Uh, you forgot Cheney, and Reagan.  dummy Repubs?  You are right about that, but not for that reason.

I served and was damn glad to "beat weapons into plows" with the fall of the wall.  I was part of the effort to transition the military to a quick reaction, surgical strike team and am constantly amazed that people like you and that moron Bush keep trying to use the military like the 8th Army in WWII, on the cheap, no less.

Your narrow (blindered) focus is evident from your comment:

We have a military to fight wars with.

There is no other reason. None. Nada.

No, to you and that moron.  We have an army to influence other societies to behave as we would wish.   Once we commit to a "war", we have lost, maybe not as much as the other, but, we have lost.  The commanders of the military understand this, you and the moron, apparently, do not.  Not only have we lost, but we have opened the door to other conflicts, potential losers, all.

We have too many video-game warriors making policy decisions these days and not enough that have had their buddies die in their arms.

"if you do not believe in the freedom of speech for those you detest, then you do not believe in it at all"

You also ignore that after the Soviet Union broke up, that it was the GOP, then haters of all government spending (now the proverbial drunken sailors), that championed a reduction of the military...yes, starting with GHW Bush. And thankfully, we haven't needed a large military up to now, since Afganistan required only about 50,000 troops.

What we have needed recently is a president as smart as WJC who would have been intelligent enough to address the real problems of terrorism, not blundering and thrashing around like GWB, who has created massive new levels of terrorism by foolish conduct.

We have a military to fight wars with.

There is no other reason. None. Nada.

We have 10,000 nukes to annihilate all terrestrial life.

Carry a concealed weapon to kill someone.

Get airbags to crash your car.

all the terrorists

Yes, indeed.  Some 230 years ago we used to call them freedom fighters.  You know, they fight invaders, occupiers (that be us).

The one before he quit, or the one after he quit and wrote a book?

Q: In his resignation letter, he praised the President's courage and determination, did he leave in a huff?

DR. RICE: No. What's really puzzling is that there are two very different stories here. There's the book and the "60 Minutes" interview. There is the August 2002 interview, where I assume he said things that he believed to be truthful, that we didn't give him -- he didn't give us a plan; that the strategy was to eliminate al Qaeda, not to roll it back; that we had acted on the steps that he gave to us on January 25th. I assume he was saying things that he believed to be true.

There is also during the whole time that he's here -- relations are very cordial. He comes to me and asks me to support him with Tom Ridge to become deputy homeland secretary, said he was supportive of the President. He'd like to continue to serve. He'd like to be deputy homeland secretary.

Does the fact that he didn't get the job tell you anything??

Anyway, here's Richard Clarke in 8/02

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

BTW - Read the link I gave Che about the 7/5/01 meeting.

Too bad he didn't, but then he couldn't have run for Pres...

don't know whether we'll win the postwar if Congress approves the money Bush asked for. But I know we'll lose it if Congress doesn't. That's what happens when a nation at war starts to think like the Wes Clark of 2003. Just ask the Wes Clark of 1999.

BTW - The way you manage an ocupation is to destroy everything standing. Then, after you have their attention, you may be able to institute some changes.