First of all, the issue is not "liberals feeling sorry for Iraqi prisoners," the issue is that these images are now the face of our mission in Iraq. As a major you certainly must understand the concept of winning battles but losing the war. We have just given Al Qaeda 20yrs worth of recruiting poster images, and that's nothing to rejoice over. "Better Than Saddam" isn't really the message that we want to send to the world. Perception is just as important as military victory in a cultural war, which is what this is.

I have no idea what the reference to Jane Fonda is about, but she is a 67yr old woman that hasn't had anything political to say in around 25yrs. What bearing what she did 35yrs ago has on this topic escapes me entirely.

You joined the military in order to defend the US and it's freedoms, and yet you would like to see those that exercise their freedom of speech to disagree with policy to move elsewhere. Interesting logic.

You then go on to disagree with the Secretary of Defense, and indicate that "Bush should have replaced Rumsfeld several years ago." He's only been Secretary for a bit more than 3yrs, so we are left wondering what you mean by your statement. I happen to agree he's been a dismal failure, however given his past record that should be no surprise. According to your statement, you indicate that our forces have been on a steady downhill slide for 21yrs, so how do you pin that on Rumsfeld? I've been out of the service for 33yrs, but aside from shear numbers, I feel that today's military is better in every way. But then I'm just laying around drinking beer and watching TV, so what do I know...

Elsewhere you claim to be a libertarian. This is confusing, as you seem to be arguing for a larger military force. Is not the libertarian position that the armed forces should be used for defensive purposes only? What defensive purpose does our deployment in Iraq serve? Which Iraqis attacked the US? Iraq was a target of convenience, nothing more. I'll be astounded if you can make a case consistant with a libertarian position that supports military adventures against targets of convenience.

You seem to have Bob Kerry and John Kerry confused. John Kerry is the presidential candidate FYI. Both are white men, and both are senators, so I guess your confusion is understandable....

You raise the issue of who did what in a war that was over more than 30yrs ago, but you don't score any points with me. I would have gladly traded ground pounder duty with GW's weekend zoomie status. Unfortunately, my daddy couldn't pull the necessary strings, and I had already completed my degree. It was a pointless war about trumped up non-events, and one I would have very much liked to have skipped. The only positive thing I can say is that I'm alive to complain about it. Of course those three go-rounds with radiation and chemo to deal with the recurring lymphoma from agent orange exposure took a bit of my euphoria away. Not service related however according to Uncle Sam and the VA. I guess all that dioxn in my body must have appeared via some kind of magical act.

I agree that a massive change is necessary in our country. However, my concern is that the level and quality of education has gotten to be so dismal that our democratic republic will not be able to function, we will not have a competitive workforce, and we will have a military full of ignorant dimbulbs like your own personal self.

You can practice down that the range and buy all the dogleashes you want. I like to spend time at the range as well, but I don't delude myself into thinking that it's anything more than recreation. I'd be happy to kick your tail on everything from race guns to long range rifles any time you care to stop by in between beers and Friends reruns...

oc