“I think a big part of it is, the vice president’s reading of the Democratic party is this is not sustainable,” Riedel told the New York Times. “That’s a part of the process that’s a legitimate question for a president–if I do this, can I sustain it with political support at home? That was the argument the vice president was making back in the winter.”
Don't they have chess in your respective Massachusetts swamps?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Can you parse those Biden ruminations for me? I have no idea what he's trying to say.
Don't send a billion troops into Afgh or you'll lose the left. Don't bail completely in Afgh or you'll lose the moderates. Don't force the healthcare thing or you'll lose the moderates, don't bail on healthcare or you'll lose the left.
W's choices were to outspend his philosophical moorings so that he would win the election and thus not lose the war.
What I have been saying all along.
I also have been saying that W perhaps didn't wait too long to bring in Petraeus, because perhaps the locals would have gotten the impression that the AQ types weren't so bad actually, if they hadn't gotten a good taste of them.
Their memory of AQ's barbarity will help Iraq's future more than a quick kill-'em-all from us.
Perhaps I am wrong on both counts, but it is a blog in which we argue...particularly when you hold up Fareed Zackaria as some kind of Einstein.
(Powww)
Post a Comment