Replies

It's easy to like a lot about Fred.

I like this, from January:

Last week I said that it seemed to me that we ought to support the plan for the additional troops (which, incidentally, would bring the troops up to a number that is still less than the number of troops we have had there in the past) because the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq are so great. Understandably people have strong feelings on both sides of this debate. I read this week in The Economist magazine, which openly dislikes President Bush, that they agree with the president’s plan as our last best chance to prevail there. But I can see the arguments for the other side. I can even understand a vote to cut off funds for the war effort if one believes that we have clearly already lost the war and is prepared to accept the consequences of that loss. What I can’t see is this nonbinding resolution of opposition. Is it really in our country’s best interest to signal to the enemy that they probably only have to wait us out a little longer because congressional determination to defeat them is crumbling? Doesn’t such a resolution further diminish our chances for success at the very time our soldiers are preparing to go into battle? And finally, regardless of our politics is this the time to announce to the world that our president is “on his own”? Stomachless Senate, 9 January 2007 Radio Commentary

A genuine, determined will to win is my minimum requirement.