Unfortunately that is the problem. Kerry has always "expressed concern" about the plight of the military and then done exactly the opposite. From his anti-war days till the current conflict. He didn't hestitate to vote to send us to war, but then voted aginst the funds to fight once there (body armor, ammo, hostile fire pay, medical care, etc.). Talk is cheap, but his voting record for the military is terrible. That is why most military members are supporting Bush.

As far as providing enough troops, that is just nonsense. The adminstration has provided exactly the number of troops requested by the theater commanders. I would trust those guys "in-theater" to know what they need more than political wonks in Washington.

"As far as providing enough troops, that is just nonsense. The adminstration has provided exactly the number of troops requested by the theater commanders. I would trust those guys "in-theater" to know what they need more than political wonks in Washington."

You're correct Flintstone. The military does know better what troop strength they need. However, from the beginning, Rumsfield (according to reports) placed a lower limit on the number of troops deployed thinking that would be sufficient. It wasn't. It was only recently when he allowed field commanders the numbers they really need. The result is that troops that anticipated coming home now have been extended another 70-90 days.

Does anybody see any parallel between McNamara and Rumsfield? Both in tight situations, seeking a just and honorable way to extricate ourselves (I'm being generous with my assesement of his situation).

Sherwood