On "The Situation Room" today, we asked viewers the following questions, and here are some of our favorite responses that we didn't get to read on air:

What do you think will come out of the meetings this week in Jordan between Nuri al-Maliki and President Bush?

He might as well meet with you. He would get the same results-nothing. Nuri al-Maliki is caught between a rock and a hard place. Bush needs to meet with Iraq's neighbors and try to persuade them that it is in their interest to help stop the violence in Iraq.
William, Quarryville, Pennsylvania

Perhaps it would be best if Nuri al-Maliki did not meet with President Bush. It would show the Iraqi people that he can stand up for himself, and for what the people of Iraq really want, as well as building unity and an alliance with his own country.
John, Lexington, South Carolina

I would assume or at least hope that al Maliki won't show up. That would be the ultimate slap in the face to this warmongering President and his Administration. It's going to take half a century to undo the mess he has created.
Jim, St. Petersburg, Florida

I think the meeting will result in nothing. If we could fight a war with guns and bombs, like the Iraqi's are doing, instead of with paint brushes and hammers and nails, maybe we could win the blasted war, and get our people home.
Kathy, Pembroke, Georgia

Will former Brig. Gen. Karpinski's claims about Donald Rumsfeld fall on deaf ears in Washington?

Who knows? It's a toss-up whether Karpinski or Rumsfeld has the least credibility, and obviously neither has any integrity. Rumsfeld clearly endorsed torture, and Karpinski clearly implemented it. She's paid for it to the extent of her demotion and cut in benefits. He hasn't and never will. There ought to be a way to punish both of them for their criminal behavior.
Gina, Naples, Florida

You betcha. General Karpinski was the chosen scapegoat for Abu Ghraib. When the Democrats won the Senate and House, Donald Rumsfeld was quickly dispatched so that he will not have to testify, under oath, before Congress. Now, the Bush Administration will simply run out the clock.
Libby, Burnsville, Minnesota

It is not the ears of Washington that matter. The rest of the world will be listening.
Ben, Saint Mary's City, Maryland

Jack, is a bluebird blue? You know the White House would hear the lady general's comments, about as much as they would hear you.
Rick, Lufkin, Texas

Why does the White House refuse to call what is happening in Iraq a civil war?

It seems clear that the Bush administration does not want to call the situation in Iraq a "civil war" due to its implication that if true, our policies in Iraq thus far would be shown to be a clear and obvious failure. Not only can we not "win" the war in Iraq, but we cannot even control the country in the most basic ways.
Michael, Chicago, Illinois

Because "civil war" is the term that describes our failure in Iraq. The administration uses words to sway the public. Insurgents are terrorists. Our main intent in Iraq is to create democracy, even though that was not our first reason for destroying the Saddam regime. They will deny the term "civil war" until the very end, even as our troops are so overwhelmed that withdrawal is the only policy left.
Eileen, Alexandria, Virginia

The answer is as obvious as the reason we went to Iraq in the first place: It would make all the politicians that voted for us to go to war over "weapons of mass destruction" seem like the highly paid fools they were to vote to go to war in the first place. We were lied to from the beginning; why should they begin telling the truth to the American people now?
Alan, Fort Wayne, Indiana

Arrogant pride Jack, just arrogant pride. To admit Iraq has fallen into a civil war is the same as admitting that the only thing that held Iraq together was Saddam Hussein. We have to accept our defeat and allow Iran, Syria and the rest of the neighboring countries to take over and try to restore Iraq to something near what it was before we invaded.
Toni, Myrtle Beach, California