Army/Navy/AirForce/Marine Times- Rummy must go - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Lazarus · #1 (**permalink**) 11-03-2006

Well, that damn Liberal media is at it again.

Quote:

"Time for Rumsfeld to go."
*

"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."

That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "mission accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," and "back off," we know what we're doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war's planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war."

Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on "critical" and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.

But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake.

It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

This editorial will appear in the Mon 6 November editions of all Military Times.
An advance copy has been made available.
I found it @ Editor and Publisher

Scribbler1 · #2 (**permalink**) 11-03-2006

I think this will do much to show whether Bush is truly a man of principle or another two-faced lying politician. I think the abovementioned issues, especially ALL of them calling for booting Rumsfeld will be a good test of Bush's overly publicized character.

No one can claim THIS is the "liberal media".

Meridious · #3 (**permalink**) 11-03-2006

Wow. An OpEd. The opinion of one editorial writer.

While definately fair of them to allow the view to be posted, it is hardly indicitive of what soldiers across the board believe.

Rakkasan · #4 (**permalink**) 11-04-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meridious

Wow. An OpEd. The opinion of one editorial writer.

While definately fair of them to allow the view to be posted, it is hardly indicitive of what soldiers across the board believe.

thanks!!!!!!!!!! its exactley what i was gonna say

Angry American · #5 (**permalink**) 11-04-2006

The calls for Rumsfeld's resignation grow louder, not from the left, but from the independent military news media.

Quote:

Army Times to call for Rumsfeld's resignation
POSTED: 11:10 p.m. EST, November 3, 2006

(CNN) -- An editorial to be published Monday in independent publications that serve the four main branches of the U.S. military will call for President Bush to replace Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

"Basically, the editorial says, it's clear now, from some of the public statements that military leaders are making, that he's lost the support and respect of the military leadership," said Robert Hodierne, senior managing editor for the publications' parent company Army Times Publications.

"That they're starting to go public with that now, with their disagreements, added up with all of the other missteps we believe he's made, that it's time for him to be replaced," Hodierne.

Army Times Publications publishes the Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and the Marine Corps Times.

It is the second time the publications have called for Rumsfeld to resign.

Read more...

And according to Bush, Rumsfeld is doing a fantastic job, thanks for the reassuring words Mr. President.

Miscreantgnomie · #6 (**permalink**) 11-04-2006

Mon 6 November

nice timing to be released too

BDaileyPLS3060 · #7 (**permalink**) 11-04-2006

The Army/Navy/AirForce/Marine Times are all owned and published by....say it with me....Gannett News, Inc., which owns a hundred or so newspapers and TV stations around the country. Some of the most liberal rags in the country are owned by Gannett, i.e. the Louisville Courier-Journal.

I'm shocked...shocked...to see an editorial opposing the current administration.

conformfailure · #8 (**permalink**) 11-04-2006

Dammit! I hate the liberal media!!!!!!!

conformfailure · #9 (**permalink**) 11-04-2006

Ahahahaha!!!

That damn liberal media is at it again!!!

conformfailure · #10 (**permalink**) 11-04-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meridious

Wow. An OpEd. The opinion of one editorial writer.

While definately fair of them to allow the view to be posted, it is hardly indicitive of what soldiers across the board believe.

Of course not. An army of retired brass that ask that Rumsfeld step down. Soldiers that complain about lack of armor couldn't be it either.

So who here KNOWS what is indicitive of what soldiers across the board believe?

We all know that soldiers speak through GWB and Cheney. Duh!

MattLarson · #11 (**permalink**) 11-04-2006

Duplicate threads combined.

Matt

BDaileyPLS3060 · #12 (**permalink**) 11-04-2006

Independent military news media? When the papers of all four services have exactly the same editorial, word for word? When they are all owned and published by the same company? When that company, Gannett, owns and publishes some of the most liberal papers in the country?

My understanding of "independent" doesn't include this scenario.

(posted when threads were seperate)

conformfailure · #13 (**permalink**) 11-04-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDaileyPLS3060

Independent military news media? When the papers of all four services have exactly the same editorial, word for word? When they are all owned and published by the same company? When that company, Gannett, owns and publishes some of the most liberal papers in the country?

My understanding of "independent" doesn't include this scenario.

(posted when threads were seperate)

You haven't answered my question. Since you insist on ignoring retired brass and fed up soldiers.

You tell me - where can we find the voice of the soldier since you refuse everything else.

Where, where, where?!

conformfailure · #14 (**permalink**) 11-04-2006

Once you guys hear something you guys don't like, you call it liberal media no matter what.

This thread proves it.

BDaileyPLS3060 · #15 (**permalink**) 11-04-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by conformfailure

You haven't answered my question. Since you insist on ignoring retired brass and fed up soldiers.

You tell me - where can we find the voice of the soldier since you refuse everything else.

Where, where, where?!

Try ArmyRanger.com, a member run web site, no official affiliations. Or any number of other military oriented web sites that have no official ties to the Dept of Defense. Doubt you'll do so, but there's the answer to your "where, where, where?"

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode