Do you think B*sh is stalling for time when he says he

[Joe for Clark]

can't be rushed about the Iraq war policy??

When I manage to look at him I just see a really bad salesman. Trying to sell me something I don't want. Maybe I am slanted- I hope I am.

Do you think he's stalling for time, for some event planned???


Joe

[rodeodance]

1. the WH is stumped!---and American know it.

[liberal N proud]

2. What majical event could possibly

change the direction of this war?

[Joe for Clark]

5. Well, some event that might change events on the ground.

I am not saying it would - I am asking if you think he is stalling - for whatever reason.

Joe

[riderinthestorm]

15. That's my tinfoil theory too.

:tinfoilhat: firmly planted. I believe Bu$h is waiting because something big is planned. There is speculation that the attack or whatever is going to happen will be in the US but why would it have to be here? An attack in the US blows the Rethug slogan that they have "kept us safe from terra attacks here at home" - that one is too good to let go.

One thought I had was that BFEE will try a major strike in Baghdad against US troops, something like a dirty bomb or suitcase nuke. This will do several things:
1. "Re-energize" (ack) war fever in the US since the average American Joe will be outraged at that kind of attack on US soldiers. I'm thinking it has to be something on the order of a nuke to really be maximally manipulative.
2. That kind of attack would provoke the military into sending more troops (which conveeeeniently matches what Bu$hco wants). Really tinfoilish thinking would be that the attack is pinned on Sadr, who is linked to Iran, thus dovetailing together nicely for a big surge and perhaps even a larger escalation?
3. It would provide a nice WMD sidelight which will occupy the chattering classes for months while the clusterfuck in Iraq blows across the region.
4. It keeps the sloganeering alive that "we are fighting them over there" so they don't "come here", and that "Iraq is the central front" in the WOT etc. etc.

I think the Saudi ambassador that resigned did so over a secret initiative of this sort that's coming.

I wish I were a fly on the wall when Cheney went over the Saudi Arabia, big things were said there you can be sure.

[Big Sky Boy]

16. The only problem with that

is that Americans have demonstrated time and again that they quickly lose their stomachs for war when casualty rates become unacceptable.

The Tet Offensive woke a lot of people up who finally began to question why we were in Vietnam.

The death of 241 Marines in Beirut forced Reagan to promptly end our mission there.

Unfortunately the only thing that will most likely hasten our involvement in Iraq is exactly that -- a Tet-like offensive in which we lose several hundred in a single day.

Nothing would tear at my heart more.

It's also the last thing the administration wants to see. They would much rather go back to a quieter time when we were only losing three or four service members a week instead of each day.

[OwnedByFerrets]

3. A serious attack on America would get the focus off Iraq....nt

[gratuitous]

4. I wish one of the presstitutes had the nerve

Wouldn't it be something if someone in the press room stood up and asked, "Mr. President, you say that you won't be rushed into a decision. Who would you say is rushing you, and what decision are they rushing you to make? After all, haven't you gotten everything you ever asked for in the prosecution of the war in Iraq? Are you saying that your process has yielded a flawed or negative result? And if that is so, why would you be the sole decider of how to rectify the trouble you've gotten us into in the first place?"

And if monkeys are going to come flying out of my ass, I should at least stand up.

[madokie]

6. stick a fork in 'im

he has about carried being a fool masquerading as decisive as far as he can

[Mark E. Smith]

7. Hell yeah

He's stalling like a motherf*cker.

[Old and In the Way]

8. Bush has a tough choice.

1) Does he accept the failure of his legacy centerpiece and start the process of getting us extricated from the quagmire?

Or

2) Does he continue to deny reality and feed his delusion by "staying the course".

No brainer, it will be 2).

[Joe for Clark]

10. Well, I was only going to the point of if or not

he is stalling for some reason. Cause it appears to me he is.

I can make a fairly educated guess why he would be - but I thought maybe I am wrong, you know??

Joe

[Graybeard]

9. Waiting for the "January surprise"...

...while the death toll continues to rise, B*sh fiddles. I
think his decision will be to send tens of thousands more
troops to Iraq. Not something to announce to their families at
Christmas time...thus the delay.

[Joe for Clark]

11. If he is BS ing here - he can't last til January.

Only stretches so far.

Joe

[BuyingThyme]

12. All he's done is stall for time. That's all he will ever do.

They ain't leaving until Dems grow balls.

[Little Wing]

13. He's so pissed he's being told to 'do something', it's stalling even

thinking about it. It's all about having to be in charge, no matter what little he's hanging on to.

[rug]

14. He did the same thing in August 2001 before he announced his stem cell policy.

[Big Sky Boy]

17. And in 2003...

When he kept saying he hadn't made a decision yet.

Only this time I think the delay is that he is trying to cherry-pick his advice the same way he tried to cherry-pick his intelligence back then. Only there aren't as many sycophants right now to tell him what he wants to hear. No one to tell him that staying in Iraq is a "slam dunk."