A:
My understanding is that the troop reduction would have come out of very
specialized units and the operational cost was much, much greater than
the
monetary savings.

I'm sure if the 5,000 men was of no consequence, the Marines would have
obeyed.



B:
Dream on. In government nobody likes to see the size of his empire
reduced,
and regardless of the size the subject of the reduction will find any
excuse
to avoid it.



C:
That contradicts Rumsfeld own words (testimony to Congress) regarding
Marine
Troop strength:

http://www.house.gov/hasc/testimony/...ony2-16-05.pdf

Read his own words. Is Rumsfeld lying?

B attempts to trivialize A. C supports A. If B is true then A and C are
false.

So is Rumsfeld throwing up any excuse to avoid troop reduction? Or is B,
which generally may be true, not true applied to this specific case? If B
is true applied to this case then A and C are false. If A and C are true,
then B is false.

Real Conservatives in government automatically make B false.

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more
efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote
welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to
repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones
that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or
that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not
attempt to discover whether legislation is ``needed'' before I have first
determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later
be attacked for neglecting my constituents ``interests,'' I shall reply that
I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I
am doing the very best I can. "

Bushbots have done to the word "Conservative" what FDR did to the word
"Liberal".

Amen!