One of the biggest nightmares of the dictatorship in Syria and the theocracy in Iran is to have a functioning democracy in Iraq. It threatens their regimes.

If the person down the street who was caught putting an IED in the ground to kill Iraqi troops and American troops, if they went to jail for 30 years or got executed that might deter IEDs.

If you think it is Vietnam, if you really believe we are in Vietnam, you should cut off funding.

IEDs, that is the biggest threat to our troops. 70 percent of our casualties are from IEDs, is that correct?

So if there is a bloodbath in Baghdad, are we going to sit on the sidelines and watch it happen? Is that in our national interest?

I think these issues are being discussed in the political realm, and I'd prefer to keep them there.

I agree, we're not seeking a military victory in Iraq, we're trying to turn around the situation, in terms of security.

If he said he needed more, you would support him?

From the Iranian point of view, do you consider, based on what you know now, that the Iranian involvement in Iraq is counterproductive to developing a democracy in Iraq?

The point I am trying to make is it is clear to me that we have never had the force levels to be claiming we have been fighting a counterinsurgency.

General Petraeus said that a resolution passed by Congress disapproving of the mission that he's about to embark on, in his opinion, would be detrimental to morale.

So, we need to develop along three fronts: a better rule of law, a better economy, and a better security environment.

Senator Graham, this is not double down; this is all in.

The public is going to break against us big time.

I believe that is all we have. The reason we are not sending 31,500 is we just cannot get them.

This is our last best chance to get this right.

This is the last best chance and the question is, the last hand to be played, should you play it?

Could I go to Fallujah tomorrow? Could I go downtown to Fallujah tomorrow as a Senator?