Jon Tester, you weren't elected to do this:

Awaiting President Bush's speech tonight on Iraq, members of Congress from Montana and Wyoming said they want specific details from him in order to evaluate whether to support sending in additional U.S. troops.

It has been widely reported that Bush plans to send 20,000 more troops to help stabilize Baghdad. In his prime-time televised speech, he may also call for political benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet and an expensive economic development program.

Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., said he would reserve judgment until he heard Bush's speech. "But we'll see, we'll see what's in the package and once we understand that, we can make our analysis and determine whether we like it or not, whether it is the same-old, same-old stuff or whether it really is a different direction," the newly elected senator said.

Note to Mr. Tester: It's same-old, same old. George W. Bush has a 45% approval rating in your state. Despite what Dana Bash said on CNN today, that hardly constitutes a "very, very popular" president.

You weren't elected so that you could continue to tiptoe around, or crawl into a fetal position in the corner, waiting to see what the political implications of what this president said would be. You were elected to take a stand and work towards a concrete end to our involvement in Iraq. You know, the way Jim Webb did in his introductory speech before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

The series of hearings that we begin today provide a critical opportunity to forge a new strategic direction for Iraq and the entire region—one that is long overdue and one I hope all Americans will eventually be able to rally behind. I would like to express my appreciation to our panel’s witnesses for their appearance today. I look forward to hearing their assessments, especially as they relate to the regional implications of the situation in Iraq today.

We went to war in Iraq recklessly; we must move forward responsibly. The war’s costs to our nation have been staggering. These costs encompass what we hold to be most precious—the blood of our citizens. They also extend to the many thousands more Iraqi people killed and wounded as their country slides into the chaos of sectarian violence and civil war. We have incurred extraordinary financial costs—expenses totaling more than $380 billion and now estimated at $8 billion a month.

The war also has diverted our nation’s focus fighting international terrorism and deflected our attention to the many additional threats to our national security abroad and national greatness at home—costs difficult to measure, perhaps, but very real all the same.

The Iraqi government and the Iraqi people must understand that the United States does not intend to maintain its current presence in their country for the long term. They must make the difficult but essential decisions to end today’s sectarian violence and to provide for their own security. The American people are not alone in seeking that day; indeed, the overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens also does not want our forces present in their country for any longer than is absolutely necessary.

The key question of the moment is how long the United States should be expected to keep our forces in Iraq as its government seeks to assume these burdens? How and when do we begin to draw down our combat presence and conclude our mission in a way that does not leave even greater chaos behind? What is the administration’s strategic vision and, as it relates to our presence in Iraq, its eventual end point?

The answers to these questions are not to be found in Iraq alone. Achieving our goals in this war requires a coherent strategy encompassing the entire region. The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, published by the National Security Council in November 2005, principally emphasized how the United States would help the Iraqi people defeat terrorists and build an inclusive democratic state. This strategy identified an initiative to increase international support for Iraq. It did not, however, affirm the need for an overarching diplomatic solution that is now, more than ever, an imperative if we are to end the war.

I have said for many months that the United States does not require a military solution to end the war in Iraq. We must seek a diplomatic solution immediately—one that engages all nations in the region with historic and cultural ties to Iraq. Because they are part of today’s problem, Syria and Iran also must be party to tomorrow’s solution. This overarching diplomatic solution, one supportive of a coherent strategy, will lead to four outcomes. First, it will enable us to withdraw our combat troops from Iraq over time. Second, it will lead to progressively greater regional stability. Third, it will allow us to fight international terrorism more effectively. Lastly, it will enable us to address our broad strategic interests around the world with renewed vigor.

During an earlier era in our nation’s history, we were faced with an unpopular war that had gone on too long. The then-recently retired General Dwight David Eisenhower spoke out against the conduct of the Korean War in the summer of 1952. "Where do we go from here," he asked; "when comes the end?"

Today, the members of this committee—indeed all Americans—await answers to these same questions: Where do we go from here? When comes the end?

Show some guts, man!