How do you continue to editorialize against the war without sounding like you don't support our troops?

Why, this way, of course. I wonder how the NYTimes viewed General McArthur's criticisms of President Truman.

Where's the news in this? We heard all about the criticism of Rumsfeld within the Pentagon when he cancelled the Crusader artillery system. Is it big news that there are some disgruntled officers in the troops? Is the Times really that much in favor of spending MORE money on this war, or even increasing the defense budget? Or is it just trying to paint the war as some kind of failure in spite of the facts on the ground? They didn't want this war in the first place, but now we don't have enough troops? If they thought this was taking too long, one must wonder how long it would have taken to get a few of the Crusaders on line in the theater, not to mention how the unfortunate name of the cannon would have played on Al Jazeera and other Arab television stations.

So much for the newspaper of record and the rest of the media who follow its lead.