NY Times correction sheds light on some of the "Not enough forces" controversy

[Queasy]

Requires free registration to view

A front-page article on Tuesday about criticism voiced by American military officers in Iraq over war plans omitted two words from an earlier comment by Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, commander of V Corps. General Wallace had said (with the omission indicated by uppercasing), "The enemy we're fighting is A BIT different from the one we war-gamed against."

The line that the NY Times originally printed was "The enemy we're fighting is different from the one we war-gamed against."

Think that changes the meaning some? Think you'll see any of the critics of the war plan in the media mention this? Or perhaps even mention that they might have been wrong? Doubtful...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Requires free registration to view

A front-page article on Tuesday about criticism voiced by American military officers in Iraq over war plans omitted two words from an earlier comment by Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, commander of V Corps. General Wallace had said (with the omission indicated by uppercasing), "The enemy we're fighting is A BIT different from the one we war-gamed against."

The line that the NY Times originally printed was "The enemy we're fighting is different from the one we war-gamed against."

Think that changes the meaning some? Think you'll see any of the critics of the war plan in the media mention this? Or perhaps even mention that they might have been wrong? Doubtful...

I think what will really shut them up is how well our men performed without adequate food, water, fuel and ammo. I have no idea how they made it Baghdad with empty pockets...

 

[HappyPuppy]

Our troops have always been great, but in the last 20 years they have become even better.