From: "Mark" 

Oh please Rich. I watched Rumsfeld field the usual overwrought questions
and he did so with his usual aplomb. He acknowledged that there's a way to
go yet on getting the right people in the right numbers in the right places
around the world.

But overall there is nothing so dire about the condition our condition is
in -- certainly not to the degree of your latest favorite report. He
mentioned that we have over 2 million troops with only a fraction of that
deployed in Iraq (while also acknowledging what I said above). He was asked
too, that as such a conscientious steward of taxpayers money, why he was
commissioning these reports if he found their findings wanting. He replied
that we want all input from a variety of sources to help us form our
overall strategy -- just like I said when you posted your report link the
other day.


"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:43d95d0e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> The military is stretched - period. Oh I forget Rumsfeldian speech now
> calls for all good Bushies to use 'battle hardened' in place of
> 'overextended'.
>
>
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:43d942f3{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Like you and your kind would have been in favor of military intervention
>> in
>> any of these other places.  It makes no difference whether the military
>> is
>> hunkered down in Iraq or bringing a great victory to Iraq, because if the
>> liberals were in charge the military would never be used in any of these
>> other places for any reason.  So complaints the military is occupied in
>> Iraq
>> and can't be elsewhere are completely disingenuous because anyone with a
>> brain knows that the liberals wouldn't use the military against Iran,
>> North
>> Korea, the Congo, darfur, you name it even if we weren't in Iraq.
>>
>> Complaining just for the sake of complaining.  An intellectual jerk off.
>> The kind of which liberals love to engage.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Monte Davis"  wrote in message
>> news:dsfit1dk5aqcmrsh035skj6qvokoaeq54i{at}4ax.com...
>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote:
>>>
>>> >There will soon be
>>> >another revolution in Mexico.
>>>
>>> There can't be... there *mustn't* be. We're focused on (1) the GWoT,
>>> (2) Iraq, and (3) on maintaining the pretense that (2) had something
>>> to do with (1).
>>>
>>> Russia sliding back into autocracy, Belarus and most of -stans already
>>> there? Darfur? Congo? Iran? North Korea? West Bank? Tell those people
>>> they're just going to have to cool it until Dubya gets his foot out of
>>> the bear trap he was so determined to thrust it into.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

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