dimension, not political, diplomatic, economic, not security wise, not military. so you have to look at that and say okay, they are getting the outcomes they want because they can bomb the taliban into the stone age like that. they can destroy all those weapons that are in place, they can tell pakistan to cease and desist right now or we are turning off the money.es they can tell them stop doing these big evacuations of afghan women, and the mountaineering team. when you are funding the taliban and you find this invasion. he was the levers of your power and then advanced military technology the united states military has. the kind of thing, we have thermal drones i can see through walls. throughout the entire war in afghanistan, none of this capability has been used, so that s a broader question as to why not. the real question here is why
chris: let me pursue this. the president is proposing the buffet rule, that if you make at least a million dollars a year, you should pay at least a 30%ro tax rate and he propose this is just as we find out that mitt romney was pay ago 15% tax rate. again, isn t that on just the simplest basis fair? if you oversimplify it, youou can probably make that case. let s look at the math. all these tax increases that the president isnd talking about, ty only a cover 8% of his proposed spending increases. the other 92% of the president s spending increases are borrowed money.es so even if it doesn t even add up. it doesn t even go to the deficit. more to the point, instead of raising taxes, which disproportionately hits small businesses. eight out of ten businesses in america file their taxes as individuals. so the president is saying, bring their top tax rate to 45% whicduh is the current schedules