On Feb 28, 10:44*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 22:11:23 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:17:13 -0800, wrote:

What?? We're certainly not doing that in Afg. Bush is the one who
wouldn't commit troops there when we could have caught him. I guess
OBL wasn't that important... But, you want to commit 300K troops in
Somalia.

I never said I would put ONE ****ING GUY on the ground in Somalia. I
only said if I did I would send 100,000 (using the Peteaus or Powell
doctrine) if I went and that is probably not enough.
Personally I think invading Africa is as stupid as invading
Afghanistan. It is actually worse politically.

And, in the next sentence you said it would be a disaster. So, let me
summarize... you wouldn't do it, but if you did it would be a mistake.

As for OBL, it is far from certain 50,000 troops would have had any
better luck in catching him without also doing a mass invasion of
Pakistan, something Bush wisely did not want to do.

It wouldn't have been certain, but it would have been more likely.
Bush/Rumsfeld couldn't use 50K troops because they didn't think it was
necessary. The screwed it up.

"The screwed up." excellent D'Plume?

Bush screwed us, our troops, the Afghanis and the Iraqis over. That
doesn't need to be proved, since it's a fact.

You're telling us that Bush stooped to low to screw you and JPS both?
Truly the man was desperate.