« When mixed metaphors attack: Tony Snow edition | Main | McCain and Mankiw on supply-side economics »

March 12, 2007


It is not an attack on dissent to state what should be obvious to anyone, that an effect of the determination to set a timetable for ending U.S. involvement in the war in Iraq is to encourage the so-called insurgents there. That may be a consequence that the proponents of a timetable feel is worth accepting because the goal of ending U.S. involvement outweighs it, but it doesn't mean the consequence doesn't exist.

Consider if a significant number of insurgents in Iraq were arguing for a timetable to end the insurgency. Wouldn't we conclude that our efforts there were succeeding and that we should continue to press them? Wouldn't we be encouraged?

Why would you imagine that the insurgents would have any different reaction to the efforts here to set a timetable? And why do you believe it is inappropriate for the media or the Republicans to say so?

The comments to this entry are closed.