Reply #37: you are implying conditionality

[welshTerrier2]

in your previous post, you discussed dependencies of one step on another (i.e. a sequencing). in this step, you referred to "a certain step" and committing resources. you also referred to: "people and materials, equipment and money, red tape and permits, and time."

the questioner's question has had enough of all that bullshit. she was clearly well beyond being tolerant of "people and materials, equipment and money, red tape and permits, and time." she asked how many more would have to die while Democrats busied themselves with all that garbage. all of the stuff you're talking about, unless I'm misunderstanding your point, is based on conditionality. and that conditionality is based on something other than withdrawing the troops as rapidly as their safety allows. what other conditions are you building into your project plan? what are the contingencies you support?

the timeline the woman asked about was one that started withdrawing today and finished as quickly as troop safety permits.

implicit in your post are all sorts of "reasons" why we can't just leave. in fact, Hillary has stated she would keep some number of troops in Iraq. does your project plan ever actually end? it's not clear Hillary's does. is that how you do your projects? "I can't even estimate how long it will take; we'll see how things go." nice ...

Hillary's real answer to the woman's question, had she been truthful, is that she does not support calling on the Pentagon to give the best possible estimate of how long it will take to withdraw all the troops safely and then demanding they stick to their estimate as closely as possible. instead, she uses lying, wiggle words like STARTING to withdraw SOME troops. That's no plan at all.