...is the "word" that is passed out over a ship's 1MC PA system when the vessel prepares to maneuver at speed, or when heavy seas are expected. It warns the crew to stay clear of the weather decks and to
exercise caution when working below around heavy, unsecured gear.

In reference to your comments, Sanchez's remarks are a masterpiece of misdirection, covering his own butt while simultaneously allowing no one a clear opportunity to defend themselves, and at the same time giving the press strokes so they will eagerly publicize his comments. He also shovels on just enough criticism of the press (at the beginning, to soften it!) and praise on the troops (at the end) to cover his butt yet again. You will note I dispute neither his facts, nor his sincerity, I just know skillfully crafted propaganda and apologetics when I see it. The propaganda is in the emphasis, the priorities, the semiotic subtext, not the raw facts. Just like some of our premier posters here.

The fact that the Times left out Sanchez's initial remarks supports TB's suspicions of bias as far as I'm concerned, but they also confirm my conviction that they are not doing it deliberately or in a calculated fashion. If I were clandestinely trying to change people's minds, I would be willing to absorb a few minor hits up front in order to make my main message even more effective. The genuine concession (to establish credibility), followed immediately by a counteracting broadside, is classic propaganda technique. In fact, if you were paying attention, you would have just caught me using it myself... :)

As for the military's reluctance to criticize their civilian superiors while on duty, I have no absolutely problem with that. That is their solemn obligation and Sanchez is perfectly right to withold his criticism until after his retirement, and totally entitled to unleash it after he is out of uniform. That I have no problem with.

I second your comments about the high caliber of our military, they certainly are light-years ahead professionally from when I was in, and I think the all-volunteer force has everything to do with this. It may inculcate an "us-vs-them" attitude with the civilian leadership (and whose fault is that?), but I believe that even with that potential problem, the increase in quality and performance is more than worth it. The Vietnam-era military would not have acquitted itself as honorably and successfully as our present one has. It's the mission that was flawed, from the start...but that's exactly what Sanchez is telling us, isn't it?