Rumsfeld Criticized by Influential Military Paper

Reuters ^ | 10 May 2004 | Charles Aldinger

[antiRepublicrat]

not worth the trees that die to provide the paper it's printed on,

The trees that die are usually crop trees, grown for that purpose. The more Gannett prints, the more trees will be planted to support the demand. So Gannett is actually doing at least one good thing in printing its trash.

[F.J. Mitchell]

LOL! I didn't know about that, but I still won't be buying Gannett, News Papers unless I buy a bird, or my pup forgets she is house broken.

Like they say, "It's an ill wind that blows no good."

[NFOShekky]

Army Times as "influential" and "read widely in the U.S. military????" The Army/Navy/etc Times are rags. The only reason they are widely read is that there always seems to be a copy in the head/latrine/crapper! How it got there and who subscribed to the fishwrapper are unknown.

[WolfRunnerWoman]

Widely read? That's rich.
The only time I ever picked up a copy, was to check the promotion points in my MOS.

[LibLieSlayer]

We will just have to agree to disagree. I do think that I know of "some" of the systems you speak of, but there are two sides to every story. I have (in the past) worked on defense contracts. I know the sting well, when a system is cancelled (or cut back).

It is wonderful to discuss important issues with a fellow American, and have the entire conversation take place in a civil manner. Can you imagine for a moment, that something like this would take place on the DU?

Thanks for serving in this most perilous of times.

LLS

[some guy in the mountains]

Anyone ever thought that maybe the Army Times is right? Maybe their stance isn't just because of who owns the paper, or who got ticked off by Rumsfeld previously?

Maybe there really is a mainstream conservative backlash against all this.

Seems a lot of people just seem to find out how those of a certain opinion are really on the "other" side and not one of us.