I've been an agnostic on the "more troops" argument...1) No you haven't. And others have noticed that you haven't. Stop.
2) You've only been dismissive about sending more troops because Bush has, for 4 years, been insisting it wasn't necessary.
Will it be enough? I don't know. I have to say, though, that it's been amusing to see the same people who were recently demanding that Bush send more troops suddenly reverse and criticize him for . . . sending more troops. The question of troop numbers is one where reasonable people can and do differ, but that doesn't mean that lame political oppositionalism isn't recognizable as such.It's also amusing to see you fall in line, Putz, just because Bush says so. And it's amusing to note that as you loyally fall in line, Bush's Great Change In Tactics isn't supported by a good chunk of his military leadership, the US Congress, the American people, or the Iraqi people.
But what do they know?
1 comment:
I like this part: "it's been amusing to see the same people who were recently demanding that Bush send more troops suddenly reverse and criticize him for . . . sending more troops."
It's like he can't tell the difference between 2003 and 2007. Most Dems have been calling for a drawdown since early 2006 (if not much earlier).
Hypothetical: Insty lives on a flood plain. You advise him to get flood insurance. He calls you 'unserious' and 'partisan'. Several years later, his house is flooded out and rendered worthless. He then wants to go out & get flood insurance on it, and thinks it an "amusing reverse" that you now advise him to cut his losses & not insure a worthless property.
Post a Comment