Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael1
Hmm... I don't know, perhaps that the previous strategy wasn't producing the desired results?
|
Considering the "previous strategy" revolves around Bush "not caring" about Osama, by Bush's own words, I think the results were thoroughly consistent with the strategy...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael1
Um, political turmoil in Pakistan? Musharraf was openly willing to look the other way. The new government needed to understand that they weren't going to be allowed to dictate things.
|
And under this Pakistani government, we have orders to slay the American invaders...
Which brings up all sorts of questions on "sovreignty".
And make no mistakes, the "sovreign" issue is not one I hold a blind "hands off" approach for. I am more inclined for a heavier hand.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael1
Perhaps it's because people actually understand that capturing/killing one person won't eliminate the entire organization. If any Democrat believes otherwise they would be laughed at for having their head in the sand.
|
Considering nobody even hinted that capturing/killing one person would eliminate the entire organization, I am puzzled by your response.
By that logic, killing a single al Qaeda representative would not "eliminate the entire organization", so logically we shouldn't kill/capture any, right?
With the sarcastic logic aside, obviously capturing/killing Osama will WEAKEN al Qaeda, which should be a goal.
Does that need to be explained to the Republican base?
Or can you give me an alternative reason for why Republicans were unwilling to chastise Bush on his "not caring" where Osama was?
(Realistically, I think "blind partisan politics to the detriment of the nation" should be the acknowledged answer. But if you have a better one instead of trying to somehow blame Democrats for SOMETHING BUSH SAID, I'm all ears!
)