From: "Robert G Lewis" 


"Mark"  wrote in message
news:43d78a46{at}w3.nls.net...
>
> "Adam" <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the
field.near the bridge"> wrote
> in message news:43d744ee{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Mark wrote:
>>> Whatever. The fact is they're commissioning the reports and acting on
>>> them
>>> as appropriate -- a far cry from the "Rumsfeld doesn't
listen" argument
>>> put
>>> forth by the left continiously.
>>>
>>> Ah well, at least it's a new name to float about instead of the tired
>>> old
>>> "Zinni" and "Shinseki" canards.
>>>
>>
>> Where esp Zinni knew the area far better than the neo-con armchair
>> huggers & was much more accurate than they or their pet leader Bush.
>>
>> Odd how those who are right & who gave full service to the US are
>> quickly dissed as canards where those who were so wrong & incompetant
>> that it's tragic are still in posts of authority.
>
> Actually, I'm sure they were fully competent officers and I don't even
> reject their criticisms out of hand, in fact I'd be willing to acknowledge
> that there is a good chance that some of their positions may have been
> preferred to those ultimately taken.
>
> What I'm rejecting is the left's trotting their statements out as
> iron-clad evidence that had their positions been implemented all would be
> strawberries and cream -- never is there any consideration of the
> unforeseen drawbacks that could have accompanied their strategy. We'll
> never know how their plans may have worked, which is a far cry from the
> position that not following their advice is some kind of proof of failure.

perhaps you should go back and read the administration's statements from
right before the war.


>
> Especially when we're actually doing so damn well.  sequence of events and timeline that one would expect in a war that would
> be considered successful in comparison to the existing one?>
>
>

I'd hate to see how you would define going badly.

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