Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
"Additional time"? That's the age-old excuse for failure: "we just need more time." Tell us exactly how additional time is going to reverse this chaos.

Even the most wildly hopeful estimates have NEVER placed Iraq under full control and capable of handling their problems on their own in under two years.

Time and more troops is precisely what is needed.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
I made an explicit argument earlier in this thread that the attacks have consistently increased. you agreed. Wake UP! Time is on the side of the insurgents, as it is in almost every guerilla war.

Arguing that attacks have increased and will increase is akin to arguing that the Sun is going to rise tomorrow. This was known and it is being addressed, albeit slowly.


Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Maybe you think the insurgents will get bored and go on vacation soon?

No. More will pour through Iraq's borders, which is precisely why it is implicit that we get an Iraqi security force on their feet and pronto. This is also precisely why we need more troops. It's odd that these are the SAME reasons that Kerry is putting forth on addressing some of the instability issues, which are the same one's that the Bush administration has put forth as well...


Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
"Unpleasant situation" is Rumsfeld's euphemism for "disasterous."

It hasn't been pretty, but nor has it been a catastrophic failue, as you are suggesting.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
We have been there for NINETEEN months. To say we are only 12 months into the process is a poor attempt to falsify the facts.

[sigh] It's took the coalition close to 6 months after the outbreak of the invasion to establish an environment where reconstruction equipment, supplies, workers and money could start to seriously funnel in. That puts any attempts at RECONSTRUCTION closer to 12 months...

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
It is ridiculous for you to say that we are not allowed to judge the progress of the occupation.

We are, though if judging it by what is pasted across the 5 o'clock news is the way you are going to do it, then you are doing yourself a great disservice. Progress, although slow, has been made but if the idiot box is your sole source of information, then I can almost guarantee that you've heard of NO successes in rebuilding some of the schools and hospitals.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
If you want me to say it is a failure only THUS FAR, then OK. Maybe Bush will pull a rabbit out of a hat, and we will start making progress toward security and fair elections and economic stability. I might even believe that, if Bush had described to us just how he is going to do it. He hasn't. He just says we are going to stick it out and hang tough. Great, that's an excellent plan.

Kerry seems to think so, as it's basically the same plan he's advocating.



Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Saddam's brutality was indeed a legitimate (but insufficient) justification for going to war. But you are confusing that with Bush's conduct of the occupation, which is a very separate issue. You are, again, dodging my irrefutable point (that we have a moral obligation to the Iraqis to conduct the occupation in a humane, efficient and reponsible way)

I'm not dodging the point; it's an assumed one because we are Americans and not attempting to clean up a mess we helped make isn't part of our mantra. Which we are working extraordinarily hard to do precisely this. Again, this takes TIME. I keep smelling the partisan whiff of feigned impatience, simply due to the fact that it's election year...

Given that you've already wrote off the entire excercise as a failure (if I understand your tone here), what would someone else other than the Bush administration do any different that what is being done today?


Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
and spinning off into a separate issue concerning justification for the invasion. It seems we are spending very little time actually debating issues; instead I seem to spend most of my time here pointing out that your responses do not really address the point under discussion. My points are clear enough, I think. Can't you please focus on them?

Sorry, but I keep having to debunk the fantasies of CIA agents never touching Iraqi soil, Hussein having a "lock" on his borders, a Congress that are mere puppets with the Executive branch pulling the strings, etc., etc.

I'd say your points are precise; you keep hitting the same topics over and over. However, there's a HUGE difference between being precise and ACCURATE...

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
You have been told many times in this forum that Kerry voted against that aid package because it was a poorly conceived irresponsible slop bucket for Halliburton & Co., and he had hopes of forcing a rewrite that would be far better for American taxpayers AND the troops. But go ahead and stick to your spin, even though no one believes it anymore.

BS. Kerry didn't like the way the money was being earmarked (grant instead of a loan); I've read nothing about it where he's thrown a hissy-fit about Haliburton.

By the way, if you have a beef with Haliburton, why didn't you scream left and right when Clinton used them in the past? Why has the Armed Forces under the LOGCAP contract gone with DynCorp one time, then back to Haliburton the other (could it be that they are one of the few top companies on the globe that can help assist with the logistical demands of the US military? )?

JaTo e-Tough Guy Missouri City, TX 99 Contour SVT #143/2760 00 Corvette Coupe