Except for the part where they claimed that "at least nine of these analysts have written op-ed articles for The Times." But, for the most part, you're right.
Honestly, after I read this piece my reaction was that I would have been shocked if it worked any other way. I mean, how independent should we expect a retired general to be? This is someone who's career consisted of being a political figure for his branch of service, and now we're expecting them to be an unbiased liaison between the gov't and the public?