Well, there’s the argument that needs to be made, whether or not we agree with it. But it was almost a footnote last night.

And to rehash the Morning Blather, the argument needs to be made in terms of the problem, and whether an occupying force is the best way to deal with it. The last part of the speech, addressing “critics,” only covered military solutions.

It really did feel like Shrub with most of the Orwell removed. I wasn’t expecting to be pursuaded, but I thought at least he’d put up a good fight.

And if this is really about Pakistan and nukes, as I and others have said, that kind of thing can be handled by the State Department, CIA, FBI, etc.

An invading and occupying army in Afghanistan isn’t going to do squat to keep a mushroom cloud away from New Delhi.

@Capt Howdy: I lost the minimal respect I had for the guy before the election, shortly after the inauguration. It didn’t take much more than the appointment of Rahm to Chief of Staff; but has given me so many more reasons anyway. Completely gratuitous!

-or perhaps, just perhaps, it isn’t at all complicated. We have no clear objective, no real support from the indigenous people, are in a country referred to by historians as “the graveyard of empires”, and will have to take loans from a repressive police state to pay for our occupation in a time when we can’t even afford to feed the swelling ranks of our own destitute citizens.

BRING THEM HOME NOW.

which is not to argue with you point that the case was not made all that well. which is also my major criticism.