wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:38:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:40:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:54:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

We could have brought in many more troops if Rumsfeld had set up the
invasion that way. He didn't.

They were really trying to avoid an invasion for political reasons
both here and in Kabul.

WHAT??? The whole point of going after Afg. was bin laden. The
politics
were
go for it in the American public's view. Something like 90% approval.

There was a 90% approval to "get Bin Laden" but if you polled the
country about a 60,000 man force, going to 100,000 men by the end of
this year you would have been polling at around 40%. where Obama is
now.

To the Afghanis, we are just the Soviets invading them again.
That was what we were trying to avoid.

Jim's contention that 4000 marines was going to get the job done is
countered by the fact that 60,000 isn't getting the job done.

You have a cite for this Bush-era poll? I doubt it.


I used your 90% quote, I didn't believe it but you said it.

"Something like 90% approval"

That was Bush's approval rating after 9/11. He could have done just about
anything he wanted. He was able to invade a country that didn't need
invading, so it seems likely he could have invaded Afghanistan with the
right number of troops.


He didn't have 15 UN resolutions and the precedent of a 10 year air
war to back up an invasion of Afghanistan.

BTW I doubt Bush ever had a 90% approval rating


?? Why would he need that for Afg.? We were attacked and that country was
harboring the attackers.

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm