"Sir, I don't know," Petraeus said.

He doesn't know! Well of course he doesn't know, nor should he be expected to. Who does? Yet from some of the media's reaction, his response was a mind-boggling admission of failure. If we're not safer, then what is the point?

Others can debate this, but Petraeus's role isn't to assess homeland security. It is his job to evaluate whether our projected course of action is best for achieving our objectives in Iraq. Petraeus apparently thinks so.

The burden of reporting whether we are safer belongs to Bush, who ultimately is to blame for Warner's misplaced question. For months now, Bush has been happy for Petraeus to hold the bag, postponing decisions and deflecting criticism until the general's report. Like Fred Thompson's overanticipated entry into the presidential race, Petraeus' report was bound to be disappointing to some.

Now the bag is back in Bush's hands where it belongs, though nothing the president can say will change anyone's mind. Earlier in the war, Democrats complained that Bush wasn't listening to the generals. Now they complain that he is listening to the general.

Bush can't win for losing, though it is worth noting a few things for perspective:

The U.S. has suffered no terrorist attacks since 2001; it took the United States 12 years after the Declaration of Independence to ratify the Constitution.

In other words, wars do not begin and end to suit political campaigns. New nations do not invent themselves according to another nation's timetable.

We will argue to the end whether we ever should have entered Iraq, and most of us -- if we're honest -- wish we'd never broken that pot. But lack of perspective -- and hysteria stoked by politics -- ultimately may be our most daunting enemy yet.