Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (43034)	5/9/2004 11:36:00 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793801

When I read the piece Cori discusses, I felt that using quotes from unnamed Generals in an attempt to "get" Rummy was crummy. ARTICLE OF THE DAY By Cori Dauber - Ranting Profs Generally there's one big, important, must read article that comes out in the Sunday papers. I haven't seen the Times yet, but my guess is this will be it. You might subtitle it, "The Generals Have Had It." washingtonpost.com Now, bearing in mind that there are plenty of Army guys who hate Rumsfeld anyway, this is an important article, and it needs to be weighed carefully. I was -- and remain -- a strong supporter of the war. And I am deeply concerned. I think we got locked into this June 30 date, which was crazy, but now we're stuck with it. And this close to that date, no one can say who in Iraq we're turning power over to, or how they'll be selected. Public will in this country (if we'll be honest, with the aid, intentional or not, of the press coverage) is being eroded by the day, and the closer we get to the hand off, the greater the violence will get. That's just a fact, and it's a real question whether public support will hold. I don't think we've heard a good, solid, comprehensive speech from this President that tells the American people that there will be losses yet to come but that those losses must be borne and explaining why. What happened in Fallujah unnerved me, despite explanations for it and calls to be patient. It seemed as if, given the opportunity to cleanly and with little cost, take out a real danger to our forces and the nascent Iraqi state, we held off and held off and held off, and then sent in some crazy reincarnation of the overthrown regime. That having been said, the risk the insurgency poses is, first, it slows the reconstruction we need to continue to sustain the support of the Iraqi people, and it threatens public will here. But that doesn't mean this thing is done. So: this article is important. (The fact that American forces will be in Iraq for years is constantly reported breathlessly as if it's a new revelation. Haven't we known that for almost a year if not since before we went in?). But it isn't definitive, particularly since so many of these guys don't want to be identified. Now, you can understand, on the one hand, why they wouldn't want to be identified. On the other hand, until they are identified, we can't evaluate how much of what they're saying is coming out of the fact that certain warfare communities in particular really, really have it in for this Secretary of Defense. Notice that it's always, always Army guys saying he should go. That's because it's the Army that would be most reshaped by the "transformation" of the military. Wait, you say, isn't it also because it's the Army bearing the brunt of the Iraq deployment? OK. Then where are the Marine generals? One last thing: as someone mentioned in the comments section the other day, this article mentions the idea that OSD was vengeful after Shinseki testified to the effect that far more troops would be needed in Iraq after the war then Rumsfeld was comfortable with. But that ignores a long running tense relationship, particularly over the Crusader, a HUGE piece of equipment Rumsfeld was determined to see cancelled, and that the "Old Army" fought him on tooth and nail.

To: LindyBill who wrote (43034)	5/9/2004 12:01:52 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793801

<<First, he says, the book, even before publication was: rumored to be more critical of the Bush administration - and therefore important - than Woodward's previous reporting. Why is it that only negative reporting is by definition important reporting? >> First of all, the paraphrase is skewed. It takes an agenda to get from more-critical-is-more-important to only-negative-is-important. Secondly, like, duh. A puff piece is not important. Reporting that includes negatives as well as positives has more credibility, thus more value. Talk about glass houses...