Brian Talley

David Gravereaux wrote:
> "Mike64Bug" <mfkoch REMOVE@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm pretty much with you Brian. What I don't understand is why people twist the facts around just because they don't
>>like that Iraq was invaded. President Bush didn't lie about anything. The idea that he did is just bizarre. And what
>>about the dozens of other people (both here and in other countries) that had to be involved in order to make the war in
>>Iraq happen? Bush didn't do this on his own. It might not even have been his idea. There were obviously a lot of
>>other people who thought it was a good idea to stop Saddam. I happen to think that they went about it all the wrong way
>>but the idea certainly had merit. The fact that we haven't found all of the weapons that he built is rather irrelevant.
>>They didn't just disappear. (Well, duh...) If you send a bunch of your soldiers out in to the desert to bury stuff and
>>then kill them all when they get back...well...we might never find any of it. We found nearly 30 fighter planes buried
>>in the desert that no one seemed to remember anything about. (...tail fin sticking up through the sand...gee, what's
>>this?)
>>Oh, well. I'm sure we'll all get over it.
>>
>>
>>>>>Mike
>>
>
> Let's not forget the troop count blunder, too. When top military experts
> say 200K to secure the nation, and Rumsfeld is stiff on 45K, look at the
> mess the military is in now. Thanks Commander in Chief.

The military is presently kicking the bejesus out of terrorists in
Falujah. Good riddance.

The ****-off is that the Bush administration felt it needed to wait
'til after the election to pursue the bad guys.

I agree that an absolutely unquestionably overwhelming force should
have been sent into Iraq from Day One. Letting the Republican Guard
essentially go free is a mortally stupid idea.

In other words, my complaints around Iraq is not that we're there
and we should not be, but that we're not there in enough numbers
and we are not using enough force.

Grab 'em by the *****, and their hearts and minds will follow....

Brian Talley

David Gravereaux wrote:
> "Mike64Bug" <mfkoch REMOVE@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm pretty much with you Brian. What I don't understand is why people twist the facts around just because they don't
>>like that Iraq was invaded. President Bush didn't lie about anything. The idea that he did is just bizarre. And what
>>about the dozens of other people (both here and in other countries) that had to be involved in order to make the war in
>>Iraq happen? Bush didn't do this on his own. It might not even have been his idea. There were obviously a lot of
>>other people who thought it was a good idea to stop Saddam. I happen to think that they went about it all the wrong way
>>but the idea certainly had merit. The fact that we haven't found all of the weapons that he built is rather irrelevant.
>>They didn't just disappear. (Well, duh...) If you send a bunch of your soldiers out in to the desert to bury stuff and
>>then kill them all when they get back...well...we might never find any of it. We found nearly 30 fighter planes buried
>>in the desert that no one seemed to remember anything about. (...tail fin sticking up through the sand...gee, what's
>>this?)
>>Oh, well. I'm sure we'll all get over it.
>>
>>
>>>>>Mike
>>
>
> Let's not forget the troop count blunder, too. When top military experts
> say 200K to secure the nation, and Rumsfeld is stiff on 45K, look at the
> mess the military is in now. Thanks Commander in Chief.

The military is presently kicking the bejesus out of terrorists in
Falujah. Good riddance.

The ****-off is that the Bush administration felt it needed to wait
'til after the election to pursue the bad guys.

I agree that an absolutely unquestionably overwhelming force should
have been sent into Iraq from Day One. Letting the Republican Guard
essentially go free is a mortally stupid idea.

In other words, my complaints around Iraq is not that we're there
and we should not be, but that we're not there in enough numbers
and we are not using enough force.

Grab 'em by the *****, and their hearts and minds will follow....

Brian Talley

David Gravereaux wrote:
> "Mike64Bug" <mfkoch REMOVE@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm pretty much with you Brian. What I don't understand is why people twist the facts around just because they don't
>>like that Iraq was invaded. President Bush didn't lie about anything. The idea that he did is just bizarre. And what
>>about the dozens of other people (both here and in other countries) that had to be involved in order to make the war in
>>Iraq happen? Bush didn't do this on his own. It might not even have been his idea. There were obviously a lot of
>>other people who thought it was a good idea to stop Saddam. I happen to think that they went about it all the wrong way
>>but the idea certainly had merit. The fact that we haven't found all of the weapons that he built is rather irrelevant.
>>They didn't just disappear. (Well, duh...) If you send a bunch of your soldiers out in to the desert to bury stuff and
>>then kill them all when they get back...well...we might never find any of it. We found nearly 30 fighter planes buried
>>in the desert that no one seemed to remember anything about. (...tail fin sticking up through the sand...gee, what's
>>this?)
>>Oh, well. I'm sure we'll all get over it.
>>
>>
>>>>>Mike
>>
>
> Let's not forget the troop count blunder, too. When top military experts
> say 200K to secure the nation, and Rumsfeld is stiff on 45K, look at the
> mess the military is in now. Thanks Commander in Chief.

The military is presently kicking the bejesus out of terrorists in
Falujah. Good riddance.

The ****-off is that the Bush administration felt it needed to wait
'til after the election to pursue the bad guys.

I agree that an absolutely unquestionably overwhelming force should
have been sent into Iraq from Day One. Letting the Republican Guard
essentially go free is a mortally stupid idea.

In other words, my complaints around Iraq is not that we're there
and we should not be, but that we're not there in enough numbers
and we are not using enough force.

Grab 'em by the *****, and their hearts and minds will follow....

K5

"Brian Talley" <btalley@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1iakd.375989$bp1.68124@twister.nyroc.rr.com.. .
> The military is presently kicking the bejesus out of terrorists in
Falujah.
In other good news today, arafat is dead again, oil is down to $48 a barrel,
democrats still on suicide watch.

K5

"Brian Talley" <btalley@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1iakd.375989$bp1.68124@twister.nyroc.rr.com.. .
> The military is presently kicking the bejesus out of terrorists in
Falujah.
In other good news today, arafat is dead again, oil is down to $48 a barrel,
democrats still on suicide watch.

K5

"Brian Talley" <btalley@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1iakd.375989$bp1.68124@twister.nyroc.rr.com.. .
> The military is presently kicking the bejesus out of terrorists in
Falujah.
In other good news today, arafat is dead again, oil is down to $48 a barrel,
democrats still on suicide watch.

Mike64Bug

> Take into consideration the efforts of Clinton to decrease
> funding for intelligence-gathering agencies. Also, consider the
> efforts by Jamie Gorelick (who was also on the 9/11 Commission)
> who mandated that the FBI and CIA could not, legally, share
> information. I don't think it's reasonable to expect Bush to
> get US intelligence back on its feet in the few months he was
> in office before 9/11.
>
Nice call again Brian. You're right, 9/11 occurred because of
Clinton not Bush. Clinton spent his eight years wiping out
our intelligence gathering ability. After all, the cold war was over,
what was there to be afraid of?
>>>Mike

Mike64Bug

> Take into consideration the efforts of Clinton to decrease
> funding for intelligence-gathering agencies. Also, consider the
> efforts by Jamie Gorelick (who was also on the 9/11 Commission)
> who mandated that the FBI and CIA could not, legally, share
> information. I don't think it's reasonable to expect Bush to
> get US intelligence back on its feet in the few months he was
> in office before 9/11.
>
Nice call again Brian. You're right, 9/11 occurred because of
Clinton not Bush. Clinton spent his eight years wiping out
our intelligence gathering ability. After all, the cold war was over,
what was there to be afraid of?
>>>Mike

Mike64Bug

> Take into consideration the efforts of Clinton to decrease
> funding for intelligence-gathering agencies. Also, consider the
> efforts by Jamie Gorelick (who was also on the 9/11 Commission)
> who mandated that the FBI and CIA could not, legally, share
> information. I don't think it's reasonable to expect Bush to
> get US intelligence back on its feet in the few months he was
> in office before 9/11.
>
Nice call again Brian. You're right, 9/11 occurred because of
Clinton not Bush. Clinton spent his eight years wiping out
our intelligence gathering ability. After all, the cold war was over,
what was there to be afraid of?
>>>Mike

Ken Finney

"K5" <K58814@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rs-dnaLmlabcpgzcRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> "Brian Talley" <btalley@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:1iakd.375989$bp1.68124@twister.nyroc.rr.com.. .
> > The military is presently kicking the bejesus out of terrorists in
> Falujah.
> In other good news today, arafat is dead again, oil is down to $48 a
barrel,
> democrats still on suicide watch.
>
>

Those may all be inter-related!