Ok, which is it...we're fighting two wars, or just the one war on terror, which has no boundaries, legitimacies, or rules? Now, for the sake of argument, we are fighting two wars?
Of course, smurph is right, we essentially blew off the first war - the one we should have been in and done with by now - for reasons only the Bush administration really knows. Our handling of however many wars we are in now is embarrassing, and if a person can not either see that, or admit that, well, that is just not facing real life.
Smurph also nails the enlistment situation, as there has to be new blood (literally) to meet the objectives of this administration. The old blood is starting to get it now, and you have to let in new people you said originally were not up to standard to fight for this country. I guess these people are ok now...might as well lower those standards to meet the lowering standards of this administration.
The other way Bush can continue to occupy Iraq and fight his secondary concern of Bin Laden and the people who actually attacked us, is to hold over National Guardsmen and women, and other branch members of our service for two, three, sometimes more terms of service that they did not sign on for. I can't personally imagine what that must feel like...probably why the many returning servicemen and women are now running for public office under the democrat banner. That says a lot, in my mind. Vast majority, I believe. Wonder why?
Still waiting to see what the war supporters think will constitute winning the war in Iraq and accomplishing whatever it is you think we can accomplish.
Surprising none of you well spoken, thoughtful fellows seem to be able to step up to the plate on that one. Nobody, including the administration, seem to be able to formulate anything that makes any sense. I understand that...I can't come up with a damn thing either.
