I have been listening to all the talking heads about "no boots on the ground" logic and have some logic of my own.
The simple minded argument that I keep hearing is that, "after sending our troops into--?---the situations is no better than before we went in." Too the simple minded, this sounds like a very logical argument, but the argument is flawed. See if this one looks as logical. "At age 16, I started going to the gym and working out every week and now at age 45, I am not in as good health as before I started working out." Does this mean that going to the gym was a bad idea? Starting to see the flaw?
The logic and the question should be, "Is the situation in Iraq better "today" than it would have been had we not sent our troops in. Do you see the flawed logic now? You can not turn back the clock. In the case of Iraq it is clear that, if we had done what Obama proposes today, Iraq would have the atomic bomb and be a bigger problem. I don't know why our voters are so easy to mislead by a smooth talking Judas. I guess that is why the human race has so often been a victim of a Judas.
