it's amusing to see that the president's speech, in which he effectively declared victory in the "war on terrorism" and called for an official acknowledgment of that reality by repealing the 2001 authorization for the use of military force, is being condemned by saxby chambliss as a "victory for terrorists." it makes me wonder if chambliss thinks we can ever finish that conflict without it being a terrorists' victory. if so, wouldn't the u.s. be destined to lose the war on terror?
actually what chambliss said was that the president's speech "will be viewed by terrorists as a victory." why should we base our policy decisions on how terrorists view them?
actually what chambliss said was that the president's speech "will be viewed by terrorists as a victory." why should we base our policy decisions on how terrorists view them?
