"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...


Oh, but we have been quite competent, outstripping the record for armored
assualt depth versus time,

Bwah hah hah hah!

Hilarious! Thanks for cheering up a grey Edinburgh day with this hilarious
statement! And some people over here still maintain that Merkins don't 'do'
irony!

use of precision strike systems to emasculate a
still capable enemy ground force, and doing in a few short weeks what more
than a decade of UN/diplomatic hand-wringing and sanctions (with France
tossing what wrenches it could into that process as well) was incapable of
accomplishing. You may not like what we have done, but don't be so stupid
as
to call it "incompetent".

Cor! Why is that stupid? What would an 'incompetent' policy look like then?
How would we know the difference?

1000 US troops and mercenaries dead, ~10 000 Iraqis dead, continuing and
escalating violence, no rule of law, no credible democracy in place.

No WMD. Not, as you put it "Iraq's WMD programs (done--though we did not
find them to be of
the scale we thought they would be at the beginning)"

No WMD. Tell it like it is. Even your compatriots and fellow GW Bush fans
must be laughing at the above quote from your post.

No Osama Bin Laden.

And you didn't even get to keep the oil you wanted!

This three years after US citizens learned for the first time what the
Palestinians and the Irish among others have known for many years, how it
feels to be on the receiving end of a vicious bloodthirsty attack by
terrorists.

Nearly a year and a half after your draft-dodging, coke-snorting,
election-rigging President posed on an aircraft carrier under the words
'Mission Accomplished'.

Again, in what regards would an incompetent policy be different to what we
have now?

John