Your first sentence is difficult to understand clearly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
Yes, but the difference is, as a strictly partisan if you're "right" about this, it's in a stopped clock sort of way. Here's wagering you never thought Obama would conduct Iraq and Afghanistan by listening to the Generals, as opposed to by his campaign rhetoric on the topic. I did, capice?
|
I am pleased he is listening to generals, particularly as it gives me hope the Dems will increasingly turn back towards sense, instead of away from contending for democracy and the beneficent effects of globalization. I also recall no indication during his candidacy he actually would behave as cagily as he has, and his party still can't bring itself to behave like it might be quite all right to win a war with anti-democrats even today, when they own the War-that-they're-not-calling-On Terror. With the usual conspicuous exception of Senator Joe Lieberman. The Republicans had and I think still have vision, while the Democrat myopia is still much in evidence.
They've been this feckless for a whole generation, UT, and unsuccessful at breaking totalitarianism for two. Winning this war with a Democratic President would constitute the first time that's happened since Truman. Truman left office three years and four months before I was born, and I'm going gray.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
And furthermore the problem in this bill so far is the D House, not the D Senate or D President, so at the moment you are complaining about nothing. How stupid is that?
|
When's the best time to stop a bad law? Back when it's still a Bill. Now how stupid is that?