Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
No, no, no. You too? Geez. My point was simply that I luv to see the D's now complaining about too few troops. It's simply one more sign that they consider the average voter to be a dolt with no memory. Do you think these contradictory positions, taken with a view as to "what sounds zippy RIGHT NOW?", actually improve their credibility?
|
Huh. You said:
Quote:
|
Know what really entertains me? The new D line that Bush didn't put enough troops in Iraq. Wonder why Bush didn't put more troops into the fight? Because the D's would have had an effin' fit if he had.
|
Followed by:
Quote:
Tell me why the admin would worry about keeping troop levels as low as possible if not for the purely political reason of not wanting to give the D's more ammo. Tell me why it would argue with its own generals, if not because it knew that the more troops it sent, the louder the D's would object, and the more chance that the right course of action would become politically unacceptable. I imagine that, left with no opposition, Bush would have sent way more people. He'd have no real reason not to.
You want to stare at your cake as you digest it. Can't do that.
|
Now, see, it's not really so much that the Dems' monstrous influence caused Bush to consciously pare back, and keep back, the number of troops as a political calculation, but instead simply that you like to laugh at the Dems as being hypocritical.
Uh huh.
Certainly, that retrenchment is easier to defend. Kudos to you.
