[Howlin]

Let me say this just once:

The Bush administration's handling of the global war on terrorism, including the decision to invade Iraq, is being criticized by an unexpected source: a study published by the U.S. Army's War College.

Is a FLAT OUT LIE.

It is ONE article by ONE man who worked for Lloyd Benson and Sam Nunn.

It is NOT the opinion of the United States Army OR the American War College.

So sez Brit Hume's panel AND Donald Rumsfeld.

[dts32041]

I understand this, but others might not, so shout it from the rooftops.

[Cautor]

It is NOT the opinion of the United States Army OR the American War College.

Absolutely right on Howlin. I've written national security policy papers published by the National Defense University, but they all have a disclaimer that says this is nothing more than Cautor's own personal opinion and so forth. They certainly don't say this is the opinion of the whole big old department of defense. Brit et al. trashed this story on Fox tonight. The author has a history of associating with Democraps so big surprise he barfed up the Democrap line in his paper. Guess the party of the ultra-left is really desperate so they're grasping for straws.

[God is good]

Thank you Howlin!

[RustysGirl]

Appreciate the distinctions. BIG QUESTION: Why did the U.S. Army's War College publish it under its imprimatur? Why did they publish it at all? Even with all the disclaimers about whose opinions the report represents, the confusion is inevitable. Do you think the War College is trying to have it both ways? Maybe they agree with some or all of the opinions expressed in the report but, if things get too hot, want the option to point to the disclaimers? Just a thought.