

Decorated War Veteran and Former POW Speaks Out on Iraq Debate
But I doubt Democrats will be running up to this war hero and former POW and claiming stuch status makes his take on the debate unassailable. I'm sure we won't see Nancy Pelosi issuing press releases about this man's honor and dignity. We won't see John Kerry chastizing those who oppose this man as "engage in the politics of personal destruction."

Many worry that all of this debate will kill the morale of the troops who are in the thick of things. Having been there, I would reason to say that the answer is no. The meat of the reason why is in the Strategypage analysis above. With today's ready access to news and contact with family and folks at home, thanks to modern communications, most troops will not be demoralized. Instead they will be angry....and disappointed.