This is the dumbest argument the Democrats have made yet. They claim some kind of vindication because they say Shinseki wanted 'several hundreds of thousands' of troops. Of course Obama wanted ZERO! I don't see any logic to the story they are trying to paint. Basically Obama appointed a man that was diametrically opposed to his argument over Iraq. Frankly, I'm surprised that the Washington Post only took six years to figure this out.The rats ran against Bush and his relatively unpopular venture in Iraq. McCain supported winning in Iraq. You can't have logic when the drive by media is in the tank for the left. Good election results are dependent on an informed electorate. We don't have an informed electorate. Most of Obama's supporters thought the GOP controlled Congress. The independents and moderates who control the results of elections know didly squat, IMHO.
Levin got the answer he wanted from Shinseki — one that was easily portrayed as being at variance with the administration ‘line’. Shinseki’s testimony was unsuccessfully used by the Dem opponents as a cudgel to browbeat the supporters of Operation Iraqi Freedom. It subsequently became part of the pre-Surge, “I told you so” arguments.
I don’t see any logic to the story they are trying to paint.
&&&
Aha! The central locus of your problem — looking for logic. The Rats don’t need no steenkin’ logic. If logic was part of their lives they would not be liberals to begin with.
ROTFLOL - That's because the democrats don't operate on LOGIC - they operate on emotion.