Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Bush's operations have some tactical problems. Some big ones. Strategically, though, I'm still buying what he's doing.
I have no conception at all of what Kerry's strategy might be.
I think that a good strategy means a defined goal, and a goal that is valid, achievable, and desirable. Tactics are just the operational steps you use to get there. Kerry hasn't even told us what his goal would be, except to tell us that it's not Bush's. I suspect that his goal encompasses merely trying to find some international cover, and then bugging out. But, as I said, I can't know that. He won't tell us - maybe because he hasn't decided yet. More polling to do, ya' know.
|
Bilmore: I repeat, what is his plan? I don't see it in the 20 words it took you to get back to bitching about Kerry.
Hank: If I had the facts you grasp, I'd be voting for Bush too.
Burger: Congress might have considered a different resolution, but it didn't. With the help of the GOP leadership, Bush presented legislators with the vote he did. Your complaint seems to be that the choices posed were inadequate, but what I can't fathom is why you think that's a criticism of Kerry.
Club: In a world where you're either with us or against us, I can understand why you want to see contradictions in those statements. In the former set, he supported the war at the time, and then began to see things differently as he found out the premises for it were false, still agreeing, as we all do, that it's a good thing that Hussein is not in power. On the number of troops, I suspect that there's context missing -- I'd like to see more, but you didn't post a link. In any event, I'm not defending the whole of Kerry's Iraq policy. My original point was that what he said on Imus was perfectly consistent with his earlier positions, notwithstanding your fervent desire to find hypocrisy in everything he does.
