Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the sad fact is that as the lefties are forced into submission, they will still be trying to find a way to blame bush. 20 years from now, when Paris falls- through a vote this time not a tank column- Ty@50 will post how it is all Bush's fault for unleashing the Islamic anger by invading Iraq.
|
The only way they can even remotely justify the Senate resolution is separating the plan from Patreus and laying it at Bush's feet. Otherwise they are undercutting the military. The problem is that Patreus took full credit for the plan. His testimoney was unequivocal. So then they grasp at the fact that Bush gave him "parameters" so it is really Bush's plan. Even if Bush gave him parameters, the only parameters he might have given him is limiting the amount of troops he gets. That is why it is so ripe when they claim they are not interefering with the Generals plans, because Bush didn't give him what he wanted, when the only thing Bush might not have given him is more troops, and their way of fixing Bush's interference of giving him not enough troops, is to give him less troops. The resolution would only make sense if they requested that Patreus get
more troops. So if they are saying Bush undercut the General's plan by not giving him enough troops, they are undercutting it
even more by calling for less troops.
There is no way Patreus asked for less troops, therefore the Senate Resolution only undercuts Patreus in his very limited strategic goal (one a general certainly makes) to secure Bagdad. They know the resolution won't persuade Bush (expecially against the advice of his General) so the only possible purpose the resolution can serve is to demoralize the troops and embolden the enemy.
They can't claim Bush is not paying attention to the Generals, and they are, when they are amplyfying the only way Bush could possibly be undercutting his general.
Threaded Mode