I wonder if she’s know a size 13 if I got to kick her in the ass. That may be one reality she would understand.

My brother-in-law went to Iraq as a good card-carrying, union democrat. Came back as a Nancy Pelosi - Harry Reid, democrat-hating union republican.

Left by Hoss on February 11th, 2008 at 10:53 am

Why should I feel sorry for someone I detest and loathe?
She ain’t my Queen Bee.

Left by no2liberals on February 11th, 2008 at 4:07 pm

After 18 months of research, RAND submitted a report in the summer of 2005 called “Rebuilding Iraq.” RAND researchers provided an unclassified version of the report along with a secret one, hoping that its publication would contribute to the public debate on how to prepare for future conflicts.

But the study’s wide-ranging critique of the White House, the Defense Department and other government agencies was a concern for Army generals, and the Army has sought to keep the report under lock and key.

A review of the lengthy report — a draft of which was obtained by The New York Times — shows that it identified problems with nearly every organization that had a role in planning the war. That assessment parallels the verdicts of numerous former officials and independent analysts.

The study chided President Bush — and by implication Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who served as national security adviser when the war was planned — as having failed to resolve differences among rival agencies. “Throughout the planning process, tensions between the Defense Department and the State Department were never mediated by the president or his staff,” it said.

The Defense Department led by Donald H. Rumsfeld was given the lead in overseeing the postwar period in Iraq despite its “lack of capacity for civilian reconstruction planning and execution.”

The State Department led by Colin L. Powell produced a voluminous study on the future of Iraq that identified important issues but was of “uneven quality” and “did not constitute an actionable plan.”

Gen. Tommy R. Franks, whose Central Command oversaw the military operation in Iraq, had a “fundamental misunderstanding” of what the military needed to do to secure postwar Iraq, the study said.

The regulations that govern the Army’s relations with the Arroyo Center, the division of RAND that does research for the Army, stipulate that Army officials are to review reports in a timely fashion to ensure that classified information is not released. But the rules also note that the officials are not to “censor” analysis or prevent the dissemination of material critical of the Army.

The report on rebuilding Iraq was part of a seven-volume series by RAND on the lessons learned from the war.

(Heckuva job guys!)

Left by Pat on February 11th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Damn right they did a good job!
Oh, and Pat, you aren’t the only one who can copy/paste.

That’s right: the planning was inadequate, there were too few troops, and as a result we took, held, liberated, re-established a popularly-elected government in a country the size of France, and crushed al Qaeda in Iraq while exhausting its resources world wide, with fewer casualties then we sustained on and directly following D-Day.

What a bunch of dopes.

Left by no2liberals on February 11th, 2008 at 11:25 pm

Robbie, check out this flag hanging in a B-HO volunteer’s office. The full story and video is in the link.
/nuff said

Left by no2liberals on February 11th, 2008 at 11:43 pm