In a "Pre-emptive" war you get the army you want FIRST!

Rumsfeld is soooo full of shit. This war could have waited until ALL VEHICLES were armour equipped. This was a WAR OF CHOICE.

Sen. Chris Dodd wrote a response to Rumsfeld stating, "You go to war with the Army that our nation's leaders provide."

But, let's not forget, this is Kerry's fault for voting against the bill which passed anyway!

. . . losses are deemed "acceptable". Doesn't that make you feel good? My loss of arms, legs, eyes, brain, etc. is part of the "acceptable" losses! All part of the calculated, weighed and measured process for determining when it's best to strike.

My question is, if pre-emptive WAR is OK, what's wrong with pre-emptive arrest and detention? I know we're seeing it with accused terrorists already, but what about these situations we see all the time, where the husband threatens the wife, she gets restraining order, husband ignores it and kills her? Why not a pre-emptive arrest on that case? Where's the logical barrier? I'd bet you'd even get MORE public support for that than some of the others.

We're on the slippery slope, and it's a long way down.

If he was a head of a corporation (the Defense Dept.?) and performed as badly as he has, how long do you think he would last? Just another reason why I find Repugs so hypocritical.

allowing the enemy time to prepare to fight us!"

Remember that sentiment mid-2002 through March 2003?

Funny how the misAdministration didn't use that delay time to make sure the invading force was properly equipped . . .

prior to Invading Europe to gear up the military than Bush did for invading the Middle East.