Harry Krause wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:


I dunno. What is it now - 65%-70% of Americans are none too pleased
with the Bush Administration's conduct of its war against Iraq?
While the Repubs will try to paint Lamont and other Dems who oppose
their war as "weak on defense," I don't believe that dog is going
to hunt. You'd think by now that most voters would be able to
differentiate between a failed foreign policy that has drained our
national security and a reasoned approach to getting out of Iraq
that recognizes that country is heading down the toilet.
The Democrats are weak on defense.

Report back here when you've finished high school, Bertbrain.

I did near 30 years ago.

Ahh. I should have said, "graduated."

I did that when I walked across the stage with my other 600 classmates.


Do you disagree that the Democrats are weak on defense?

Yeah, I disagree. The Republican plan is to do the same stupid things
over and over and over, and hope for a better outcome. We see the
results of that in Iraq and on the Israel-Lebanon border, and in Iran
and North Korea shaking in their boots. The Republicans are weak on
defense, because they haven't a clue as to what works.

Complaints and more complaints. What would the Democrats do if they had
the power to do so?

You have no plan, you have no idea how to fight a war.



We are in the initial stages of WWIII. You can choose to bury your
head in the sand if you want but, this war hasn't even gotten started.

Well, then, son, you ought to re-up. I'm sure the marines could use
you to stop a bullet or an IED.

When are you going to serve your country?


I have.

As a generals civilian dog-robber?