<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>NewsTrust - For Review</title>
    <copyright>Copyright (c) 2008 NewsTrust</copyright>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:33:02 -0800</lastBuildDate>
    
    <link>http://newstrust.net/sources/armed_forces_journal/for_review</link>
    <description>NewsTrust helps people find good journalism online. We rate the news based on quality, not just popularity. Our social news network features top-rated stories from hundreds of mainstream and independent sources. Find out more at http://newstrust.net/</description>
    <item>
      <title>The other enemy</title>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://newstrust.net/stories/20254</guid>
      <link>http://newstrust.net/stories/20254</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/sources/armed_forces_journal&quot;&gt;Armed Forces Journal&lt;/a&gt; - By Ralph Peters - May. 16 (Opinion) - A fourth aspect of the problem is that our political class either makes promises impossible to keep (the creation of an ideal model democracy in Iraq, for example) or, if in opposition, continues to add new, ever-higher metrics for success. One has the sense that, no matter how much the local people achieve with our support, some factions within our political system will insist that each military engagement has been a failure.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/stories/20254&quot;&gt;3.0 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;/stories/20254&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/stories/20254&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>Odd News</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Protecting the chief</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:19:59 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://newstrust.net/stories/9951</guid>
      <link>http://newstrust.net/stories/9951</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/sources/armed_forces_journal&quot;&gt;Armed Forces Journal&lt;/a&gt; - By Keeping Pace was not an option in war-wary Washington - Jul. 19 (News Analysis) - President Bush pulled the plug on Gen. Peter Pace to avoid what Defense Secretary Robert Gates described as a &quot;quite contentious&quot; renomination hearing.

That was an understatement. The bid to have Pace named to a second term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would have been an unrestrained political spectacle, former Pentagon official Ray DuBois said.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/stories/9951&quot;&gt;3.5 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;/stories/9951&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/stories/9951&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>Department of Defense</category>
      <category>War in Iraq</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Power struggle</title>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2007 03:31:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://newstrust.net/stories/7200</guid>
      <link>http://newstrust.net/stories/7200</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/sources/armed_forces_journal&quot;&gt;Armed Forces Journal&lt;/a&gt; - By William Matthews - Apr. 27 (News Analysis) - So, who's right? More important in Washington, who's going to win? Rep. Joseph Sestak, D-Pa., is reluctant to predict the outcome, but as a freshman Democrat, a retired three-star admiral and a Harvard Ph.D. in political economy and government, he views the struggle between Congress and the president through an unusual prism. When it comes to war, the Constitution actually assigns more responsibility to Congress than it does to the president, Sestak said. While the Constitution names the president as commander in chief, that's about all it says about him, he said. &quot;The preponderance of responsibility&quot; for the military is actually placed on Congress.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/stories/7200&quot;&gt;4.7 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;/stories/7200&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/stories/7200&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>U.S. Constitution</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
