Obama vs. McCain (complex vs. simple)
They say the best explanation is often the simplest one. If so, what does the candidates explanation of the surge say about who’s telling the truth?
MCCAIN: War going bad, needed surge, got surge, all better.
OBAMA: I was against the war from the beginning which shows my superior judgment. My superior judgment was confirmed when the war started going horribly. Then they talked about the surge, which I was against. I know things are better, but it’s not because of the surge and I was right to oppose the surge. The surge didn’t make things better, though when American troops are asked to do a job, you can always count on them to make things better. Things got better because they would have gotten better anyway, even if we had not done the surge. And things really aren’t better. Just ask Nanci Polosi. She’ll tell you. The Iraqi government had not established the political reformation needed, though we have seen the violent civil war pretty much go away. But again, I was not for the surge, nor did it work. Things just got better apart from the surge. And Maliki wants a draw down in American troops as well. Because American troops aren’t needed as much because violence is down. So he supports my position, just as long as he doesn’t think that the surge of troops is what got us to this point. Maybe he wants us out because things are just so bad. I’m not sure. I’ll have to ask him. But what we really need is more troops in Afghanistan. Two brigades more, that is. Just don’t ask me how many troops are in a brigade and how I came up with that number. The additional troops will make a difference in Afghanistan, though it won’t be because we surged more troops there (though the troops always make things better). It will just have gotten better in Afghanistan, but not because of more troops, but just because. You know my position on this has been clear from the beginning, and I just don’t understand why you would continue to ask me about this.
No comments yet.
