What are Chances of BushCo "getting things right" in Iraq in 6 months?

An Iraq Deadline for Bush
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, November 18, 2005; Page A23

"This will be remembered as the week when President Bush lost control over the Iraq war debate. His administration has perhaps six months to get things right. If the situation in Iraq fails to improve significantly, public pressure for withdrawal will become irresistible."

They've even lost control of Dionne.

EDIT: And what would possibly constitute "getting it right"??

of a fictional place called hell freezing over first.

I don't have high hopes.

Never did.

They need a mess. It's what they do.

The will of the American public will now come into play. W so grossly violated our norms and morals by the invasion of a country that was not a threat to us that his own party is deserting him.

Bush will be recorded as weak and inconsequential in history. What will be noted is that the American public had to step in and take over.

ALL they have Ever cared about is Money and Power. They Never cared about "governing."

Where is Our Treasury? What happened to Our Soldiers? Where is Our Constitution?

Six months, schmick months. Reality is nothing more than a mosquito to be squished by these Crusaders.

A real showdown is happening in real time.

"right" - America is the problem, not the solution.

But they can pull the troops out along with their equipment in 6 months. It would be a push to get all the equipment out and mass deployments would have to stop now, with troops only being deployed to aid the withdrawel back....but it could be done in 6 months. It's possible. It would be hard, but it is possible. And if you leave much of the equipment, you could do it faster. Course, with enough ships and planes, you could get out faster than 6 months with the equipment. But all available manpower would have to be directed toward getting the equipment ready - vehicles have to be drained of fluids and rail-headed to a pick up point, for example.

Murtha stated it correctly when he said to use the military standards for a safe withdrawel. And there has to exist a plan for doing do...since in war plans you not only make the plans for entry, you also make the plans for exit. Which is why you know the Bush Regime was always lying about the exit and acting as if "they didn't know" how long it would take in Iraq - they lied because they wanted to rob Iraq of it's resources...which does take time.

Course, that would still leave the private contractors...and their "security" forces.

The rationale keeps changing.

Bush calls himself the master of low expectations,
but you have to have a firm place to stand to have even a low expectation.

So first they would have to have an achievable version of right that stayed consistent for a month, and then achieve it.

I think the chances of that happening are only zero because there is no negative probability.


Safety from Terrorism? NO.

Democracy? Only after the civil war. Freedom? Freedom might well look like an ethnic based state next to a socialist state which is slightly north of an Islamist state...

Possession of their oil?
Only if we keep occupying the bases, and if we do that, we will only increase all the bad effects we now are experiencing.

Xtianizing the heathen? Sure, right, just step away from the altar, and nobody gets hurt...

Only by sucessfully planting a convincingly Iraqi looking nuclear bomb factory in Tikrit can we make any sort of plausible rationale for this massive charlie foxtrot.

(throws away crystal ball). No fortune telling needed. Bush has already said, many times: we are staying the course in Iraq. We are not "cutting & running" we're not leaving, etc.

Bush is simply going to call our bluff. He's going to continue in the same disastrous rut.

Bush has to be pried out of the White House, with his little fingers hanging on to the molding.

"When you look into the Void, the Void looks back into you."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"