Brooks wrote:

First,
Shinseki was not the CJCS when he made that comment--he was the
former/retired CS of the Army (and one with an axe to grind regarding his
former superiors

Bull****.

"On February 25, Shinseki testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Senator Levin asked him to "give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's
force requirement for an occupation of Iraq…" Any general officer —
especially one as political as Shinseki — would have corrected the question
before answering it, because the very premise of an extended "occupation" is
antithetical to President Bush's policy of liberation. (It also plays right
into the hands of opponents in Europe and the Middle East who claim that our
real objective is only to occupy Iraq and seize its oil.) Instead of correcting
Levin, Shinseki answered that "something on the order of several hundred
thousand soldiers" would be required. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were both angered
by the response, and the next day Wolfowitz issued a pointed statement noting
that Shinseki's estimate was "wildly off the mark." According to one report,
Wolfowitz went out of his way to repudiate Shinseki, adding that "Shinseki's
prediction came at a delicate time when the Bush administration is trying to
piece together a broad-based coalition to support an invasion of Iraq to topple
Saddam Hussein." And still Shinseki remains."


http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...bbin030603.asp

Walt