[Willie Green]

You've begun really shooting some heavier caliber than a 22 at Bush, X-41, and all their staffs.

There's nothing "erattic" about that.
In fact, I've been quite consistant over the years in my attitude toward Papa Bush. Stopping short and leaving Saddam Hussein in power is one issue. The "humanitarian" Public Relations campaign in Somalia was another. (You recall the weirdo-bizarro scene where the special forces were trying to sneak ashore fully equipped with their night-vision equipment and were chased around the beach by the international press corps with all their camera lights?)

Man, all I'm doing is pointing out that it was Papa Bush & company who started the whole transition AWAY from having the carriers and subs that Reagan had, and the 'bots go into a paranoid frenzy trying to blame it all on the 'Toon. Good grief.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

You made a statement. You were wrong. Whatever, who cares. Then you continue by calling who ever...bots. Stick with the discussion you started. I have seen no posts that require any bot' alert. You seem to always be erratic and hard headed. Whatever, but stop straying off the discussion with your view of why you were wrong being your assumption of others highly favoring anyone.

[BenR2]

Man, all I'm doing is pointing out that it was Papa Bush & company who started the whole transition AWAY from having the carriers and subs that Reagan had, and the 'bots go into a paranoid frenzy trying to blame it all on the 'Toon. Good grief.

I agree on virtually all counts. But, it is ironic, as the Army feels like Rumsfeld is against them, too -- killing Crusader outright (after some $2Billion had been invested in it), and threatening both the Comanche (now approved) and the Stryker weapons systems.

I guess those of us who served under Reagan remember what it was like to serve in a military that was second-to-none . . . and THEN some!