Ed, your analogy with the stockbroker was compelling and made your point well. If I had disagreed with what my broker (the President) was doing as far as Iraq I would have been more circumspect, as a matter of fact I'm quite sure I would have been.
And I'm not saying that a president should not sometimes take actions which are unpopular. The test of quality in leadership is not whether a majority of Americans agree, the test of quality is whether the decisions are proven to have been wise, or at least to have been based on sound and solid reasoning
We must agree to disagree here, you think the President made a mistake by way of getting flawed data and being ignorant about what he was doing, where as I don't. While the war was risky it could still have a favorable outcome. One of 2 things have to happen, either we increase the occupational force by a lot, or we start withdrawing in 6 months to a year. IMO this war is about 2 things, redistribution of wealth and expanding the rift between radical Islam (that's who we're fighting, call them terrorists whatever)and the larger and more moderate side of the faith.
The moderates, sooner or later will cull the radical influence out, more likely for economic reasons more than anything else and teach a softer more tolerant version of Islam.
Ed, no kidding, we can agree while still disagreeing about the issue, which to me is, do I think we were justified in invading Iraq removing Saddam and trying to facilitate a democracy? I do, IMO, the whole thing is about the redistribution of wealth in the country. I feel the best way to have that come about is through some democratic form of gov't. |
