The insanity of "waiting until September or October"

[babylonsister]

http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/7/18/11174/5579

The insanity of "waiting until September or October"
by clammyc rcs1
Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 11:17:04 AM EST

While it is noble for some republican Senators to come out and finally realize the death, destruction, raging civil war, chaos and near genocide in Iraq is not getting any better and that a "change of course" is warranted, there has really been much of a free pass about the complete insanity of calls to wait until September or October for Bush to come up with a "new plan" or Petraeus to give his not-so-long awaited "progress report" with respect to the escalation.

We have been told in clear terms that all of the benchmarks outlined back in January are failing or have not been met.

We have been told that the threat from al Qaeda has not decreased since 9/11. In fact, this very statement, simply stated, completely repudiates the entire approach taken by the Bush administration and supported by the neocons, the republican party, Joe Lieberman, the fighting keyboardists and the other chickenhawk warmongers since we were attacked in 2001.

To talk about any further waiting before a strong push for withdrawal or a significant reduction in forces as well as a massive change in course with respect to Iraq can be summed up in two words: cowardly and unpatriotic.

What makes things even worse, not to mention more of an example of how demoralized this country SHOULD be when it comes to fighting those who attacked us, we are not only losing in Iraq, but also against al Qaeda in Pakistan (per Bush's own aides), and are losing in Afghanistan to the Taliban and al Qaeda resurgence.

If these three undisputable facts don't show that we are not only losing the two non wars that we started, but also a third in Pakistan that we haven't even started. I'll also point out here that the $750 million that the US has pledged to the lawless region in Pakistan is rightfully thought by many to be another all time classic stupid initiative as the whole meaning of the word "lawless" seems to escape the brain trust behind this idea. If the region is "lawless" then how will at least some of the money not fall into enemy hands? Even if a small percentage will, how many weapons will a few hundred thousand buy that can be used against us?

more...

[Old and In the Way]

1. You're posting faster than I can read 'em!

You're on a roll tonight! :rofl:

[babylonsister]

2. Some of this stuff is fascinating! And when reading others' words,

I'm reminded of how much I don't know or never thought of.

:hi:

[OHdem10]

3. On Hardball, Chris Matthews has picked up --More Troops

will be asked for if the surge is not working. Chris reading
from NY Times article by David Brooks, explains this is beginning
to look like a game the president is playing on the people.
Most people believe that the Sept report meant a change.
If Surge not working , people assume we begin process of drawing
down troops. This is not clear, according the article.
(David Brooks article was based on a meeting the President
held with Conservative Journalists only. Anyway, 3 reporters
on With Chris agreed that it looks like the Republicans
are helping the president stall and SURPRISE. We are still
in Iraq no matter what Petreus reports.

Folks you might wish to look and listen for other stories
to confirm this as time goes along.

Could this be why some Republicans are sticking so close
to Bush.

Another part of the article esplained, according to Chris.
GWB and his religious zeal is having a definite impact on
his action. Something close to this. "I know God wants
Freedom for people". example.