Yeah right, Dave. Attack that straw man. What did I say, or
do you even know?


Dave wrote:
Hardly a straw man. The very point you were disputing.


Not at all.

The point I am disputing is that the Bush Administration has
ignored advice that turned out to be correct. Their answer
seems to be to shoot the messenger, or accuse the messenger
of not being patriotic. This has been repeated with energy
policy, foregin policy, economic policy, tax policy, etc etc
etc. Now it's the military's turn... and they have a much
more concrete grievance than most.


In my initial message I summarized the four generals who wrote the piece.
Here's the full quote:

"Much of the acrimony expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld's military critics
appears to stem from his efforts to 'transform' the military by moving to a
joint expeditionary force that is lighter and more mobile"

Uh huh. Can we get a quote from the generals, wherein they
say that?

Sounds very much like a red herring in a straw man suit.

What I have heard from the generals is criticism of Vice
President Cheney's interference with the chain of command,
and Rumsfelds mismanagement of the post-war strategy.




You were disputing the four generals' position. IOW, while they were against
"conventional weapons of the past like the Crusader artillery piece and
World War II war-fighting strategies which proved practically useless
against lawless and uncivilized enemies engaged in asymmetrical warfare."
you were in favor of those things.

If you say so, Dave, then that must be right. Right?

DSK