I didn't see the report at all in the light of criticizing Bush. Was interested in the technical stuff. It makes some important points on running a Defense Department by what our country needs for defense, not just what congressional districts need for defense contracts. This is largely what's wrong with NASA, too.

Don't expect much change. Rumsfeld had a hell of a time just killing one defense project (Crusader) and most of the current projects have heavy Congressional support from both parties.

As for my disagreements, most of them are minor. Still don't think women belong in combat, but I suppose a liberal would have to stick that in there.

I still support space-based defense systems and missile defense.

Nuclear stockpiles are already being reduced, although not as low as they would like it.

I don't know if integrating the DoD budget with Homeland Security is a good idea. You can make a case that the integration that created the Homeland Security department, and the resulting turf wars, created enough problems already.

There might be more issues, but frankly, I don't know enough about the various weapons systems to get past the "sez you, sez me" from supporters and detractors.

Compared to the valid points made, these are minor. This paper should be on the table in Congress when defense spending is discussed. A synthesis between this and the current DoD position would probably be better than either.