"Mistakes were made."

And so with these words George W. Bush stood up and took responsibility before a skeptical nation. I knew at some point he would. He struck me as that kind of leader. Or at the very least, having the right people telling him what to do. Either way, it was a smart move. It diffuses the notion that he refuses to acknowledge there are problems in Iraq.

In any job or walk of life, everyone appreciates someone who admits his or her mistakes. It takes courage to admit flaws. Think about how hard it is to do so for a second for lesser things in our daily affairs. It's a natural human reaction to not want to admit you are wrong. It's to walk through the door and confess that is hard.

For the leader of the most powerful nation on earth to do so is even more impressive. Not one Arab leader has ever taken (to my knowledge anyway) responsibility for their own problems. Here in Canada, after the shameful scandal known as Gomery, not one lousy leader stood up and said "We did do it. We have failed. We stole money from the people. We will rebuild your trust. We apologize." Instead, they hid behind an inquiry (Canada's new national pass time by the way) like all arrogant politicians with no vision do. And now they act as if they are going to come back into power and all is perfect again. Canadians should not vote Liberal until they learn to stand up and be counted.

Bush has essentially increased his wager by adding troops. Not sure if 20 000 more will do it but he put his butt on the line before the people of America; the world. It basically means 20 000 versus local sectarian insurgents. At this point everything seems more black and white now. Either you believe America lost and you pull out or you feel it's time to force Iraq's accountability gene to come out. For that to happen it will take, well, 20 000 troops.

The best compromise is to make Iraq strong enough to stand on its own two feet. In other words, accept an Iraq that may be weaker than what was expected but at least sufficiently independent to take care of itself. That's what may pass as 'victory' now.

It may not be the right time to concede defeat. People like Pelosi seem to to be oblivious that perception is a powerful thing in the Mid-East. To us, pulling out is logical. To them it means something entirely different. President Bush, in this light, deserves one last benefit of the doubt. He extended his hand. Americans should consider rallying behind him.

Prime Minister of Australia John Howard makes his case. "You can't sort of have a middle position on this. You can't be sort of against what the president is trying to do and yet be in favor of defeating the terrorists in Iraq. You have to understand that if America, the most powerful country in the world, our strongest ally, is defeated in Iraq or retreats in circumstances of defeat in Iraq, that would be the greatest propaganda victory the terrorists could ever win."

The truth is that the option of pulling out of Iraq is no better than the mess that ensued the invasion. Two wrongs don't make a right. America must stay. Iraq needs to succeed. The implications of it doing so are wide and deep.

As for Iran and Syria. Well, they should have been dealt with years ago. Ignoring or engaging them at this point is a double edged sword soaked in blood.

I suppose 2007 is the moment of truth in Iraq.

What will be the tipping point?