Good grief, Gen. Sanchez is becoming unhinged.

In the military, criticism of the press is de rigeur, particularly for anyone who is also critcal of US policy. It's just another attempt to silence opinions that may be at odds with Sanchez's. What they so often forget after a career spent taking and giving orders is that democracy begins with dissent, not obedience.

And since when does God "train fingers for battle and hands for war?" God is not a drill sergeant, never has been. Check the New Testament if you don't believe me.

LOL -- pj, perhaps you should read some of the UNabridged versions of the Text.

Sanchez sounds like a guy we ought to be hear more from -- sorta like Ron Paul, now that I think on it.

I doubt I'd agree much with either of 'em (I know Ron Paul is bonkers), but dammit, I'm tired of scripted political conversation.

I read the transcripts, and he did take responsibility for poor judgment, and apologized for failing to insist on a post-war plan.

Where Sanchez sees a political bias, I just see the bias of ratings, fame, money combining with a laziness, and inability to do one's job.

If we could only bring back ugly reporters and newspapers and send the beautiful people back to real estate school. (One reason why Jack Cafferty is and Carl Kolchak was so good.)

Hey Kevin, this was an excellent post. Thanks.

I swear I read this on the blogs right after Petraeus testified.

The drawdown of the surge to presurge levels was never a question. America must understand that it will take the army at least a decade to fix the damage that has been done to its full spectrum readiness. The president's recent statement to america that he will listen to military commanders is a matter of political expediency.

[Handle hijack from a masked IP. Decent effort from a banned troll. Not *A* work, by any means, but definitely a solid *C*]

Generalizations are perilous.

Martha Raddatz spends a hell of a lot of time in the war zone, is given wide respect within the Army for her diligence and willingness to actually spend enough time with those fighting the war to know them.

At the same time, dumbed-down ad-hominem stuff sells, and every public figure gets victimized. Sanchez got the treatment that comes nowadays with visibility and rank. Deplorable, but predictable.

Were Sanchez confident and secure, he wouldn't worry about that chaff. My sense is that he is bitter at the way things turned out. Join the club, General.

I wonder if he considers Abu Ghraib a "tactically insignificant event"

>"God is not a drill sergeant, never has been. Check the New Testament if you don't believe me."

Er... check the Old Testament. It is full of directives from god telling Israelites to eradicate other tribes and take their territory (and women).

That part is still going on today. Well, the territory part anyway.

I took the transcript and sentence-case'd it in emacs and placed it here:

http://jottit.com/r44tc/

You may find it much easier to read.

"As I assess various media entities, some are unquestionably engaged in political propaganda that is uncontrolled."

Well, certainly the NYT, WaPo, FoxNews, and plenty of other media organizations allowed themselves to be used as mouthpieces for White House propaganda.

Don't lose sight, amidst the media bashing the "bad" general did, he was complimentary towards guys like Joe Galloway of McClatchy. So the folks like ex-liberal, brian et al, may want to acknowledge that few of the people here, other than KD himself, take anything the WaPo says seriously.

Save yourselves the effort in thinking that your's or the general's disparaging the MSM has any effect here. We don't believe them either after their reporting on Al Gore, schools, elections or many other topics.

By the way, see the Daily Howler yesterday about Katrina vanden Heuvel, a supposed progressive who acts like a self-serving egoist trying hard to keep her gig on TV. Pathetic.

C-SPAN has Sanchez' speech, streaming video: go to c-span.org, look under "RECENT PROGRAMS" for "--> Military Reporters & Editors Forum with Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, U.S. Central Command (10/12/2007)"; or in RealPlayer, open location rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e101207_sanchez.rm?mode=compact

NOTE: Currently the RealPlayer window, when playing this clip, shows the title "White House Press Brieifng with Dana Priest" [c-span's typo in "briefing"]

Kevin deserves credit for (belatedly) realizing that General Sanchez strongly criticized the media. Yglesias is foolishly narrow minded on this and most things (how did he ever become a leading lefty blogger?).

But the most interesting thing is that Kevin instinctly attributes press criticism to a "right-wing view." What Sanchez actually said seemed not to be criticizing left or right: "What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war." Kevin with his liberal mindset is just so defensive about liberal bias in the media that he reads criticism of the media as a right wing attack, even by a guy who is blasing the Bush administration at the same time.

It Iraq has been a terrible horrible screw up from the beginning, how is it that the media are to blame -- unless it is for mindless cheerleading?

Is he actually saying that the press was too mean to Brownie?

Katrina vanden Heuvel - is there a more annoying person on television? A stupid woman who memorizes some lefty talking points and spouts them every chance she gets.

Sanchez has been angry about the Iraq war for a while now. His views on things that were going on while he was in command are significant, and worth listening to. On the other hand, I don't know if he has any more insight into the recent months in Iraq than any other well-informed person might.

Note again that his rant on the media's self-serving performance has been edited out by the self-serving media.

Not that many years back, you would never have heard about the rest of this speech at all unless you had attended it. Ever. Without the alternative media, you wouldn't be hearing about it now.

Apply this to every important issue reported in the mainstream media over the past decades.

Now, if you want, go back to your newspapers and cable news shows.

Anyway, just thought I'd share. Sanchez pretty definitely seems to accept the right-wing view that the press shares some blame for our problems in Iraq, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about Fox News there.

If people think his insight on Iraq is definitive, why not his insight on the media? He has had as much personal experience with one as the other. If you can dismiss his media views as "right-wing," why not dismiss his Iraq views as "left-wing?"

Incidentally, during Katrina (which Sanchez mentions in passing), Fox News was one of the worst offenders in sensationalizing the events.

Harry makes a terrific point about how the media can no longer screen or edit things near as effectively as they have in the past.

But while I was not that impressed listening to Sanchez, his experience in Iraq must give him more knowledge, and if he has good judgment more more insight, than other well informed people.

Blue Girl: "I read the transcripts, and he did take responsibility for poor judgment, and apologized for failing to insist on a post-war plan."

I read the entire transcript, too. Wow! Who knew he had it in him?

Obviously not the mainstream media, who so publicly and repeatedly insisted otherwise on behalf of the scapegoat-seeking, Bush-propping corporate syndicate.

And just like countless other men and women (Hell, even children are now fair game), another honorable man was smeared perniciously by this shameless New American Pravda, which is now preoccupied with helping its good friend Ann Coulter rescue the Jews from their own faith.

…is there a more annoying person on television… brian at 3:12 PM

…go back to your newspapers and cable news shows. harry at 3:27 PM

Mike, if you're satisfied with having your worldview filtered through the kidneys of journalism school graduates before you get it, more power to you.

Dick Cheney's plans for the Middle East do not require national unity and blind patriotism. He is not the dictator and he does not embody the Homeland. The right-wingers, who like any war anywhere at any cost, always demand patriotic unity for their special projects. It is the stuff of totalitarianism.

It is not just that the war was mismanaged, built on lies, fantastically expensive and has led to the death of tens of thousands. It is illegitimate and unnecessary. It is the private project of a handful of ambitious men who are driven by power and a delusional ideology.

harry/tbrosz intoned: Without the alternative media, you wouldn't be hearing about it now.

Apply this to every important issue reported in the mainstream media over the past decades.

Now, if you want, go back to your newspapers and cable news shows.

That was a stirring speech. And it would even have been an appropriate speech had you made it to an audience which doesn't already embrace the alternative media and which hasn't made the same critique of the MSM, including the NYT and the WaPo, 10,000 times over.

As it is, it's just another laughable tbrosz attempt to pretend he's hep to the real world while everyone else languishes in the darkness. What would you do if you didn't spend all day constructing false examples of your noble iconoclasm, Tom?

darrelplant: "Is he actually saying that the press was too mean to Brownie?"

Yes.

Even though it was painfully obvious the former head of the Arabian American Horse Association was woefully out of his league as FEMA Chair, he nevertheless did recognize the enormous magnitude of Hurricane Katrina days prior to its Gulf Coast landfall.

Remember, the media briefly aired a videotape of mr. Brown pleading via teleconference to the president and administration staff -- whose collective on-camera demeanor even today would appear shockingly detached and nonchalant -- to mobilize immediately all available federal emergency resources in preparation for the inevitable disaster response.

They didn't. Instead, the hapless and easily-scapegoated Michael Brown was left to flounder on his own while a catastrophe unfolded, a great city drowned, and a president looked obliviously down upon it all as he flew home from his Texas vacation.

harry: "Mike, if you're satisfied with having your worldview filtered through the kidneys of journalism school graduates before you get it, more power to you."

harry, you are what people here in the islands call a "babooze", a word which means exactly how it sounds when said aloud.

No matter how badly the media behaved, the Bush Administration bears full responsibility for the conduct of the war in Iraq. To criticize the media is not to excuse Bush for what went wrong (nor to take credit away from him for what went right.)

But, the quality of our media is an important topic in its own right. A few reporters have been great, such as John Burns of the New York Times, but most have not. Their editors likely move their stories closer to the desired story line and farther from reality.

I watch Jim Lehrer's News Hour. His coverage of many issues is great, but they appear to have a rule prohibiting the reporting of good news from Iraq. The AP has been disastrously bad. Today, there are hardly any embedded reporters with the military in Iraq.

I have sent donations to independentt web journalists Michael Yon and Michael Totten. Their Iraq reporting is superior to most of the main stream media. Without a staff of phototograghers, editors, videographers, etc., they supply text, pictures, and videos that are detailed and informative.

Ok, well, that's some lame ass fingerpointing then. His view is that the press is a rah-rah machine, not noticing that when the rah-rah machine turns on you, you're screwed. Well, ok then.

max
['Fuck Sanchez.']

No matter how badly the media behaved, the Bush Administration bears full responsibility for the conduct of the war in Iraq. To criticize the media is not to excuse Bush for what went wrong (nor to take credit away from him for what went right.)

Which would be...what, exactly?

As to Sanchez, he doesn't so much blame the press as whine about it, at least in this brief excerpt. If he doesn't have a specific example of tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats for America because of the tremendous power and impact of the media and by extension you the journalist, he's talking out of his ass.
And this is the first time I've ever heard someone use "Secretary Brown" (he wasn't cabinet level) as a favorable point of self-comparison.
Kinda gives some weight to the whole "somewhat dense" and "does not get it" charges.

The LORD subdues the peoples under him ... unlike, say, Sanchez.

Obviously, we should have made the LORD a 3-star and sent him over in Sanchez's place. You know, I bet He could've even handled Jerry Bremer.

shortstop:

Depends on which alternative media you look at on a regular basis. Would you have heard about this at all if Kevin, who tends to be more objective than other sites, hadn't posted it? What about dozens of other leftist sites? Obviously the Yglesias post Kevin mentions, which linked to an AP story, didn't touch it. Neither, so far, has Kos, which linked to the New York Times. Josh Marshall just linked to Stars and Stripes.

Odds are good if any of them eventually comment on this new information, it will be because they read it on this site.

Would be interesting to know where Kevin got the info.

I put the speech into Many Eyes, so that it can be visually explored.

Jim: [what went right] would be...what, exactly?

I won't argue that the good outweighed the bad in Iraq, but there were several good accomplishments resulting from our invasion there:
-- Ending the UN sanctions, which allegedly were depriving Iraqi children of food and medicine
-- Ending the massive corruption surrounding the Oil-for-Food program
-- Overthrowing Saddam.
-- Capturing Saddam.
-- Establishing a democratic government.
-- Using Saddam's overthrow to help convince Moammar Khadafy to give up Libya's nuclear program, at a point when, according to Khadafy, Libya was on the verge of building a nuclear bomb.
-- Eventually turning most Iraqis against al Qaeda, including many Sunnis

The sanctions could have and might have been ended without the destruction of Iraq and Iraqis.

Saddam could have been bought off for 1/2000 of what this war will ultimately cost.

There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq for Iraqis to be for or against before the invasion. The invasion created AQI.

Qaddafi was preparing to dispense of his weapons program in the late '90's.

The invasion of Iraq reversed the liberalizing momentum in Iraq and has harmed our relations with Turkey.

The invasion of Iraq initially made mealy-mouthed wingnuts feel like John Wayne. The failure of this endeavor has made them feel like Hamlet. Both are unbelievably irritating.

so general sanchez doesn't like being criticized by people who don't know him, but that leaves him perfectly free to criticize people he doesn't know.

as i said in kevin's thread on this yesterday, sanchez could have resigned if he really felt so strongly. like every single one of his peers who supposedly learned the lessons of vietnam, he didn't.

so forgive me if i don't really give a good god-damn that he's discovered how the right-wing has polluted our discourse, and forgive me if i think the usual inanities by ex-liberal and brian are as profoundly stupid as always.

the former top general in iraq rips every aspect of the us government on iraq and ex-liberal and brian think what matters is sanchez got his feelings hurt by people who held him accountable for abu ghraib. thank god ex-liberal and brian are among the 30-percenters and no longer the majority.

ex-liberal at 8:39 produces another masterful piece of blithering idiocy: we didn't need to invade iraq to end sanctions if that were the issue. there wasn't "massive" corruption in the oil-for-food program, and ending the corruption that did exist wasn't worth this war. overthrowing saddam without a plan to deal with the aftermath is not something to be proud of. capturing saddam after he was overthrown hardly justifies the war. we haven't established a democratic government (only the truly dimwitted try this argument anymore). we didn't use saddam's overthrow to deal with khadafy, and only hopeless right-wingers who don't know what they are talking about try this argument. and eventually turning most iraqis against al qaeda, which had no presence in iraq prior to our invasion, is the kind of thing that you should keep your mouth closed about lest we remind you of how pointless that "accomplishment" was.

brain-dead piffle, that's all we ever get from ex-liberal.

Upon actually reading the whole speech ( http://www.militaryreporters.org/sanchez_101207.html ), it looks to me as though it consists of:

(1) Whining about the criticism he got for presiding over the Abu Ghraib disaster.

(2) Calling the Surge a disastrous failure, without trying to cite any evidence whatsoever. (I agree that the Surge is almost certainly a failure, but it seems rather important for Sanchez to give us at least one reason WHY he's convinced it's a failure. Particularly given his own performance record.)

(3) Calling for a draft, without ever quite having the nerve to explicitly use the word. ("AMERICA'S ABILITY TO SUSTAIN A FORCE LEVEL OF 150,000-PLUS IS NONEXISTENT WITHOUT DRASTIC MEASURES THAT HAVE BEEN POLITICALLY UNACCEPTABLE TO DATE.") Now, THAT'S courage.

(4) Urging us to construct a new international coalition of allies massively militarily involved in Iraq -- in some totally unspecified way, possibly by waving a Hogwarts wand.

(5) Saying that if we DON'T get both a draft and that magical new international alliance, we had better bail out fast. ("GIVEN THE LACK OF A GRAND STRATEGY, WE MUST MOVE RAPIDLY TO MINIMIZE THAT FORCE PRESENCE AND ALLOW THE IRAQIS MAXIMUM ABILITY TO EXERCISE THEIR SOVEREIGNTY IN ACHIEVING A SOLUTION.")

By the way, I myself first heard about Captain Ed Morrissey's link to the complete speech from Tim F., the Evil Liberal who comprises one-half of the "Balloon Juice" team.

Sanchez takes the typical neo-con line and calls for unity above all else i.e. for an end to checks and balances on which the United States is founded. Sanchez fails to criticize the Oval Office because, of course, unity above all else is the line of the Oval Office. Sanchez is calling for dictarorship. Duty, honor country are hollow words to Sanchez. Ricardo Sanchez is a disgrace to the US Army.

Kevin writes: "Sanchez pretty definitely seems to accept the right-wing view that the press shares some blame for our problems in Iraq, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about Fox News there."

It's difficult to be sure about that. Sanchez did go out of his way to praise a srong press critic of the war, Joe Galloway, and then added this bit:

"YOUR WILLINGNESS TO BE MANIPULATED BY "HIGH LEVEL OFFICIALS" WHO LEAK STORIES "

And I couldn't help thinking about Judith Miller and Scooter Libby.

I can only reflect that there is some irony in his affected offence at the press inflicting "collateral damage" given the US Armed Forces scant regard for Iraqi (or Afghani)civilian life.

trex: There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq for Iraqis to be for or against before the invasion. The invasion created AQI.

Maybe so, but there now is a large population of Islamic Arabs in Iraq who are declared opponents of al Qaeda and who will fight them. This is an important development. Others Arabs and Muslims may follow their lead. Splitting the Islamic community away from al Qaeda is just what we want to do.

You know, "ex-liberal" it really pisses off people like me when people like you throw around "we" so god-damned casually. The whole lot of you warmongers with no skin in the game can all fuck off and die. And get on it, doubletime. I did not know hate until you idiots opened your mouths and now refuse to shut up, no matter how many times you are refuted, proven wrong and rebuked. If you had any decency you would be in sackcloth and ashes, self-flagellating in front of your local recruiting station from sunup to sundown every day. Instead, you embody banality and blithe disregard for the lives of others to warmonger, on a liberal blog, where you can offend the sensibilities of the greatest number of people. You make me physically ill.

Hang in there, Aunt. A better day's coming.

Airman Rowland's Aunt wrote: "I did not know hate until you idiots opened your mouths and now refuse to shut up, no matter how many times you are refuted, proven wrong and rebuked."

That's the defining characteristic of "ex-liberal" and the other lunatic-fringe right-wing so-called "trolls" who post comments here: they slavishly regurgitate the scripted, programmed, stupid lies that are spoon-fed to them by Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the rest of the right-wing extremist propaganda machine, and when their idiotic talking points are conclusively shown to be BS, they respond by re-posting them verbatim.

It's what they do. It's all they do. It's all they are capable of doing.

Maybe so, but there now is a large population of Islamic Arabs in Iraq who are declared opponents of al Qaeda and who will fight them. This is an important development. Others Arabs and Muslims may follow their lead.

Actually, no. The Iraqis are opponents only of AQI, not the real Al Qaeda, which is an international anti-American terrorist organization as opposed to a local jihadist group trying to take over the country. Iraqis are fairly anti-American themselves, as reflected in poll after poll.

And as the CIA and other intel agencies have reported time and time again, the invasion of Iraq has increased Muslim support of Al Qaeda throughout the world.

Not quite, Trex: bin Laden and his guys are Sunni radicals, and they hate Shi'ites. Most Iraqis are Shi'ites.

The ravings of FAUXlib are his raison d'etre - Sorry FAUX, go back to your truffle rooting, now.

He uses "we" because he still cringes and breaks into a cold sweat because he once, in the 60s, was so close to being named "Permanent Latrine Orderly" down at Ft Ord.

Psalms 144:1-2

You are right to include this bible verse Kevin. Public servants are free to include religious references in what they say. And all of us are free to judge for ourselves the implications of such references.

..."there wasn't "massive" corruption in the oil-for-food program, and ending the corruption that did exist wasn't worth this war."

And the corruption did not end. It was replaced with more severe corruption both in Iraq and in the United States.

"But the most interesting thing is that Kevin instinctly attributes press criticism to a 'right-wing view.'"

Had you bothered to actually read and comprehend what Kevin wrote, you'd have realized that you were, as usual, dead wrong about his point and that your entire post was moot.

"Maybe so, but there now is a large population of Islamic Arabs in Iraq who are declared opponents of al Qaeda and who will fight them."

Only because we are paying them and arming them, dear. And just what do you think they are going to do with the money and arms next, dear?

"This is an important development."

Not really, mostly because AQI has never been a significant factor in Iraq, nor is there any sign at all that there is any significant loss of support for al Qaeda elsewhere.

"Mike, if you're satisfied with having your worldview filtered through the kidneys of journalism school graduates before you get it, more power to you."

Harry, dear, given your overwhelming ignorance displayed on every thread here, forgive us if we take this for the projection that it is, although I'd have probably chosen a different orifice.

"the former top general in iraq rips every aspect of the us government on iraq and ex-liberal and brian think what matters is sanchez got his feelings hurt by people who held him accountable for abu ghraib. thank god ex-liberal and brian are among the 30-percenters and no longer the majority."Posted by: howard

Let's see. The title of the thread: Sanchez and the Press.
The subject of the thread: "... he(Sanchez) spent the entire first half of his speech ripping the press corps several new orifices — and in an undoubtedly shocking turn of events, the press corps barely even reported it! (Among the LA Times, New York Times, Washington Post, and AP, only the Post even mentioned it. They gave it two sentences in the final paragraph.)"

brian commented exclusively on the topic and the subject raised by Kevin without ever referring to the treatment of Sanchez by the press.

ex-lib commented on the topic and the subject, plus "No matter how badly the media behaved, the Bush Administration bears full responsibility for the conduct of the war in Iraq. To criticize the media is not to excuse Bush for what went wrong," as well as never mentioning the treatment of Sanchez by the press.

Many oters commented about the topic without mentioning Iraq.

You, howard, mischaracterize brian's and ex-lib's postings and criticize them when other commenters that share your political perspective do the same as brian and ex-lib yet go uncriticized.

This must be the New & Improved, 21st Century version of Marcuse's '60's strategy of intolerance, "What ever comes from the Right is bad and should not be tolerated, whatever comes from the Left is good and should be welcomed.

Really, majarosh? Is the Left like that? For you, apparently, although if picking one comment out of 50+ (and 18 hours ago) to support your thesis is indicative, I'd say your thesis is not well supported.

Let's see what the CQ commenters have to say about Sanchez:
He's one of those hires that bumped up along affirmative action lines.

Or:There is no sense of right and wrong in the Leftist controlled media or there (sic) followers.

Or:The Leftist Media like the Wash Compost or the NY Slimes or NBC, ANC, CNN and the Dems leaders have aligned themselves with the Terrorists

or:Dems like wars that there President need to distract the media and the public away from there
scandal ridden regime.

Yessir, majarosh, really on your game there. Nice try but the CQers can't have a discussion without the personal animus towards those who disagree with them. Must just be the internet.

TJM, as Kevin said in his post, "Actually, not quite."

None of the examples you cite are personal attacks "towards those who disagree with them."on someone posting on the thread.

I chose howard's post as an example because he personally attacked those who disagree with him by accusing them of doing something they did not do while others who spoke on the topic were not accused of thinking "what matters is sanchez got his feelings hurt by people who held him accountable for abu ghraib."

You ask, "Is the Left like that?" Some on the Left most certainly act like that. You, however, did not comment on your own question. So, TJM, what do you think?
I never said that was the strategy of all on the Left and I've made similiar observations previously on this site when accusers behave in the manner they falsey accuse others of engaging in.
I like this site. There is a wide variety of topics put forth. Kevin makes strong cases for his point of view without distorting the "facts" or calling people names. I'm willing to overlook the whole "cat thing."
I believe it is important to have discussions among folks who have differing perspectives on important issues. That being said, I will continue to expose those who try to squelch those discussions.

Not quite since I didn't ask if the "left" is like that. You did. You also, however, seem perfectly willing to paint with a very wide brush. I know, I know, you were using a quote but in no way feel, personally, that all, just "some" on the left are like that.

I've been here long enough to know that ex-lib is either KD's wife (or KD) who post disingenuous crap just to keep the traffic up or the densest person I've read this side of the "Carol Herman" personage on right wing sites. Defending this from what your tender sensibilities see as animus is trite and a waste. You are equally disingenuous if you think personal animus towards "libs" and "dems" isn't the same because it doesn't single out an individual. That stuff doesn't exactly foster an open dialogue, or does it?

"I want to say to you, Mr. Zorin, that I do not have your talent for obfuscation, for distortion, for confusing language, and for doubletalk. And I must confess to you that I am glad that I do not!"-A.E. Stevenson

TJM,
My post was a response to howard. However, I will ask you one simple question. Do you deny that howard misrepresented the comments of ex-lib and brian and accused them of something they did not do?
Yes or no, don't wair for the translation, yes or no?

Sanchez's criticism of the press (and of the conduct of the Iraq war too, actually) is too vague to be of any use. his only specific charges against the press is that they were too harsh in their criticism of him concerning Abu Ghraib and of Michael Brown in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. he didn't really make a persuasive case that these two incidents show the media should change its behavior in the future.

The only reason his iraq commentary was interesting, and received more coverage than his media criticism, is because he used to be the top general in Iraq. That is all that makes it interesting. If it had come from anyone else, it wouldn't have made the op-ed page of a small town newspaper.

" I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over, if that’s your decision"-A.E. Stevenson

Let's look at more of what howard said:

At 10:15pm howard said:
forgive me i think the usual inanities by ex-liberal and brian are as profoundly stupid as always.

At 10:19pm he said:
ex-liberal at 8:39 produces another masterful piece of blithering idiocy: Whereon howard goes on to refute each of the "points" ex-liberal made (up).

howard then closes with:
brain-dead piffle, that's all we ever get from ex-liberal.

Lest it be forgotten, Sanchez started his criticism of the press from the personal ("they" made things up about him) and expanded it to the more catholic topic of Iraq war coverage( "they" only showed things to gain a headline) thence to carp about how that coverage (fed to them by anonymous highly placed or ranked officials) furthered partisan politics. How you conclude that Iraq was off topic is, as I think I mentioned, disingenuous.

Better you keep in mind, I think, what game Sanchez is playing.
Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
Ambrose Bierce

"the former top general in iraq rips every aspect of the us government on iraq and ex-liberal and brian think what matters is sanchez got his feelings hurt by people who held him accountable for abu ghraib."--howard

Do you deny that howard misrepresented the comments of ex-lib and brian and accused them of something they did not do?
Yes or no, don't wait for the translation, yes or no?

No, he expressed his opinion of what they said. Read it again. howard is saying that Sanchez's rant on the media is because of what they wrote about him.

When the ex-lib and brian talk of their interpretation of Sanchez, they talk about the media as to politics and the war in general.

howard could hardly misrepresent himself but you reach back 18 hours to single out that one comment to fixate on that you then misinterpret and then misrepresent what he said. Why you did is a mystery to me. I'd move on, but, hey, go for it dude.

Just like a General forced to resign (retire early). Shove the blame onto others. The primary mover in Iraq when he was there was to prepare the Iraqi military for taking over the conflict. Bad job.

Why is it that Petraeus can and Sanchez can´t?

I'm not sure exactly what Sanchez means by "killing our service members who are at war." It could mean one of two things. He could be lambasting the media for witholding unconditional support for the war, but since Bush has done what he's liked in Iraq, that doesn't make much sense.

Or, if he's talking about the right-wing media (including war-enablers in the NYT & Wash Post) that seems to make more sense. Our soldiers can only be killed if they're in the middle of a war.

It depends whether Sanchez is reality-based or not. Since he's trying to shape his reputation as a commanding general, he's a biased source, so whatever he says should be approached with some caution.