Josh Earnest had a shot at Iraq.
First:
White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Tuesday said President Barack Obama’s policy in the Iraqi conflict – employing airstrikes but no commitment of U.S. ground troops – overall has been a success.
So the president has committed sufficient numbers and types of forces to Iraq to win this fight. That is straightforward enough.
Very broadly speaking, I do think our strategy is appropriate, although I have criticisms on specifics.
And I really think we need more of a sense of urgency to execute whatever operational plan we settle on, as I've complained repeatedly.
Let's continue with Mr. Earnest's explanation:
White House spokesman Josh Earnest blamed Congress for not giving Obama the new military authorization he asked for to wage war against the Islamic State.
"At some point, somebody in Congress needs to assume responsibility for this and not just complain about it the whole time," Earnest said.
So the president--whose policy in Iraq has been a success they say, remember--doesn't have the authority to commit the types and numbers of troops to do the things the administration thinks is necessary to win the fight in Iraq?
For his constitutionally provided job as commander in chief, his pen and phone aren't enough?
Sometimes I think the administration is just upset that the enemy has not simply won that war and spared us the need to do something about it.
I really just don't get this whole nuance thing.
