From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

Mark wrote:
> "Gary Britt"  wrote: ...Our
friend Michelle
> Malkin must be very proud that her publication of
>
>>Corporal Starr's last letter, which was sent to her by one of his
>>relatives
>>after his name was misused by the New York Times, made it into the
>>President's speech.
>
>
> Yes, that was a highlight for me too Gary. The rest of the speech was merely
> reiterating the plan as it's been laid out repeatedly for years -- but
> "they" still don't acknowledge it.

So "the plan" is to make yourself entirely dependant upon the
performance of the Iraqi Mil?

Wow. Also the number of knowing half truths was staggering. Most of the
well trained forces behaving as he said are in the south.

With UK forces.

Which is why he kept talking about "coalition troops".

> Indeed "they" were tripping over
> themselves to get to the microphones to prove their relevance, and thereby
> proving their irrelevance inadvertently.
>

Chuckle. It was a very funny speech. I love the fact that ideologically
driven pols in Washington got the mil into the war, didn't give them
overwhelming dominance (aka the powel doctrine), had such a poor
"peace plan" that the US mil is still engaged in internal
security & not proper mil things etc & when things were going well
then it was all flights out to aircraft carriers as C-in-C etc. In fact
Bush got re-elected as "C-In-C" & yet now....it's all
"Oh we wouldn't want non-mil pols in Washington taking any decisions
at all......"

Sounds like the start of a blame the mil campaign. We've had blame the
spooks & blame the dips so there's only the mil left.

Adam

> You know what? I kind of like that Murtha fellow, I just wish he'd stop
> digging for his own sake -- for the others, I'll pass them an extra shovel.
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5