[adjusting tin foil]I was watching the Lehrer News Hour, and in listening to the discussion of Shields and Brooks on Iraq it came to me suddenly that all of the big fat errors in strategy that the armed forces have had to implement in Iraq came directly from the "civilian leadership" (aka Rumchenbush). The armed forces, mainly Gen. Casey this past week, are now being lambasted by Congress for taking that strategic approach to the war. I also remember that the armed forces weren't all that eager to go into Iraq to begin with, but that Runchenbush forced the issue. And so on and so on. So here comes the tin-foil adjustment: how much longer are the leaders of the armed forces going to put up with "civilian leadership"? Does anyone think that there's any likelihood that the armed forces will just take over, like they do from time to time in other parts of the world?[/adjusting tin foil]<br><br>

Although I cannot believe these left wing liberal fingers are typing this I think your logic is not logical. Why?<br><br>1) Because the generals who lead our armed forces have exuded sanity during this time of insane leadership from the civilian Rumchenbush.<br><br>2) No one who is sane would want to try to fix this mess.<br><br>QED: I think they will take a pass.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

I haven't seen Seven Days in May in awhile. Now might be just the right time.<br><br>Oh! Oh! I did see The Manchurian Candidate (the real one, on TCM) last week. Truly a classic, just as compelling today, in spite of the dated politics.<br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue] Talk about things and nobody cares . . .</font color=blue>