"Congress May Not Like What Petraeus Has to Say" from a CNN headline just now. (no link)
What exactly is there not to like? What answers or reporting could come from Petraeus or Crocker that would be good news for anyone who opposes this illegal occupation?
There are only two scenarios possible (with varying degrees of either):
- Things are good (or getting better)
- Things are bad (or getting worse/better)
Yet there's only one outcome:
- More troops, more time, more deaths
Why is that the only outcome? It's how how the question was posed:
And that question, or request, was to surge/splurge/increase and kill more troops in order to give the Iraqi government more time to vacation -- re-group.
Much wrangling was done over benchmarking, and the GOA even reported recently that those measures the Iraqi government was supposed to meet were not met.
But what was ultimately missing from that original request was what the outcome would be given any of the outcomes.
If the splurge works, is the result more of the same or would it then be OK to leave?
If it's a miserable failure -- much in the way that everything turns to upon Bush's bullsh*t touch -- is it OK to leave?
There was never any intent to leave. There is no intent to leave. There never was any condition of leaving regardless if this heightened slaughter worked or not.
The inherent failure of this effort is that no matter the outcome this 'administration' will argue that we need more of the same.
Now if they could actually look the families of our troops in the eyes and tell them that the only guaranteed outcome is more dead troops.
Am I too pessimistic that tomorrow's testimony (or is it just a 'report'?) makes no difference on the state of the situation?