Quote:
Originally Posted by tonkovich
WikiLeaks: For public, it confirms worst about Afghanistan
WikiLeaks documents in many respects paint a picture of a war going poorly. But they're unlikely to convince the public that the answer is to get out now.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/0727/WikiLeaks-For-public-it-confirms-worst-about-Afghanistan
from the christian science monitor.
i applaud the release of more information that shows what a dog this whole effort has been, and still is. but the truth doesn't always meet with such welcome arms. i'm sure this group has some opinions.  |
I have seen an awful lot of commentary so far but I just have one question:
Who in this forum has ACTUALLY READ the leaked documents? ANY of them?
All I see are commentaries on commentaries on commentaries.
It's like saying that General Mills wrote the Bible because there's a Biblical cartoon on the back of a Wheaties box, and that's as close to the source as you can get. " So it must be right."
So are these real reports?
SITREPS?
SIGACTS?
SALUTE reports?
"someone said..."
"Abdul thinks.."
classified because "they" think they should be? Or for real?
Notes from the field don't get classified unless they meet very specific criteria.
Half the stuff people clsassify really isn't but they don't know any better.
Know how I know? When I ask them for the classification guide they used to decide, I get this blank look.
I want to see one of these documents and see if some clerk just stamped them because he stamps everything, or are these for real.
SO...AGAIN... WHO has seen them?
Raise your hand.