Nothing whatsoever in what you responded to as "Bull****" in any way
challenged what was said.

Were you just trying to change the subject?

Or what?

Steve Swartz

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
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