Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
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.
|
As pointed out before me, this is the most preposterous attempt to turn something into the other party's fault I have ever read. Penske will probably adopt it as his latest babyjesus battle cry, it is so outlandish.
The Rs have control of every branch of government and it is somehow the decision of the Ds to send too few troops to fight W's war? Were you able it type it in without bursting out laughing? I need to know in order to have an accurate read on the magnitude of your bullshit quotient.
I tend to agree with Gatti's articulated reasons. A finite number of troops (and getting smaller and more stretched by the week), and fear of retribution in the next election
from the voting public as a result of the ever-ballooning "fiscal conservative" federal budget.
It's the Ds' fault. Oh, how I laughed. Good times.
Threaded Mode