On the run today , so no new posts. In the meantime, check out the major investigation I worked on for MotherJones.com regarding a private security firm of ex-Secret Service agents that spied on Greenpeace, other environmental groups, and corporate targets by swiping garbage, infiltrating operatives, and penetrating confidential meetings. The piece is based on internal documents we obtained and includes references to Wal-Mart, Robin Wright Penn, the NRA, Mary Kay, and the Rolling Stones.

Quick--give me two words that did not appear in George W. Bush's speech today. How about "breathing space"?

When Bush announced his so-called surge of troops in Iraq in January 2007, he said it would create "the breathing space [the Iraqi government] needs to make progress." But the government has hardly made the best of whatever "breathing space" was offered by the escalation of troops. In today's address, Bush covered Baghdad's supposed progress in two sentences.

Of course, he offered no surprises and did not veer from his stay-the-course stance. And he backed General David Petraeus so thoroughly it was if he was subcontracting out the war to the commander:

General Petraeus says he'll need time to consolidate his forces and assess how this reduced American presence will affect conditions on the ground before making measured recommendations on further reductions. And I've told him he'll have all the time he needs.

What's wrong with this? Well, first, Bush is out of here in nine months. Easy for him to say, "Take as much time as you want." More important, Bush is going overboard in delegating. Is he suggesting that as commander in chief he will accept whatever Petraeus tells him? That he will unquestioning grant Petraeus a blank check? Isn't it part of the president's job to evaluate what his field commanders tell him?

Petraeus' approval ratings must be higher than Bush's. (Roger Clemens probably has higher numbers than Bush.) So it's to Bush's political benefit to hide behind the No. 1 front man for the war. But no commander in chief ought to grant a commander--even one who can wow 'em on Capitol Hill--so much leeway.

During the speech, Bush also said:

Some in Washington argue that the war costs too much money. There's no doubt that the costs of this war have been high. But during other major conflicts in our history, the relative cost has been even higher. Think about the Cold War. During the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, our defense budget rose as high as 13 percent of our total economy. Even during the Reagan administration, when our economy expanded significantly, the defense budget still accounted for about 6 percent of GDP. Our citizens recognized that the imperative of stopping Soviet expansion justified this expense. Today, we face an enemy that is not only expansionist in its aims, but has actually attacked our homeland -- and intends to do so again....

We should be able to agree that this is a burden worth bearing. And we should be able to agree that our national interest require the success of our mission in Iraq.

Here we go again: defending the Iraq war and justifying its costs by connecting the war to "an enemy...that has actually attacked our homeland." You'd think that Bush would become tired of that old canard. Moreover, he says everyone should agree the war is worth it. Then why do 70 percent of Americans, according to polls, not agree with this proposition? The country just doesn't buy what Bush has to say. It long ago turned off to his never-ending disingenuous sales pitch. Consequently, the speechifying he did today won't matter. But maybe the next time he feels the need to make a speech on Iraq he should ask Petraeus to give the speech for him. And in that speech, Petraeus can declare: "I am giving myself as much time as I think I need. And I thank me."