11-22-2003, 08:48 PM
It's not *that* bad. I think what happened is he had the agenda to attack Iraq after 9/11 (see: memos), and he really did think Saddam had bio. weapons or something, used it as the reason, and when it was confirmed he didn't he couldnt back down for political reasons. It's something you could expect of a politician, them being the scum of the earth.
However, we really are screwed there. The announcement was made that there will be over 100,000 troops in Iraq until 2006, compared to 130,000 now. We lose 20-30 soldiers a month on average, over 70 this month. Those arent going to be good stats at the end of this, not even counting civilian losses. We can't leave until Iraq is stable...
However, we really are screwed there. The announcement was made that there will be over 100,000 troops in Iraq until 2006, compared to 130,000 now. We lose 20-30 soldiers a month on average, over 70 this month. Those arent going to be good stats at the end of this, not even counting civilian losses. We can't leave until Iraq is stable...
i]"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum ... you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?"[/i] - Dirty Harry