[anita]

You 're right, CWOJackson. DOD numbers should be right and Slate admits it calculated roughly. Nonetheless, MSM should be ashamed, for not doing the homework and following NYT or AP for cluelessness.

[CWOJackson]

It's not just the MSM...pat buchanan is touting this bilge and a lot of Freepers agree with him.

[Miss Marple]

Since we only see a few active-duty generals on television, most Americans think there are small numbers of generals and thus these guys are a larger percentage than in actuality.

We need to have the numbers in order to refute this latest DNC/MSM trick.

[Alas Babylon!]

Nonetheless, MSM should be ashamed, for not doing the homework and following NYT or AP for cluelessness.

Of course you know it's not cluelessness. What it IS is agenda. If they were actual journalists instead of democrats (liberals, leftists, progressives, whatever), they would have told in their reports just what a percentage of 6 is to 8,700, or even mentioned that there is 8,700 retired stars. And if the president were liberal and the generals conservative, they would have reminded us that 1, 2, and 3 star officers have to have SecDef approval to get the next star, so they're obviously disgruntled. Instead, they're hoping that this will cause an overly busy public to take at face value that even the warriors themselves are opposed to the "debacle" that is Iraq.