He gave a doozy of an interview on the war in Iraq. I generally tend to avoid the war in Iraq because a) it's a touchy subject for just about anyone with half a political mind, and b) I really don't know how I feel about the war anymore. So I try and avoid talking about it. But Bill doesn't.
His main point is that the decreasing deaths and casualties in Iraq basically means nothing. That it shouldn't be called "progress" in Iraq. I don't know where or why he came up with this ridiculous conclusion...maybe because it would make George W. Bush look good. And we know that that should never happen.
All the Democrats could talk about for the past few years were the number of deaths in Iraq. Now, with violence at a low, this is all changing. Richardson said that "Progress shouldn't be measured by casualty counts, body counts." This guy says that real progress can only be achieved by one thing and one thing only: withdrawing from Iraq.
Did you get all that or should I review? Apparently we shouldn't measure progress in terms of less violence, more peace, more commerce, more electricity, more water, more telephones and a steadily improving standard of living for Iraqis. You only define progress by counting the numbers of American troops leaving the country.
Way to go Bill. You're another prime example that the Democratic mind is often less logical that a coke-sniffing squirrel.
No comments:
Post a Comment