Brian: Okay, let’s eliminate the disquisition on Wall Street and the bailouts, because that had nothing to do with my question and instead focus on your completely contradictory answer regarding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
On the one hand, you argue that Bush’s wars were “misguided, retaliatory attacks” (your words), but Obama’s handling of the same wars (and using largely the same policies) support American interests. Huh? First off, while Obama is winding down operations in Iraq, he is leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq. Look at that number again: 50,000. Equal to approximately 1/3 of the total (150,000) that were there previously. So, you cannot argue that this won’t be costly, nor can you argue that Obama is effectively rebutting a Bush-era decision (especially since Obama has said he’s willing to increase our presence “significantly” and “quickly” if the situation deteriorates).
Second, Obama is nowhere near winding down operations in Afghanistan, and, in point of fact, has upped the ante. Not just by sending in another 40,000 combat troops, but by expanding drone strikes and intel gathering operations throughout the AfPak region. Your attempt to bootstrap from Obama’s verbal promise to withdraw is misleading because Obama himself has made clear that this withdrawal timetable is flexible, and driven entirely by the situation on the ground, which, we both know, is not good, to put it lightly.
You also didn’t address Gitmo or Patriot I/II. I find this extremely interesting. Is this pragmatic, too? He’s continuing the policy of extraordinary rendition as well. Right now, in a prison in Egypt, or Jordan, or Saudi, or Poland, there are people that Obama sent, solely because we couldn’t “extract” intel using our present methods. You know what that means, don’t you, Brian? So how do you answer the charges about Obama’s stance on the continuing erosion of American civil liberties, or his support of torture? Is that pragmatic? Does that support vital American interests, too?
