Comment [...]

You can bet they pay more attention to CNN satellite feeds than we do. THEY ARE the news.

So, failing in the plan to tank the war and ride its failure into the white house... when will rank and file Democrats wake up and get with the program? We're there, folks. It HAS to work. You've had your say, you didn't like the decision to go. The doubting by your Democrab leaders, I'm afraid, was somewhat of an act- they sit on foreign intel committees. They help shape M.E. policy. In 4 years both sides can make up a new scam on each other.

It doesn't have to be a "Vietnam". We don't have to smear sh*t all over ourselves in front of the world just to prove to them how talented we are at licking it off! We make the biggest deal out of Abu Graibh and the like ourselves!

What do you hope to gain by constantly complaining what a bad idea it was? Self fulfilling prophecy, me thinks.

Check your moral compass. The people of Iraq, and the boots on the ground, deserve better. No war is won on bad attitudes. Bush is aware of your criticism. It's not over yet, though.

There are a half dozen reasons to be in Iraq. All of them were valid except the story we gave the UN. Saddam of course was not dumb enough to leave lying around, the justification for losing his country. Stockpiles.

Who could never be told the real one. That's the one contained in the number the DOD is not keeping track of, "insurgent deaths". Some Iraqis. Some outsiders- Terrorists.

Now do you chase around rats with a net, or play the carnival game, "whack-a-mole"?

Nope, you lay a trap for them, and let them come to you. Last wild guess of the DoD's rat count was about 15-20k. Good hunting, to our servicemen.

John. San Diego, Ca.

It's not about Rumsfeld's actions... It's all about anything to discredit the President and the administration. The left never shifted out of campaign mode when they were so decisively defeated.

Since the first war, man has adapted his techniques of attack to whatever is effective against an enemy's defense, and exploiting it.

It is not as simple as "get more armour and the troops stop dying!"

Stop the war, put all of your eggs in one basket and worry about this one threat? You will likely leave open a rear flank for them to exploit.

Within a week, they will double the size of the charge- or place charges in berms, walls, or bridge supports to get around the floor armour.

Rumsfelsd is not their mommy. He is responsible for the safety of 300 million. I damn sure hope he isn't so broken up over 25 men a week he forgets that.

For Chrissakes the man wages war for a living. I spent 4 years in the Navy working as a troubleshooter for F-4 Phantoms on the USS Coral Sea. Many times, we had to "make the best of what we had".

Had those Hummers been outfitted with all that armour in Bosnia, (or if we'd have been in North Korea in winter!) they'd have been stuck in the mud from all the extra weight. You prepare for expected threats the best you can, and make the best of it with what you brought.

You might feel more comfy with Captain Kangaroo being "nice" to the troops, but the man was simply telling it like it is.

BTW, DID McNamara sign all the letters home from Vietnam? According to Stars and Stripes, each death receives at least 2, if not 3-4 actual original, signed letters.

John. San Diego, Ca.

What a shame Rumsfeld has not figured out a way to get sufficient armor to our guys in the last year.

I think if a form letter is the best Rumsfeld's office can do they should just skip it & go with a letter from the commanding officer.

I support Rumsfeld...and as far as condolence letters go: STOP WITH THE DAMN OPRAH MOMENTS.

I mourn the loss of each and every soldier. But I would much rather that Rumsfeld have all his attention on keeping the rest of our troops alive than sitting down at a desk signing papers.

President Bush DID give a warning to the Taliban, and he acted on it. He DID order all of the appropriate forces to Afghanistan to capture Osama. The U.S. military DID and IS doing a great job cleaning up Afghanistan. It is a completely unprecedented success. The Russians were bogged down there for years.

No one can say how Osama escaped of IF he would have been caught if plan B had been enacted. Not the top experts on Afghanistan, not the generals, certainly not armchair bloggers unable to escape the 2004 campaign rhetoric. One thing is certain, he is on the run, and we have not been attacked since 9/11.

In THE REAL WORLD, things do not always go as planned. You can NEVER say, if we had only done X, then Y would have happened without doubt. If you could, then we should be blaming Bill CLinton for missing HIS opportunity to take out Osama, BEFORE 9/11.

Wake the hell up. The election is over. What could you possibly hope to gain by spreading all of this ignorant B.S.?

Actually I was referring to Hackworth & Hagel. Hackworth is probably the most decorated living American combat vet and Hagel is also a highly decorated combat vet. The colonels are simply sources for Hackworth and not all that important to the story. They are certalinly not public figures.

So much for my ignorance. James has been kind enough to share Hackworth's record with us, Hagel's is easily documented. He has two Purple Heart's, I would be glad to provide more information.

Before you call someone ignorant, please try to have at least a portion of a clue...

Bush gave the Taliban a warning that if they did not turn over Bin Laden and his cohorts then the US would come and get them. I think he actually gave them a thirty day deadline to comply.

This was perfectly clear and supported by everyone. When the Taliban failed to deliver we had the right to go get the terrorists. That the single most important person in the WoT escaped is entirely the fault of Bush and the way he chose to conduct the action with too few soldiers for the job at hand.

So if the WoT is not about capturing or stopping the terrorist what is it about? Invading a country that had nothing to do with it? I see.

And I love hearing the successful soundbites of the Kerry Campaign... "We were distracted in Iraq and allowed Osama to escape...." Yeah, that's what happened. Way to "support the troops" who were actually there, uh, chasing Osama and stuff.

Ditto Attila Girl.

Having the most powerful military in the world roll through a country that has been starved and bombarded for ten years into a hollow shell is not a significant test of military theory.

And refusing to use adequate manpower in Afganhistan in order to capture Osama because of some theory of force multiplication is worse than criminal, it is dumb.

Our military was strong enough to succeed in Afganistan, instead it failed to capture the man responsible for attacking the US. And that failure is not the fault of people like Hackworth or others who criticized the administration for their willfull blindness to reality.

From what I can see all it means is spending money where it is not needed, SMD, and scrimping where it is, Iraq. I think you are confusing 'getting' something with approval of the same. It is possible that Hack perfectly understands what Bush and Rumsfeld are up to but strongly disapproves of it on principled grounds.