tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7200976.post1774052783674423088..comments2024-03-26T06:05:22.468-04:00Comments on The Disorganized Thoughts of SuperSteve: Spin This!SuperStevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07764049888322335823noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7200976.post-20567789886968318822006-09-12T16:18:00.000-04:002006-09-12T16:18:00.000-04:00I like that analogy, but it strikes me as too "eas...I like that analogy, but it strikes me as too "easy" in hindsight. Diplomacy had clearly failed by that point, and any Dem who thought we might see restraint used once the leash was taken off was deluded. No, I think the writing was on the wall, and to take a stand against the tide at that point would have been political suicide. The smart play was to go with the crowd and then either distance yourself from it or take credit for it depending on the outcome.<br /><br />I should run for office.SuperStevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07764049888322335823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7200976.post-22998874368951204372006-09-12T15:59:00.000-04:002006-09-12T15:59:00.000-04:00As bad as the Democrats have been on this, they ge...As bad as the Democrats have been on this, they get continually accused of having "voted for the war" when they voted on the resolution allowing the use of force. Nonsense. As one commentator I heard the other day pointed out ( it might have been Bill Maher, I forget), the vote was to give Bush a gun in case he HAD to use it, not to give him a gun so he could run into the next room and start shooting at everything that moves. The vote was to put the use of force into the diplomatic toolkit, with the express notion that diplomacy was going to be continued in good faith. Bush broke that faith.redcrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735761482049371488noreply@blogger.com