I heard this on the radio and thought it didn't make any sense. Even though it's a politician, I'll break with tradition (that's "tradition" by the way, not "rule") and put it up here. And if you're addicted to "balance," then go find some crazy equivalent howler by Obama so we can talk about that. It's John McCain criticizing Obama on the surge. <\/p>\n
\nOddly enough, my opponent advocates the deployment of two new combat brigades to Afghanistan — in other words, a surge. We're left to wonder how he can deny that the surge in Iraq has succeeded, while at the same time announcing that a surge is just what we need in Afghanistan.<\/strong> I'll leave all these questions for my opponent and his team of 300 foreign policy advisors to work out for themselves. With luck, they'll get their story straight by the time the Obama campaign returns to North America. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The only way this argument would work is if Obama had argued that "surges" (I'm weak on military strategy, but I don't think that's a kind of thing) do not work in principle–which, as far as I know, he didn't. <\/p>\n
I guess I would call this a rather straightforward case of suppressed evidence. Afghanistan and Iraq are obviously different vis a vis military surging. Reasons for surging in one place are not reasons for surging in every place. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I heard this on the radio and thought it didn't make any sense. Even though it's a politician, I'll break with tradition (that's "tradition" by the way, not "rule") and put it up here. And if you're addicted to "balance," then go find some crazy equivalent howler by Obama so we can talk about that. … Continue reading Surge protector<\/span>