from yesterday's TPM

[dwenius]

...and worth repeating:

"The White House is now saying the troops would only be temporary. But temporary until when? I guess just until there aren't any more illegals trying to come across the border from Latin America." In other words, you're suggesting the White House doesn't have an exit strategy from getting the troops out of ... our own country?

Also, stealing paraphrasing from elsewhere: how much you want to bet that the guardsmen conveniently come home right before (or perhaps right after) the November election? Just like those orange alerts that magically went away in late November 2004? And just so we're clear:

• Nat'l guardsmen deployed to Afghanistan in sufficient numbers for success? No.


• Nat'l guardsmen deployed to Iraq in sufficient numbers for success? No.


• Enough Nat'l guardsmen left in the U.S. to assist in LA. and MS. during the worst national disaster in a decade, a task that actually falls under the specific terms of their charter? OH HELL NO.


• Enough Nat'l guardsmen left in the U.S. to help patrol the border and defeat terrorism energize the G.O.P. base make sure no one ever has a clean hotel sheet again? ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY!

Comments

"Final Solution"

[kernelpanic.livejournal.com]

http://kernelpanic.livejournal.com/413049.html

Re: "Final Solution"

[sequentialscott.livejournal.com]

Why would you assume that the Bush administration is communicating its real strategy and objectives? *rolls eyes*

(Why would I assume that they *have* a real strategy and objective?)

Re: "Final Solution"

[sequentialscott.livejournal.com]

Oops. Clicked the wrong reply link. This was for the general post, not the post (which is locked anyway). Sorry!