"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
WalterM140 wrote:
"WASHINGTON, June 22 - Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, a
prime
architect of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, said Tuesday that
the
Pentagon had underestimated the violent tenacity of an insurgency that
formed
after Baghdad fell, and he acknowledged that the United States may be
forced
to keep a significant number of troops in Iraq for years to come."

-- Today's NY Times

That's all very nice, but let's recall that two four star generals (at
least)
Generals Zinni and Hoar -- both former commanders of Central Command --
have
said Iraq was contained, and no invasion was necessary. And let's
remember
that the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Shinseki said 300K troops
were
required to settle the security situation.

And Shinseki's numbers have proven to be high; you might note that Shinseki
himself waffled after his first statement, dropping the number to 200K
(still too high)...


Let's remember that the Bush administration went into Iraq with less
than half
that number after ensuring the only possible source of significant
numbers of
other troops -- the UN -- was thoroughly alienated.

The Bush adminstration is a miserable failure and the blood of our
troops is
red on its hands.

Walt

"But, Daddy, if I fire them, I might embarrass them and make them feel
bad!" Is
that a boss man with balls, or what??? Yeah, I know.....it sure as hell
isn't
the first choice, is it.

Tsk, tsk, tsk! And this coming from a yutz who just recently decried the
pursuit of off-topic trolls in the NG--shame on you, Georgie (or is it Hal?
You get me so confused...one minute you actually have the balls to use your
own name, then you revert to using your none-too-witty nom du guerre...).

Brooks


George Z.