'The very long life of Frank Woodruff Buckles'
Enjoyed this article because I'm an old softie when it comes to WWI vets. ... Glad to see Boston got its act together for a Veteran's Day parade, featuring two of the apparently 13 remaining WWI vets in America. ... Speaking of wars, the NYT politely reviews Bob Woodward's 'State of Denial,' while putting it into context of his prior pro-Bush writings:

Woodward’s first book provided so favorable a treatment of the administration that the Republican National Committee recommended it on its Web site. But “State of Denial” isn’t a continuation of his previous work as much as a repudiation — the installment in which he takes a mulligan and attempts to correct for past obsequiousness.

Woodward deserves his own 'thumping.' ... Lot of blogosphere attention is being paid to Harvard prof William J. Stuntz's call for more troops in Iraq to make one last push for victory. OK. Fine. Nice to see hyper-pro-war types finally engaging in analyzing the negatives in Iraq and offering up suggestions. But my reaction to increased troops at this point is: For what? What are the strategic aims? Whose insurrection will they crush first? The Sunnis or the Shiites'? Will it be for a centralized government or a federation? Will it be for a 'tolerabe' or 'awful' outcome -- or something more optimistic? What is the definition of 'victory' at this point? I'm now reading Thomas Ricks' 'Fiasco,' and one of the criticisms he keeps bringing up is a lack of strategic thinking in Iraq. Stuntz is offering up an operational argument. But again: For what? The opportunity to prop up Humpty Dumpty was three years ago. Sending more troops to glue the 2003 Humpty back together again strikes me as foolish. Events have dramatically changed. Give me a realistic 2007-and-beyond strategic goal, and I'll support more troops. But not until then. ...  ¶ 7:41 AM