Of course you do, because you’re a moron.

But I stand by the description of the Army Times as being the voice of the military. The sources it uses are active military personnel, as is its entire target audience. Official DoD rags have there hands tied: they can’t openly criticize their commanders, and they certainly can’t venture into politics. I said before that if you’re looking for CentCom or the DoD to aks for Rumsfeld’s resignation, you don’t have to be worried: they can’t do that.

Now calm down and enjoy the election results rolling in.

First you say (sarcastically):

“What’s this world coming too, if even the Army is giving ‘aid and comfort’ to our enemies?”

The clear implication is that the Army is the one who expressed the view of the editorial.

Then you said the following:

“Please point out where I called them ‘official military newspapers’”

When you say “the Army is giving ‘aid and comfort’”, you can’t turn around and say “I never said that the military said that!”. So, Senator Kerry, you actually did say that the Army felt that way…before you didn’t.

“which is similar to TR calling the Boston Herald Kerry’s hometown newspaper”

Wrong again. If TR had called the Boston Herald Kerry’s “own” newspaper (implying ownership and endorsement) then you would be more correct. But the only part of TR’s phrase you could challenge is whether Boston is really Kerry’s “hometown” - maybe it’s Cambridge or Denver, or Paris…

Here are some examples of “the military’s own newpapers”. Read through them, you might see alternative opinions and information than you get in your regular sources - you might even learn something.

http://estripes.osd.mil/

http://www.centcom.mil/

http://www.defenselink.mil/

The Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times are publications serving the military. Their sources and readership are military personnel. They are the voice of the military.

Boys and girls, it looks like the Army Times has joined the defeatist chorus.
“In an editorial appearing in the Nov. 13 issue of Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times, on newsstands Monday, the papers say it is time for the president “to face the hard bruising truth.”

“His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt,” the newspapers say.

What’s this world coming too, if even the Army is giving “aid and comfort” to our enemies?

“OBTW guess the dominant party of “political leadership that made the Tet offensive into a defeat”

I’m of the humble opinion that we should learn from the mistakes of past wars, not use them as an excuse to make the same ones again. You prefer otherwise?

“For someone who credits himself with being well informed about the situation in Iraq, you let the obvious slip right past you. ”

No, I’m just not so myopic that I believe that these guys are obsessing about our election cycle. I’m sure a few of them do, but the vast majority just fights harder when they feel particularly angry and religious. Ramadan is a time when families gather. So it’s a time when people are most aware of their lost family members. They’re angrier than normal. And the sectarian differences burn extra hot when religion is the focus of every day life. They more religious than normal.

Please explain why you think that the violence should subside now, no matter who’s in charge in Washington. The violence hasn’t abated in the past 3 years. What is different now? Do you think these guys are out of ammo?

Close, but too many errors. The American media didn’t care about whether or not the VC were defeated. At that point in time they had aligned themselves with the anti-war movement and reported what fueled the anti-war fires. Their goal, just like today in Iraq, was to effect a draw – a withdrawal without a clear victory. OBTW guess the dominant party of “political leadership that made the Tet offensive into a defeat…”

”I don’t think the Ramadan violence qualifies as a “Tet offensive”…”

You’re right but for the wrong reasons. Tet was a military strategy time to the Oriental New Year, this increased violence in Iraq is timed to our November elections. My prediction: if the Dems take the House (with or without the Senate) the violence will remain elevated, but not necessarily to the same level as now. Reason – to substantiate the Dems position of pulling out of Iraq, because it is un-winnable. If the Dems fail to take the House and Senate, the violence will subside, because the insurgents are getting the snot knocked out of them attacking hard targets. For someone who credits himself with being well informed about the situation in Iraq, you let the obvious slip right past you.

OS, exactly. The Tet offensive was a resounding military success for the US, but it showed that the VC weren’t defeated yet. It was the US’s political leadership that made the Tet offensive into a defeat by making unrealistic claims about the status of the war.

Frankly, I don’t think the Ramadan violence qualifies as a “Tet offensive” (even if Bush agrees with that description) because it didn’t really make the same point. We all know that this kind of violence is going to continue for years, and I don’t think this changed because 106 soldiers died this month. It was much earlier on that jokers like “dead-enders” Rummy and “last throes” Cheney provided the Jihadis with easy Tet-like victories. Talk about “miscues”! Simply by showing they were alive and able to destroy whatever we were building, they were able to show that our leaders have HUA syndrome and are not playing straight with us. If we had had realistic expectations about the war, this wouldn’t have been possible.