Question: why is it that on every issue save one, the Obama administration has had its foot on the gas, pressing ahead with all manner of speed and urgency?

Eight hundred billion worth of tax payer money had to be rammed through Congress to avoid an economic apocalypse, we were told. No delay could be tolerated in revamping one sixth of the American economy with health care reform. It needed to be done by August, the President initially said, before letting his self imposed deadline slip to the end of the year.

But on Afghanistan, the administration has said just the opposite: things must be taken slow; the problem must be studied from every angle; and all possible deliberations must be made before coming to any conclusion.

Why hasn't the same logic applied to the administration's approach to health care, for example?

When pressed as to why the decision making process has been so drawn out, the White House has said that sending troops into harm's way is a momentous, life-or-death decision - which it is - and that the President wants to make sure all relevant information has been considered.

But how does that reasoning square with the fact that Obama already sent troops into harms way back in March when he deployed an additional 21,000 soldiers to Afghanistan? That was a life-or-death decision as well, no? Was he not deliberative enough the first time around?

And let's not forget the President's responsibility to the 68,000 troops already stationed in Afghanistan. The life-or-death argument cuts both ways. Their commander submitted a plan to President Obama in August asking for reinforcements. Obama's decision to draw the out the process for months has also had life-or-death consequences for those U.S. soldiers.

--------------------------------------------
Follow the RCP Blog on Twitter.
Become a fan of RCP on Facebook.
--------------------------------------------