Dan wrote- >I racked my brain to try to figure out any means by which this can be >hyperbola for something that is actually happening. I do think there is >evidence that senior officers who voice strong criticism of Rumsfeld's >ideas do put their career at risk more than they would have under previous >presidents. I think that is a mistake and sends the wrong message. > >But if that's it, calling it a political purge is way way over the top, to >the point where it is basically disinformation.
I can't speak to if/what is going on", and can't give you a cite, but living in a military area you tend to follow news about promotions and "stop-loss" and such. I recall several years ago hearing an article that about the number of "generals" being "asked to retire". I seem to recall it was something like 40-80. Now I know there is always a certain amount of attrition in any rank, but the commentator was noting it was a huge amount beyond the "normal". (Don't ask me "what kind" of generals, I don't recall). The reason I remember it is I found it interesting that no reason followed... there was minimal question/comment on it. Seemed like there would be more news on it later, but nothing I ever heard/found out. Not sure that was much help but that might support there have been some unusual patterns, Dee _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
