From: "Mark" 


"Monte Davis"  wrote in message
news:go3v32h6qb81ovd394o9e27udp0a4i44ts{at}4ax.com...
> "Mark"  wrote:
>
>>Everyone hates any change in the status quo, these whiners don't like that
>>Rumsfeld is transforming our troops to coincide with the future threats of
>>this century.
>
> Gosh all whillikers: one one side I see
>
> Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton
> Gen. Anthony C. Zinni
> Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold
> Maj. Gen. John Batiste
> Maj. Gen. John  Riggs
> Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr.
> (not to mention Shinseki and half a dozen others since 2002)
>
> And on the other, Don "Goodness gracious" Rumsfeld and Supreme
> Strategist Mark of the Swift Booties.
>
> This is gonna be a tough one to decide...

Hanson sums up my point nicely:

====
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200604130743.asp
...Apart from the ethical questions involved in promoting a book or
showcasing a media appearance during a time of war by offering an
"inside" view unknown to others of the supposedly culpable
administration of the military, what is striking is the empty nature of
these controversies rehashed ad nauseam.
Imagine that, as we crossed the Rhine, retired World War II officers were
still harping, in March, 1945, about who was responsible months during
Operation Cobra for the accidental B-17 bombing, killing, and wounding of
hundreds of American soldiers and the death of Lt. Gen. Leslie McNair; or,
in the midst of Matthew Ridgeway's Korean counteroffensives, we were still
bickering over MacArthur's disastrous intelligence lapses about Chinese
intervention that caused thousands of casualties. Did the opponents of
daylight bombing over Europe in 1943 still damn the theories of old Billy
Mitchell, or press on to find a way to hit Nazi Germany hard by late
1944?...

====

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