Why are MSMers Broder and Dionne willing to assign such great credibility to a half dozen generals (out of at least 4,700 and perhaps as many as 7,000 retired gerenals and admirals) when there is no evidence that they have credited similar insider criticism of their own business, say from Bernard Goldberg, John Stossel and Michael Medved to name just three MSM-insiders turned MSM critics.
There is also some not-very-above board sleight-of-hand at work.
From Dionne: “It’s amusing to hear the administration’s supporters worry that these courageous former generals are a threat to civilian control of the military.” Why not mention that this criticism came from the recently retired Chair of the Joint Chiefs, Richard Myers?
And Broder quotes General Newbold extensively, but none of the generals who published in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal or the former #2 at CentCom, retired USMC General Michael DeLong, who published in the Sunday New York Times.
While the Rumsfeld critics are very senior and have served long and distinguished careers, the weight of experience and seniority in this debate is with the general officers defending the Secretary of Defense, and it isn’t even close. Anti-Bush pundits aren’t going to tell you that, even as the anti-Rumsfeld generals are going to attempt to persuade you that their number represents far more than it does.
But at least we now know that critics of MSM need only a handful of one-time insiders to prove their long-standing critique of the bias deep within the legacy media.