Hiatt's F'ing WaPo Editorial beats up on Generals who finally spoke out

[Rose Siding]

snip>
The president's signal failure to hold his defense chief accountable no doubt has helped to produce the extraordinary -- and troubling -- eruption of public discontent from the retired generals. A couple of those who have spoken out, including retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. Central Command, opposed the war all along, but three others served in top positions in Iraq. Much of their analysis strikes us as solid -- but the rebellion is problematic nonetheless. It threatens the essential democratic principle of military subordination to civilian control -- the more so because a couple of the officers claim they are speaking for some still on active duty. Anyone who protested the pushback of uniformed military against President Bill Clinton's attempt to allow gays to serve ought to also object to generals who criticize the decisions of a president and his defense secretary in wartime....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/17/AR2006041701261.html

Yeah, because homophobia is an equivalent here. Uh huh.

This war cheer leading bed wetter is taking a serious stab at Democrats here, too. From yesterday's CSM-

snip>
In recent weeks, several retired generals have criticized the Bush administration and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for ignoring military advice and suppressing dissent.

"I'm having my own personal turmoil on this," says another retired general, who says he was approached by Senate Democrats last week to "add to the bench" of those who have come out against the handling of the war. He asked not to be identified until he decided whether to go public with his concerns. "I'm trying to get beyond the vitriol and find the high ground out there - and it's difficult."

Senate Democrats say they are not making a concerted effort to enlist more retired generals to publicly oppose the war.

"It's very out of character for general officers to take public positions like this," says Sen. Jack Reed (D) of Rhode Island, point man for the Democratic caucus on the war. "It shows there is a deep sense of concern."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0417/p01s04-usfp.html

Here's a piece of trivia, picked up in the manliest General's excellent letter to Deb at the WP- Guess who won the Post's award for "Best Democratic Party Coverage" in '04? (bear in mind that was an election year):

National Review - The Corner

[Jack Rabbit]

1. And the Bush Bubbas still complain about the 'librul media'

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Rose Siding]

4. Hiatt's a dangerous and powerful guy. The punditocracy *will* pick this up

Joe Klein may already have an advance on the book. /sarcasm

[Webster Green]

2. These are extraordinary times...there's a madman at the helm...

It's about time there was a revolt against BushCo Inc. by the military.

This moran is quibbling about protocol for high ranking military addressing civilian leadership at a time when the Commander in Chief is a fucking lunatic.

[Rose Siding]

3. Fred's also pushing rummy as bush's biggest failure

That's directs all the blame away from bush. Hiatt finds rums responsible for ALL the failure in Iraq-

Had Mr. Bush replaced Mr. Rumsfeld in 2004, the administration might have avoided the defense secretary's subsequent and similar mistakes, such as his slowness to acknowledge the emerging threat of Shiite militias and death squads last year.