Tuesday, March 27, 2007

They'll just keep revising history (until they get it right).

In the interview, John Bolton closes by stating, "In hindsight I'd have turned responsibility back to the Iraqis a lot earlier than we did."

Incredible. As they continue to second-guess their prior inept moves, with perfect 20/20 rear-view vision no less, they still can't come up with anything that makes much sense.

So Bolton is saying if they could do it over again, the best course of action would've been to hand the country over to the Iraqis sooner -- implying what exactly? That our soldiers would be leaving by now since, I assume, the country would be a peaceful, blossoming democracy? Based on what can he credibly conclude this? As it is, our troops can barely keep the country together and it's grown increasingly worse, and yet we're to believe that handing the reigns of power over sooner would've been the key to halting eventual civil war and bloody mayhem...? But I thought the neocons all along have been saying that's precisely why we've had to stay?

These guys have attempted the game of do-over so many times in their heads they don't even know themselves what they're saying. (Even scarier, Bolton used to be our top guy in the UN -- yikes).

No comments: