Teribus--

Very interesting you have not replied to Amos' citations. No surprise really--classic Bushite maneuver. He has pointed out just a few of the myriads of times Bush and his minions have linked Saddam to al Queda (which you might possibly recognize is usually fingered for the 11 September 2001 attacks).

So you ignore it.

Sorry that won't wash.

There has been a steady drum-beat for years emanating from the US current "leadership" of a connection between Iraq and al Queda.

So you were less than semi-comatose after all.




What's interesting now is that all sides, including the Bushites, are desperately trying to figure out a way to get out of Iraq. The Bushites, however, still want to claim victory. It sounds as if nobody plans to be there for another 11 years, as a general was speculating a few weeks ago. Since Murtha's statement, there's been a sea-change.

Now what happens is:

1)   The Sunnis participate more than expected in the December elections.
2)   The Bushites come out and withdraw a few thousand troops--and say we planned to do it all along.

The question however is what happens when the Sunnis try to amend the constitution--and all their amendments are totally rejected.

If they are disappointed enough to deepen support of the insurgency, will Bush put more troops in?

My guess is he'd be in big trouble if he did--unless he could do it surreptitiously--perhaps extend all tours of duty--which would mean just a few more troops in addition.

Could he do that under the radar?