Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MCOAvalanche
The war on Iraq was lost on the homefront while successful on the battlefield.

I was in favor of invading Iraq. The US was ultimately successful on the battlefield, but Bush should have replaced Rumsfeld sooner. It's hard for me to reconcile the word "successful" with the 4,000+ US deaths, which should have been much lower.

a failure by the leadership to BEHAVE as we are doing the right thing.

Rumsfeld: "It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it. As you know, you go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.---You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up..."

Rumsfeld was speaking as if he was doing the right thing, but IMO he was not. If you think that statement helped the Republican cause politically, you and I will have to disagree.

90 posted on 04/05/2010 11:34:32 AM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Pat Caddell: Democrats are drinking kool-aid in a political Jonestown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]


To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas

Rumsfeld blew it.


93 posted on 04/05/2010 11:58:15 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Support our troops....and vote out the RINOS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson