Posts
Back in 2003, Tim Russert asked "Senator McCain, realistically, how long will American troops be in Iraq, and how much is it going to cost us?"
McCain's answer...
I don't know the answer to that, but I'm telling you what the question is, and the critical aspect of this is: What happens in the next few months? Time is not on our side. People in 125-degree heat with no electricity and no fuel are going to become angry in a big hurry. The sophistication of the attacks on U.S. and allied troops have increased. And what we do in the next several months will determine whether we're in a very difficult situation or not, and there's still time, but we've got to act quickly.Now 4 and half years later and McCain and the Republicans like Grassley and Latham are still giving the same answers.
1 comment:
I don't follow your reasoning. We changed, albeit somewhat belatedly, tactics in Iraq and the situation has dramatically improved, in every respect. AQ has been devastated, tens of thousands of jihadists killed, the political, economic and social situation improving rapidly, etc...
W said it best today, those who insist that Iraq is a lost cause appear as incapable of accepting the changing circumnstances as they accused him of being before he fired the losing generals (and Rummy)and put a winning team in place.
By the way, do you remember that Lincoln tried Gens. McDowell, McClellan, Halleck, Pope, McClellan again, Burnside, Hooker, Rosecrans, and Buell before he settled on Grant, Sherman and Meade as, to use a 21st Century term, the leadership team that won the war?
Insisting that nothing has changed for the better is simply adhering to a political point in defiance of the factual reality on the ground. The quote you cite actually reaffirms Mac's rectitude rather than demonstrating any flaw in his reasoning.
Post a Comment