Tonight we are going to listen to the president tell us why he is sending more troops into a war he doesn't want to fight.
He does not have the bloodlust of those whose hearts are warmed by men, women and children being killed in a foreign land. But even the most ardent of anti-war activists who are able to deal with the realities of war understand that at the level of commitment we currently have in Afghanistan, there is no way to instantly withdraw our troops overnight. We will have to fight our way out.
Bill O'Reilly has already summed it all up. I was surprised myself when I saw this quote - "we can't kill all of the Muslims" - from O'Reilly a couple of weeks ago. It actually brought to mind a question - "would you advocate it, Mr. OReilly, if you thought it was possible" - but the obvious answer - "YES!" - was so depressing I left it alone.
O'Reilly actually pivoted from this macabre suggestion to a much more positive one that grudgingly acknowledged that "maybe the president was onto something with his efforts to encourage cooperation between the East and the West.
As the details of the speech begin to leak out, and the discussion of the president's withdrawal plans gets underway, I hope that those whose job it is to argue about government policies for a living remember that there are real families involved in this undertaking.
And S. begins to get on her soapbox about "guns or butter" tonight, I hope they will also be mindful of our economy, and our inability as a nation to fight through these financial hard times as we get down to this expensive business of killing.
At an estimated cost of 30 billion dollars a month, it won't take long for the bills for this latest foray into Afghanistan to total up a half a trillion dollar price tag.