B*sh NOT being pressured toward a diplomatic track-- WHY?

[npincus]

The ISG's main finding was that the disaster in Iraq required a diplomatic solution, that the US should be talking to Iran and Syria, that a military solution would not lead to stability in Iraq (a.k.a.: US-defined "victory")

Debate over 'The Surge" has dominated MSM coverage: how much, how many, if it will work, if it won't work... bla bla bla.

Where is the outcry for diplomacy? Why isn't the MSM taking the War-Monkey to task for his refusal to TALK instead of beat his chest and send more innocent humans into the Iraq meat-grinder? I understand it is an overwhelming task for someone of his limited intellectual heft and pathological need to be The Decider, not the Diplomat. BUT, he CAN have others engage in bi-lateral or multilateral talks with Syrians/Iranians on his behalf, without direct interaction. He has IGNORED the ISG findings, and the MSM meekly follows. Where are Dems on this? How come THEY are not making a stink about B*sh's refusal to try diplomacy, instead of throwing more American blood on the fire.

It amazes me, that as weak as Chimp is, as despised as he is, as much as his policies have turned to shit before our eyes, he STILL is controlling the MSM discourse. Moreover, they are not CALLING him on his war-mongering steps toward further and GREATER, unimaginable catastrophe if we start a war with Iran. Iraq will look like a day at the beach.

[mmonk]

1. AIPAC

[Skidmore]

2. Yup.

[spanone]

3. Peace is not quite as profitable.

[Javaman]

4. Bingo! and there is the answer to the million dollar question. nt

[global1]

5. Condi's Our Diplomat - She's Doing.... What? .... Where's Condi?......nt

[Kikosexy2]

6. "I'll take a size...

6 of those Versace pearl white stilleto pumps please...and those red open toe flats look absolutely divine...Imelda Marcos eat your heart out!"