I suppose she was impressed with Gen Shinseki's vindication on the matter (in following the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force vice Rumsfeld's "limited presence" of sending just enough troops to ensure victory defeat).
"I suppose she was impressed with Gen Shinseki's vindication on the matter"
******Snip******
What the mattter MD, you one of the out of touch Pentagon dinasours Rummy booted to the curb?
I love the way Know Nothings just keep screaming their opinion as fact. Pity some Freepers still cannot grasp their feelings are not facts. Shinseki's retirement date was set in 2002. It had nothing to do with his postion on Iraq.
As for the "More boots on ground" dogma, We followed that dogma in Vietnam. We had 500,000 troops in country at one point. We lost.
We did NOT follow it in Iraq and we are wininning. The ONLY person vidicated here is Rumsfeild despite the fact the usual collections of Know Nothing STILL refuse to admit they were wrong about Iraq ALL along.
That data is available at the following links for anyone who actually wants to learn instead of blinding clinging to their failed know nothing dogmas.
http://icasualties.org/oif/
http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Security_Forces
"I suppose she was impressed with Gen Shinseki's vindication on the matter"
What vindication? Shinseki thought the invasion itself would require more troops and Tommy Franks proved that thesis wrong with his 3 week Thunder Run.
That's a separate topic from occupying and peacekeeping.
If we got more help from int'l community like Scty Powell promised in 'peacekeeping' the point would have been moot.
As would have been the case also if Iraqi military hadnt melted away.
I dont see how he gets vindicated on a point he never made.