How do McCain et al get away with the following argument?
We have to stay in Iraq even though it's now a disaster, because it will become a worse disaster if we leave.
Why does no media person, ever, ask the following question?
Senator McCain / President Bush / Representative whoever, you argued that this war would make us better off at a reasonable cost. At the time, were you aware that fighting the war for four years would lead to a position where we would be worse off than we were before the war started?
How do McCain et al get away with the following argument?
We have to stay in Iraq even though it's now a disaster, because it will become a worse disaster if we leave.
Why does no media person, ever, ask the following question?
Senator McCain / President Bush / Representative whoever, you argued that this war would make us better off at a reasonable cost. At the time, were you aware that fighting the war for four years would lead to a position where we would be worse off than we were before the war started?
Ex post, it is obvious that there was no immediate threat from Iraq. Honestly, it was clear ex ante, too. Now the war supporters are saying that there is a grave threat if we don't keep up the war. So the war has put us in a pretty unambiguously worse place.
So media, say it proud:
Mr. War Supporter: is it fair to say that this war has put us in a worse position? If not, why is it now important that we fight this war, given it is clear in hindsight that there was not immediately important to fight the war four years ago?