Bob Ackley -> Ed Hulett wrote:
 BA> Replying to a message of Ed Hulett to Bob Ackley:

 EH>> Bob Ackley -> Jeff Smith wrote:
 BA>>> Replying to a message of Jeff Smith to BOB KLAHN:

 BK>>>>>  The fact that Saddam complied
 BK>>>>>  with all Bush's demands, up to the ultimatum, then
Bush invaded
 BK>>>>>  anyway. The fact that Bush let OBL escape, as well as Mullah
 BK>>>>>  Omar.

 JS>>>>       Yup, Bush held the door open for OBL to slip out.
If you think
 JS>>>> that Saddam complied then you bought into what he was trying to
 JS>>>> sell everyone. He wanted people to think that he was
complying and
 JS>>>> I guess some people are still falling for it.

 BA>>> Even Hans Blix, the fellow who was in charge of those UN inspections
 BA>>> and was on the ground, in Iraq, at the time.

 BK>>>>>  The selling off of Iraqi property. The dismissal
of Garner, who
 BK>>>>>  would have held elections in Iraq much sooner,
which very likely
 BK>>>>> would have short circuited the insurgency. The
adamant refusal  to
 BK>>>>> send enough manpower to do the job in Iraq.

 JS>>>>        I would have prefered that the coalition had
finished the job
 JS>>>> in Iraq the last time we were there.

 BA>>> I would have too.  But hindsight is always 20/20.

 BA>>> [snip]

 JB>>>>>> What I want is folks to provide facts that Bush
has caused
 JB>>>>>> harm to anyone here with his protection of this country.

 BK>>>>>  2500 dead American soldiers might count for something.

 JS>>>> The bravery of American and coalition soldiers comes to
mind for me.

 BA>>> Note that the military, particularly the army, is hemorrhaging
 BA>>> people, and their recruiting is just barely keeping the numbers up.

 EH>> This is a lie. Just last month they had record high recruiting
 EH>> numbers. There are soldiers requesting second and third tours in
 EH>> Iraq.

 BA> Then why is it necessary for so much recruiting advertising on radio
 BA> (and presumably
 BA> on television)?  The amount of such advertising is up by several orders
 BA> of magnitude
 BA> from the level pre-2001.

No it isn't. The only recruiting advertisement I see is on the Military Channel.

 BA> I commented on that years ago.  Why is it also
 BA> necessary
 BA> for (some) recruiters to 'fudge' recruits' test scores and/or other
 BA> requirements for enlistment?  There have been several accounts of such
 BA> behavior noted in the not too distant past.

You give no evidence to support this claim.

 BA> Why is it necessary for recruiters to *demand* access to high school
 BA> campuses and to *demand* information from the schools about high school
 BA> students who have not contacted them?

Because the teachers unions and other left wing organizations want to keep
them off the campus.

 BA> Why is it necessary for recruiters call high school students at home in
 BA> clear violation of the students' parents' wishes?

Good grief. This claim is just too silly to comment on.


 BA> Why was it necessary for the army to raise the age limit for first
recruits from 35 to 42?

People are living longer?

 BA> Why has it been necessary for Rumsfeld to issue 'stop loss' orders
 BA> to keep people in the service past the expiration of their enlistment
 BA> contracts?

To keep them through their tour of duty.

 BA> Why is the army calling up so many reservists who thought they were
out of the
 BA> military?

If they are a reservist, they _aren't_ out of the military.

 BA> While they may *claim* record high recruiting numbers I'm sure that's
 BA> not true - if for no other reason that the numbers for December of 1941
 BA> and all of 1942, 1943 and 1944 undoubtedly exceeded them, both in raw
 BA> numbers and as a percentage of the population.

The record recruitment numbers are _since_ WWII, not including WWII.

Ed

-- 
Knowledge is proud that he has learned so much; Wisdom is humble that he
knows no more. -- William Cowper

Linux User#: 416016
Linux Machine#: 323569

--- Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060918)