2) Enough troops--your assumption. The results to date sure seem to support my assumption better than yours, LJD.

I wasn't claiming special forces were just now being deployed, LJD. I was commenting on the story being trumpeted just now. See, LJD, a Rovian smokescreen. Sure, they've been there all along. Why the sudden press as if it's news--and with Rummy's name attached? Isn't Rove a good distractor? Thanks for reinforcing my point.

The Repubs control everything is shorthand for legis/jud/exec. Are you playing stupid on purpose again? I allow you may not be in this case. I could have been clearer.

LIED--those pesky facts are biased against Bush.
UNNECESARY--those pesky facts . . .

LJD, you tell me what precentage of our troops are in Iraq vs. Afghanistan, and then tell me how wrong I am, relatively speaking. On this one I know you're playing stupid on purpose.

Killing Iraqis-- the neocons bombed a major metropolitan area of a major world city full of inoffensive, non-threatening civilians and you watched it all on TV and delighted in the "Shock and Awe Show" brought to you by the neocons. Pretty low life stuff, that.

Oh, the faux patriotism once again. Yes we all know your deep concern for our troops. Hey, they can die in an unnecessary war just as easy as a justified war. Hoo-rah either way. No concern of yours.

My answer:
1.) This is not like any war we've fought in history. To reword your question, what war have we ever fought where the enemy was not a country?
2.) 'Too few troops' is YOUR ASSUMPTION.

Seems like you're so full of it is clouding your vision.

If special forces are actually being deployed in Afghanistan

Not just IF, not just NOW, but continuously since we first stepped foot into Afghanistan. You need to find another news source.

The Repubs control EVERYTHING

Just a funny example of your disturbed paranoia. At least it partially explains why you like to ignore facts. BTW 'You Guys' are the ones who create conspiracy theories, deny everything positive, embellish everything negative, in your attempt to lose this war for us, because hating GW is more important than your country.

Donâ??t send any troops to war for the Presâ??s jollies

You're just being dense here. IT is clearly evident you do not understand the GWOT, how the military works, or how your government works.

If you realize the Pres. lied you into an unnecessary war

LIED- your assuption.
UNECESSARY- also your assumption.

Donâ??t send all but a few (relatively speaking) to kill Iraqis instead.

What percentage of our fighting force is in IRaq? Don't you know? DO the math. YOU GUYS make this stuff up to fit your ideology. Making stuuf up doesn't help argue for your cause, it discredits eveything you say. ...and you accuse GW of 'lying'. You're lying to yourself, man!

But I do like how you think we're 'killing Iraqis'. Not the President or the administration, our guys. Not creating collateral damage, not killing terrorists, but 'killing Iraqis'. You wonder why I got so upset when Anjin said I was willing to kill 'just any arab'. When will you guys realize the ones you criticize are the same ones you owe your freedom to? Way to support the troops.

If special forces are actually being deployed in Afghanistan, et. al. only now, they're about 5 years behind schedule, don't you think? Actually, LJD, you're mistaking a Rovian attempt to create a distraction from Rumsfeld's problems for substance. (Did you notice how Rummy's name was pasted all over the reports on this?)

"You guys" are responsbile for the Saddam show trial? What a fantasy world you live in. The Repubs control EVERYTHING, LJD. Get a grip. How could "you guys" be responsible? Who are "you guys", anyway?

Sending more troops vs. bringing them home? Don't send any troops to war for the Pres's jollies. In the event our nation is attacked or facing an actual threat requiring military action, send enough troops to get the job done. If you realize the Pres. lied you into an unnecessary war, get the troops the hell out of there as soon as practical. Whats' confused about that, besides yourself, I mean.

If you're attacked by a group of Saudi's based in Afghanistan, send everything you've got at them and annihilate them. Don't send all but a few (relatively speaking) to kill Iraqis instead. This stuff is not difficult, LJD, except for you and the other neocons.

Your favorite administration, at the suggestion of the miltary consultants at his service (all the Generals he never listens to), has opted for the use of special forces in Afghanistan and likely the mountains of Pakistan to root out Bin Laden, Zawahiri, and their Al Qaedaa stooges. The reason special forces are being used, is that they are more adapted to this type of mission: Where you get locals to help you locate the enemy, and capture him, as opposed to creating an all out blood bath complete with civilian casualties that 'you guys' always seem to think are intentional.

The task is equivalent to the finding of a needle in a haystack. But that doesn't mean that OBL is NOT on the run. He's not exactly sauntering around the streets of Kandahar buying figs and tobacco. In addition, there are tribal customs and national sovereignity to respect. We don't want to set back the gains we've made towards reaching representative government that we have accomplished so far (that anyone on your side fails to recognize at any level).

I seem to remember the same comments made about catching Saddam in Iraq. But guess what, we finally got his ass. Now 'you guys' and your MSM are fueling the reprehensible 'Saddam' show, where WE are the bad guys! Ha!

The option to send in more and more troops will help the situation exactly how? More logistical support? More targets? More money spent? The post is about troops levels in Iraq, yet the more 'you guys' scream about raising the level there, the more you scream about bringing them all home now. Kind of hypocritical, or at least confused.

So what it boils down to is... the assumption that moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is more effective is just that- YOUR ASSUMPTION. Your attempt to apply some economic theory to the GWOT is laughable. Do you have any experience in the application of military resources on which to base your assumption? Remember, we have never fought a war like this before. Our troops should be credited for their ability to adapt to new changes, and to perform their jobs with the utmost discipline and professionalism. The sad truth however, is that 'your' attempted jabs at the administration actually reach to those doing the job much more than they do the President. Frankly, it sucks.

So there, How's that for coherent thought, without calling any names, or even 'blindly supporting the President like a robot'. I doubt you will rebut anything, becuase to do so you would have to make some more crap up.

The task is equivalent to the finding of a needle in a haystack. But that doesn't mean that OBL is NOT on the run. He's not exactly sauntering around the streets of Kandahar buying figs and tobacco. In addition, there are tribal customs and national sovereignity to respect. We don't want to set back the gains we've made towards reaching representative government that we have accomplished so far (that anyone on your side fails to recognize at any level).

I seem to remember the same comments made about catching Saddam in Iraq. But guess what, we finally got his ass. Now 'you guys' and your MSM are fueling the reprehensible 'Saddam' show, where WE are the bad guys! Ha!

The option to send in more and more troops will help the situation exactly how? More logistical support? More targets? More money spent? The post is about troops levels in Iraq, yet the more 'you guys' scream about raising the level there, the more you scream about bringing them all home now. Kind of hypocritical, or at least confused.

So what it boils down to is... the assumption that moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is more effective is just that- YOUR ASSUMPTION. Your attempt to apply some economic theory to the GWOT is laughable. Do you have any experience in the application of military resources on which to base your assumption? Remember, we have never fought a war like this before. Our troops should be credited for their ability to adapt to new changes, and to perform their jobs with the utmost discipline and professionalism. The sad truth however, is that 'your' attempted jabs at the administration actually reach to those doing the job much more than they do the President. Frankly, it sucks.

So there, How's that for coherent thought, without calling any names, or even 'blindly supporting the President like a robot'. I doubt you will rebut anything, becuase to do so you would have to make some more shit up.

Will you avoid the point or support your claim? Will you use ad hominems or witless banter or just provide an honest, rational answer to support your position and rebut mine?

I'm laughing it up. Keep your heads in the sand. When your party accomplishes its retreat, and I turn out to be right, I'll be the one protesting at your funeral.

(How's that for totally pointless and inflammatory commentary? I learned from the best.)

LOL

It did not matter that the three factions would separate; Saddam Hussein is the one who held them together. None of the Iraqi people mattered, nor did the well being of the United States. The "Idea" was to just get in there and build a powerful, secure base. Tell any lie, broadcast any nonsense; just get the base.

I don't think it matters if Bush has a clue that the above is the reality. What will descend from this, of course, is Armageddon. It will take 8 years, or so, but it is a comin'.

Check this headline out:
Bush Says He Tried to Avoid War ‘To The Max,’ Explains How God Shapes His Foreign Policy
WOW - explosive, eh? If you read on into the article, though, you’ll see how misleading the headline really is:
Bush a...

Dude, please volunteer to work for the DHS, they so badly need your 'skills'.