From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

Mark wrote:
> "Adam"  wrote in message
news:444cd010{at}w3....
>> Jim Adams wrote:
>>> A retired General is an american citizen. By defintion he is no longer
>>> part of the military as he has retired from the military. Thus the
>>> "civilian control of the military" canard is just that.
>>>
>>> Actually, it's a bit questionable.  Retired militray personnel are still
>>> subject to the UCMJ.  As long as they get a check.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Was Eisenhower?
>>
>> So if Eisenhower dissed his SecDef then he could have been had up on
>> charges?
>>
>> How about any other retired US Mil type who's gone into politics?
>
> They, the retired generals, are exercising their right to speak, no problem.
> What they're doing though, is playing on their military experience for
> credibility and inferring that same military experience should garner
> greater weight than that of their civilian betters that were actually
> elected to office in the USA.
>

Huh?

(A) When talking about Mil matters, being mil gives more weight. If Doctors
started discussing some health issue would you be leaping up & down in
the same way?

(B) Civilian betters? Blimey. So much for the "citizen in uniform" idea.

(C) Their target audience is more civies aka the people of America. What's
wrong with telling the truth to the people of America?

Only the administration is allowed to "tell it like it is"?
Because it appears to have been doing a spectacularly bad job of telling it
like it is.

> The press is eating it up because they don't like Bush or Rumsfeld, so if
> we're supposed to take them at their word, that they are all-knowing, as the
> press wants us to, fine.
>

Nope. But you were happy to take the word of a bloke who's basically good
at raising money & reasonably photogenic, with the republican hierarchy
behind him & a bit of experience in running Texas.

No mention of competence or requirement for truth telling in that list.

You have been played by some fairly carefully played bureaucratic games
& the concomitant ability to be economical with the truth.

First we make sure all generals tell everyone including us what we want to
hear. If need be we replace the generals we don't agree with/who don't
agree with us. Once everyone agrees with us then we "ask the
generals".

i.e. ye olde tactic of "never ask a question/open an inquiry you don't
already know the answer to". i.e. first make sure everyone agrees on
the answer & then ask the question. Ergo no actual "lying"
merely some "truth distortion".

But then it's not like you minded the last President being economical with
the truth is it?

> If that is the road we want to take in the USA, then we move into military
> dictatorship -- and you think you don't like us now? You ain't seen nothing
> yet.
>
What total "talking point" rubbish. I can not believe that the
right is so easy to play like this. You must be desperate to believe in
your clay footed idol.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5