I said this last night on CNN, but there is an obvious glaring logical hole at the center of the president’s strategy. John Derbsyhire sums it up brilliantly here:
The central and most glaring contradiction is the implied threat to walk away… Yoked to the ringing declaration that, of course, we can’t walk away. We seem to be saying to the Maliki govt.: "Hey, you guys better step up to your responsibilites, or else we’re outa here." This, a few sentences after saying that we can’t leave the place without a victory. So-o-o-o:
‚Äî-We can’t leave Iraq without a victory.
‚Äî-Unless Maliki & Co. get their act together, we can’t achieve victory.
‚Äî-If Maliki & Co. don’t get their act together, we’ll leave.
It’s been a while since I studied classical logic, but it seems to me that this syllogism leaks like a sieve.
I think the logical inference is that this is hooey. But Cheney, if not Bush, does not do hooey. What was the real message of this speech? I’m trying to figure that out. But I’m beginning to feel more dread in my stomach about what this president is prepared to do.
The Dish 