| Recent Posts | About the Author | Navigation |
|---|---|---|
|
|
David is an occasional blogger, software engineer, Nintendo fanboy, liberal, news magazine addict, voracious TiVo user, and bibliophile. He was born in St. Louis, grew up in southern Indiana, and returned to St. Louis to attend Washington University. He hasn't managed to escape yet. He's a fan of free wine tastings, too many tv shows to name, and eating out. David makes his living developing web applications used internally by his employer. He doesn't blog about work because he's heard too many stories about that causing workplace troubles. There's more on the about page. |
|
| Recent Comments | ||
|
|
||
| Recent Photos | ||
|
|
||
13 November 2006 - 10:53 pm
Disclaimer: This was originally an email to michael, but I thought I'd see if an one else had an opinion on this.
It would appear that the Democrats are the party of "cut and run." Whether this is a good idea or not is apparently an open question. I am torn on this issue. Unfortunately, while it is easy to come up with metrics that we can use to determine when we should withdraw (for example, when insurgent violence stops or when basic infrastructure is restored), no one seems confident that any of these metrics can be attained in the short-term and no one wants to stay for the long haul. But I don't like the idea of "bombing them back to the stone age," to quote our vice-president, and then bailing out before we've even restored basic things like electricity and oil production. It does make it seem like we're cutting and running. Your take?
Posted by on 13 November 2006 at 10:53 PM
Comments