Wow... it took two historians five years to come to the conclusion that a whole lot of people could see plainly before the invasion even began.

Wow... it took two historians five years to come to the conclusion that a whole lot of people could see plainly before the invasion even began.

this explains why last weeks paper had an article
with the army blaming the air force for a some of the failures in iraq. the army has even assembled some of its own air support since it claims it cant
depend on the usaf. it looks like its time for some
of the military command to step up to the plate.

Oh no! Don't tell me! Took 'em 5 years to figure this out, did it?

Another fine example of military intelligence.

Wait a minute. Does this push back the conclusion of historians that this whole undertaking was a success. We were suppose to get that coclusion in 40 years according the 28%ers.

So would that be 40 years from now?

DG, Funny!

Just think how many good guys shot themselves in the foot by telling their bosses this BEFORE the invasion???

Never had the Pentagon been so filled with assinine ideologues as it was under Cheney Bush.

What we used to call Piss Poor Planning. Surest way to cause unecessary death and suffering.

As this whole farce of the past 8 yrs starts to unravel more and more vile inompetence will surface.

Like turning over a large rock, who knows what will scurry and scuttle from the sunshine.

Obviously the Army is full of radical left-wing, terrorist-sympathizer libs who hate God, hate America, and hate Bush.

I call their comments "aid and comfort to the enemy", which is treason.

I must admit the after plan wasnt that good. Not knowing the tribe structure of Iraq didnt help. It also appeared Sadaam was losing control back then.

Now, who decided to let the Pentagon plan it, instead of the State Department, CIA, AID, etc.?

Who was the Decider on that?

Come on where are the Right Wing Spinners, hey "GOATMAN". "VERNON", "ROB THE A HOLE", spin thgis you ASSHOLES, Partisian Fucks!!!

Celery is fucking bonkers.

The Pentagon Creed: If at first you don't succeed, try try again. After screwing up in Iraq and Afghanistan, they think they can do it right against Iran.

"101CHAIRBORNE"......Whats up spinner, are you pissed because I left your name out?? You dumb Fuck!!!!

Oh, don't call 101 a dumb fuck, you might hurt his feelings.

There's my sensitive little sally! Boo!

Ummm, the piss poor planning was intentional...I mean after all, we wouldn't want to get in there, find the wmds that weren't there, and get out, would we?

101's in a funk. I think reality has finally set in. Bush is a failure and the Goppers are gonna get flushed in November. Remember when you found out there really was no santa claus?

I think we can all agree that this is a foregone conclusion.

Army:Pentagon plan sucked GOPiggie balls!

Frank to Army: WELL... DUUUHHH!!!

King Midas-in-reverse really has his mojo working.

The number of civilians killed in fighting between insurgents and security forces in Afghanistan has soared by two-thirds in the first half of this year, to almost 700 people, a senior U.N. official said Sunday.

The figures are a grim reminder of how the nearly seven-year war has failed to stabilize the country and suggest that ordinary civilians are bearing a heavy toll, particularly from stepped-up militant attacks.

John Holmes, the world body's humanitarian affairs chief, said the insecurity was making it increasingly difficult to deliver emergency aid to poor Afghans hit by the global food crisis.

"The humanitarian situation is clearly affected and made worse by the ongoing conflict in different parts of the country," Holmes told reporters in Kabul during a multi-day visit.

"Most of those casualties are caused by the insurgents, who seem to have no regard for civilian life, but there are also still significant numbers caused by the international military forces," he said.

Holmes said U.N. figures show that 698 civilians have died as a result of the fighting in the first half of this year. That compares to 430 in the first six months of 2007, a rise of 62 percent.

Militants caused 422 of the recorded civilian casualties, while government or foreign troops killed 255 people, according to the U.N. numbers. The cause of 21 other deaths was unclear.

Why are you creeps who never were in the military posting criticisms of the military and conduct of the war? You "chicken-chickens" deserve no voice in setting our military policy or evaluating our engagements. You will note that military and former military overwhelmingly support our troops and their efforts, although most veterans would have the military unfettered and not answerable to the damned lawyers, who seem to be overseeing their actions. The leftist media criticizing our people would have been fragged in any other war. We don't need these traitors hampering and endangering American forces. Also, the damned Congressmen such as Murtha would have been decapitated, and as people also endangering our troops fittingly would have had their heads displayed on pikes as a caution to all enemies of America.
You "chicken-chickens" should have the decency to shut up. But you are feminized hysterics, and probably won't do the decent thing. Add your clucking to the list of your emotional and mental defects.
Posted by Johnson at 2008-06-28 04:27 PM

I had no idea you were ever in the military. There are military commanders who also consider the invasion and occupation disasters.

You should probably read more varied materials, and more often (and I'm not referring to Hannity's "blog"). The Christian Science Monitor also puts out some good information, but again, you would need to focus both eyes and that brain cell upon words.. Try it out on something easy first, like Powell's anthrax presentation or the firing of General Shinseki.

"You "chicken-chickens" deserve no voice in setting our military policy or evaluating our engagements. "

Then you won't mind if I withhold your paycheck, will you? Or do you just want my wallet, and not my opinion?

See, actually, you've got the whole thing backward, bunky. Read your Constitution. Better yet, read what the Founding Fathers really thought: militaries should be under the control of the civilian leadership, not the other way around.

"The transition to a new campaign was not well thought out, planned for, and prepared for before it began,"

And people should be prosecuted for that.

Ummm, the piss poor planning was intentional...I mean after all, we wouldn't want to get in there, find the wmds that weren't there, and get out, would we?

Posted by reedst

I think that just about says it all.

How can that which didn't exist suck?

Here are some respected military generals who protested either the intent of the invasion of Iraq or the insane way DOD was run by Rumsfeld:

Van Riper
Swannack
Batiste
Eaton
Zinni

And you could Google a bunch of others.

True, some will say that Rumsfeld ticked off a lot of traditionalists with his adherence to RMA theories. That's just a bunch of red-herrings to cast doubt onto Rummy's critics. But Rummy's theories also have been proven wrong by experience. RMA meant going high tech and going light. For what? The grunt on the ground is now carrying more than he ever carried before, and all of those light HMVees are not trashed and had to be up-armored or replaced by mine resistant vehicles. Great theory Rummy. Got any more good ideas?