I don't know about "grilled", but:

"Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, grilled top defense officials at a budget hearing about the lack of an "exit strategy" in Afghanistan, their failure to capture al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and a widening global campaign against terrorists that seems to have "no end in sight." "

What's wrong with a Senator asking about the long-term plans for Afghanistan? I would think that NOT asking that question would be a mistake, and I assume the Bush folks have a reasonable answer. The only reason to object to the question is if they don't have a plan, or clue.

Where is Osama? Bush promised him, over and over. I have to admit to being very surprised that the entire might of the US, satellites, B-52s, massive bribes, the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, CIA, and NSA can't find one very public individual who always travels with an entourage. I think it's legitimate for a Senator to ask what those expenditures have brought so far. No need to get defensive about it.

And didn't we learn in Vietnam that we need to have some achievable goal in order to "win" a war? How will be know when this "war" is over? Can one nut dropping a 60mm on a Wal-Mart in Topeka rekindle the whole thing, as things are in Palestine? Is this an open-ended affair, not to end until every Muslim is converted to a free market Christian? Or every Middle Eastern country expresses undying love for the US? Of course not, and I think it's legitimate to ask ANY government of the US what exactly are the achievable goals in a war. We didn't do that in Vietnam, and a lot of people got slaughtered. And all of Asia didn't fall to the communists.

"Meanwhile, last time I looked we're STILL in Bosnia. Where's THAT outcry? Oh wait, that was a Democratic President who got us in there. You know, Bosnia where we put US citizens in harm's way to save Muslim lives."

The old "ya, but you're worse" argument. I happen to agree with the point here, that it might have been a mistake to go there. I think Bush in his campaign said, unequivocally, that we would be out of Bosnia by now. So, my guess is that there are reasons to be there, I don't know 'em. But Bush has had plenty of time to get 'em home.

And that kind of argument doesn't seem to be all that constructive. It implies that two wrongs make a right. What it does do is validate the original premise, in this case seeming to agree that going into Afghanistan was a mistake. And I don't think you meant that.

And, I think the Senator raised legitimate issues - this would be a far worse place if they couldn't or didn't.

Arf