Wow. I never thought of it that way. That is an obviously extremely simplistic view. But of course, I find many simplistic people to also be ignorant.


>>I've heard the talk from many, such as Zinni calling for Rumsfeld's head, but haven't really understood why. Although I had heard/read about his notion of fighting a war with few ground troops.
>>
>>This week's New Yorker has an excellent article "The Lesson of Tal Afar". The author spent a significant amount of time in the city discovering what has occurred that allows for the city to be used as a success story by Bush.
>>
>>He basically uncovers a situation that is, while not a complete success, far better then other area's in Iraq. And it is in spite of the Administration and those chosen to lead in Iraq, not because of.
>>
>>The article headline on the cover is "How Donald Rumsfeld's failure to understand the insurgency has prevented the miltary from getting it right in Iraq".
>>
>>And today we also have Libby anouncing that leaked information was personally approved by the Pres.
>>
>>I'm still trying to understand why some agree that the amount of money to investigate Clinton is called for. And there is no reason to investigate the current pres.
>
>Same reason why sex is censored on screen and killing isn't.