|
well, I'm looking for an alternative explanation. I don't have much of a thing for Bush personally, and I guess we could debate until the cows come home whether invading Iraq was a good idea in the first place. But I see no justification for saying that, given we're there, failure is an option, much less the preferred option, irrespective of consequences. I'd like a coherent explanation of why disapproving the surge makes sense, why if it makes sense Congress nevertheless will fund the surge, and why, if they're funding the surge, it makes sense to disapprove of it publicly.
So far I have heard nothing at all to explain it, much less anything persuasive. Explain to me why this is not just partisan posturing. I'd be grateful.
|