Another military blogger has been terminated and forced to recant:
For the record, I am officially a supporter of the administration and of her policies. I am a proponent for the war against terror and I believe in the mission in Iraq. I understand my role in that mission, and I accept it. I understand that I signed the contract which makes stop loss legal, and I retract any statements I made in the past that contradict this one. Furthermore, I have the utmost confidence in the leadership of my chain of command, including (but not limited to) the president George Bush and the honorable secretary of defense Rumsfeld. If I have ever written anything on this site or on others that lead the reader to believe otherwise, please consider this a full and complete retraction.
So are they all, all honorable men.
During the Stalinist purges, scientists forced to incriminate themselves as British spies would sometimes attempt to make their confessions so ridiculous that, assuming they weren't murdered, and assuming the purges ever ended, someone might eventually notice and set them free. They would confess to revealing the formula to sulfuric acid, or water.
While I can understand that the military hates to be busted about the failures of its mission in Iraq, are we really going to win the war by forcing our soldiers to lie about how it's going? I have read many places that the Tet Offensive was a military disaster for the Viet Cong -- but that the US Army had lied so many times at that point that no one would believe it when it told the truth about winning Tet. If the US Army won't let soldiers tell the truth about Iraq now, how are we supposed to believe it later?
Via Kung Fu Monkey.