Some confusion?

The BBC loyally report that:

"Gordon Brown has insisted Britain has the resources "to do the job" in Afghanistan, amid claims troops serving there are under-equipped.

The prime minister told MPs helicopter numbers had increased 60% since 2006 and UK forces were the best equipped they had been in 40 years. "

Apparently:

"In his statement, Mr Brown said troop levels were kept under review but he had been assured by commanders on the ground, and top level military chiefs, that they had the manpower needed "for the current operations"

Meanwhile it seems that last month, military chiefs were dismayed to learn their requests for 2,000 more troops had been turned down because of a Treasury spending cap. So which is true? Have military chiefs said they have sufficient manpower or have they asked for more? Is this another "Brownie"?

Gordon Brown has wasted billions of our money, not his, by spending (sorry "investing") to make him popular and help to create a Labour voting client state, meanwhile the armed forces doing this Government's bidding are under-resourced and under-manned. The next time Gordon Brown gets up at PMQs and leads with his condolences on the death of yet another British serviceman in Iraq or Afghanistan, a serviceman whose death will likely be at least partly, due to his parsimony, I suggest that someone raise a point of order on just that matter - a person partially responsible for the death of a British serviceman should not be the one to lead the recognition.

Gordon Brown is odious, almost beyond belief. I thought I detested Tony Blair, and I did and still do, but Gordon Brown reaches new levels of vileness almost daily.