Scripted Questions and Troop Strength

After finding out that the soldiers were coached before asking questions of Pres. Bush -- is it any wonder we are skeptical about the “round table discussion” Veep Cheney had during his surprise visit to Iraq?
(I always thought the round table meant a meeting of equals – this must be a new usage.)
From the AP –

Facing tough questions from battle-weary troops, Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday cited signs of progress in Iraq and signaled that force changes could come in 2006.

By definition, I think even scripted questions can be “tough.”

…. Cpl. R.P. Zapella, asked, "Sir, what are the benefits of doing all this work to get Iraq on its feet?"
Cheney said the result could be a democratically elected Iraq that is unified, capable of defending itself and no longer a base for terrorists or a threat to its neighbors. "We believe all that's possible," he said.

Although another, and maybe even more probable, is an Islamic Theocracy.

Although he said that any decision about troop levels will be made by military commanders, Cheney told the troops, "I think you will see changes in our deployment patterns probably within this next year."

Read the entire post HERE:

The argument over whether the United States committed enough troops to the mission in Iraq began even before the March 2003 invasion.
Prior to the war, the Army chief of staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, said publicly that he thought the invasion plan lacked sufficient manpower, and he was slapped down by the Pentagon's civilian leadership for saying so. During the war, concerns about troop strength expressed by retired generals also provoked angry denunciations by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Read the Full story HERE:
So it is the “suits” vs the “uniforms.” The Neo-Con hawks who never served in any branch of the military are dictating logistics to 4-star generals, and “disciplining” them if they complain.