Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
BTW, the argument that supporting Iraq is supporting more attacks is a really bad one. Trust me on this.
|
I agree with you. But the argument that being in Iraq is keeping us safe from attacks is ridiculous, and that is what I was questioning. While I think that Iraq has increased the numbers who would attack us, we would be getting attacked either way.
Note -- I also think that Afghanistan MAY have increased the number who would attack us, but that was worth it. Until we got distracted and fucked up an opportunity.
Quote:
|
The Dems' better argument is to say "We can do Iraq better." Of course, you have to staunch Deanish clown festivals like the Lamont/Liberman thing to make that argument...
|
Again, I agree that "we can do Iraq better" is a better message. Lieberman, however, never sent that message. He was busy lauding Rummy, and taking the Admin tack of saying that anyone who questioned any element of the strategy was effectively a traitor (not his word, but close enough).
As for Lamont's "pull out" strategy, as I've said before -- I personally am at a loss for what to do in Iraq, or how we extricate ourselves from this quagmire. Yes, quagmire.
Quote:
|
Y'all have the Fall elections in your pockets, but if you keep sucking off the Dean/Move On wing of your party, you;re going to piss them away. Howard Dean's chairmanship must be ended to save your party. He and his ilk are going to fuck up a golden opp for the Dems.
|
Jaysus. I agree with you again. This is weird.
