Quote:and your point is ??
Hindsight is better than foresight in war???
First of all, the quotes from people on the ground recount
Or Democrat's are better at war than Republicans??
conversations and requests that are documented and verifiable.
So we're talking about the historical record rather than hindsight..
Now, the 'money shot'. Do you see any evidence of the devaluing of or contempt for hindsight from ANY Republican who has said anything about Benghazi?
If they didn't employ hindsight they'd all be walking around with guide dogs and white canes.
I'm from the generation of Vietnam and LBJ and Nixon, so no, both Parties sucked first at not avoiding that debacle....'no more land wars in Asia' was as cogent an argument as was the 'domino theory'...and secondly at continuing a futile intervention against an enemy that was never going to quit and in support of a government that quit too often.
GHB and Colin Powell did it correctly, regardless of any debates about the necessity to fight what turned out to be Persian Gulf War I
Clinton effectively kept Saddam in 'a box' with no fly zones and periodic cruise missile strikes, including in retaliation for an attempt on GHB's life.
He also wisely didn't use American ground troops in the Balkans and did use American airpower at Kosovo and on Belgrade, effectively.
My only point is that the Republican party always portrays itself as the Party of military strength, if not prowess, and always portrays the Dems as feckless. That's simply not the reality of the matter.
9/11 and Iraq flipped that on its head.
And all of the Republican 'drumbeating', without ever discussing who should fight, who we SHOULD fight and how we should we pay for it, leaves me highly skeptical of their judgment AND their prowess.
