Not everyone is taking the news of General Eric Shinseki's vindication and ascension into the Obama cabinet that gladly, apparently. Just ask the people over at the Washington Times! They have an article up about Shinseki today titled, "Shinseki garners plaudits, doubts." It's a curious thing, actually, because Sunday morning, there wasn't heard much of a discouraging word from pundits of any stripe. Of course, as the Times article soon reveals, casting doubt on the Shinseki appointment is the sort of thing that doesn't lend itself to showing one's face in public.
In her lede, reporter Audrey Hudson claims that "others are quietly questioning" Shinseki's qualifications, in what sort of sounds like editorial directive that isn't distilled into the language skillfully enough.
Here are the named individuals in the piece: Bob FIlner, John Rowan, and Glen M. Gardner. The closest you get to "doubts" come from Gardner, who is said to have "also praised Gen. Shinseki but noted the different requirements for heading a Cabinet agency." "Running the VA will be far different than leading troops into battle," Gardner told the Times, in a statement that's pretty much anodyne. So where, exactly are the "doubts?" Why, they're right at the end:
One high-ranking retired officer who asked to remain anonymous questioned Gen. Shinseki's record on veterans health-care issues.
"How much time has he spent visiting the PTSD wards, the multiple-amputee wards, the burn wards? The major question I have is: Just what has he done for the past five years to show any concern for our veterans? I do not see any evidence of Shinseki being an agent for change."
Yeah, uhm...you'll forgive me if I encourage the world to not take the word of some anonymous coward seriously when it comes to this appointment. I'll only point out that when it comes to purchasing dishonor, the Washington Times appears to have a source that can get it for you at wholesale.