Military to Pres.... Rummy Must Go....

[jillian]

4 Leading Military Papers: 'Rumsfeld Must Go'

By E&P Staff

Published: November 03, 2006 11:00 PM ET

NEW YORK An editorial set to appear on Monday -- election eve -- in four leading newspapers for the military calls for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The papers are the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times. They are published by the Military Times Media Group, a subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc. President Bush said this week that he wanted Rumsfeld to serve out the next two years.

"We say that Rumsfeld must be replaced,” Alex Neill, the managing editor of the Army Times, told The Virginian-Pilot tonight in a telephone interview. “Given the state of affairs with Iraq and the military right now, we think it’s a good time for new leadership there.”

The editorial was written by senior managing editor Robert Hodierne, based on a decision of the publications’ editorial board, Neill told the paper.

The timing of the editorial was coincidental, Neill said.
But he added, "President Bush came out and said that Donald Rumsfeld is in for the duration … so it’s just a timely issue for us. And our position is that it is not the best course for the military” for Rumsfeld to remain the Pentagon chief.

Neill said he was uncertain how troops will react. “I think we’ll hear from both sides,” he said. “It will be interesting to find out if it swings significantly one way or the other."

The Ross Report at the Web site of the San Francisco Chronicle posted the advance text of the editorial tonight, and this was cited by MSNBC. Andrew S. Ross is executive foreign and national editor of the paper. Here is the text, as posted, under the heading, "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.

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003352525

 

[Stephanie]

It's not gonna happen.....

I'm beginning to think, I should trade some of my stocks, with the people who make razor blades...........





:rotflmao:

:shocked1:

 

[jillian]

It's not gonna happen......Do you think you all can live with it.....

I'm beginning to think, I should trade some of my stocks into the razor blade makers...........:kiss2:

OH... I agree it's not gonna happen. Bush is too ignorant and stubborn to listen to the people who know what they're talking about..... after all, he is the decider :halo:

Of course, it's also why his approval rating is so low he's only allowed to campaign in the most extremist strongholds. :crutch:

 

[Stephanie]

OH... I agree it's not gonna happen. Bush is too ignorant and stubborn to listen to the people who know what they're talking about..... after all, he is the decider :halo:

Of course, it's also why his approval rating is so low he's only allowed to campaign in the most extremist strongholds. :crutch:

Well.....Sweetie....At least now, I hope your seeing the whole picture......
sorry if you Dems. don't want to come over and join......
But, you all have been the total divider, and your party can hardly be even close to being a United.....Even amongst yourselves.......

You all stand behind a dying party.....

But I will not let your unhinged, loony, leftist party come between me an My Country...

If you all could take back your party, the Democrats...
Not the progressives...
Not the Democratics.........

The Democrats!!
It was once your all proud name.
.But you all allowed them to change your name, and you've also allowed you proud party to be infiltrated, by a way leftist fringe group, and said nothing...
Now you all get to live with....or stand up and say No, no more....
I don't know.....
Maybe that's how you all like to be led around, by the nose ring.????
..You've been taken over by the radical left, and your not even fighting for you party to be taken back.........

 

[Gunny]

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003352525

Typical. Please tell me how editors equate to "military." Your thread title is just a bold-faced lie.

 

[jillian]

Typical. Please tell me how editors equate to "military." Your thread title is just a bold-faced lie.

Bull.... try reading instead of getting your tail feathers in a knot...

from my link:

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.

The people who know what they're doing are begging for a change... they, unlike the "stay the course" brigade, actually DO care about the troops and their well-being.

Now... if you can stop lying about how bad Rummy's doing, maybe there can be an actual dialogue on this subject.

 

[Gunny]

Bull.... try reading instead of getting your tail feathers in a knot...

from my link:



The people who know what they're doing are begging for a change... they, unlike the "stay the course" brigade, actually DO care about the troops and their well-being.

Now... if you can stop lying about how bad Rummy's doing, maybe there can be an actual dialogue on this subject.

I read the crap. It is the opinions of some editors, not "the military."

And the people who want change and are willing to vote Democrat in order to get it are STUPID. The Republicans may very well give us only half what we want. It's STILL a better deal than the Democrats giving us NONE of what we want.

There can be no actual dialogue of a political nature between you and I because you are so lost in the sauce of political partisanship and have proven yourself time and again incapable of getting anywhere near an unbiased and objective viewpoint.

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

Bush can campaign anywhere he damn well wants to, as long as he clears it with Rove.

Typical. Please tell me how editors equate to "military." Your thread title is just a bold-faced lie.

Uhhhh, they don't.

It the timing that's irritating in this latest call for Rumsfeld's head. That same outfit has demanded that Rumsfeld resign before, they'll be ignored now as before.

 

[Stephanie]

Response to Army Times Editorial


Nov. 4, 2006
SNIP:
On Saturday, Nov. 4, the Army Times published an editorial titled, “Time for Rumsfeld to go.” The editorial included a number of inaccurate and misleading statements.

SUMMARY:

THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PROVIDED A BALANCED PICTURE: The Department has always attempted to clearly and accurately describe the challenges our forces face in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Secretary above all has always been very measured in describing the progress U.S forces are making in what will undoubtedly be a long struggle in the War on Terror.

CHALLENGE THOSE WHO CLAIM ADMINISTRATION OFFERED A ROSY SCENARIO: We challenge those who say the Secretary has ever painted a “rosy picture” to provide his quotes as well as the full context of those remarks.

THIS IS OLD NEWS MASKED AS NEW NEWS: The new “chorus of criticism” noted by the editorials is actually old news and does not include commanders in the field, who remain committed to the mission.

INSULTING MILITARY COMMANDERS: The assertion, without evidence, that senior military officers are “toeing the line” is an insult to their judgment and integrity.

IRAQIS ARE RISKING THEIR LIVES FOR THEIR COUNTRY: Iraqi security forces are making slow but measurable progress. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have made themselves and their families targets and put their lives at risk for their new country. They are increasingly taking the lead in operations. The disparagement of these forces is completely unfounded.

CHALLENGE POSED BY ENEMY IS TOUGH: As long as the enemy is determined to thwart a free and democratic Iraq the stability throughout the country will fluctuate. However, the security situation is not monolithic across the country. Many parts of Iraq are relatively peaceful.

WE WILL GIVE TROOPS WHAT THEY NEED TO WIN: This country and the leadership of the Defense Department are going to ensure that our military forces have the resources to successfully carry out their mission. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong. SPECIFIC CLAIMS REBUTTED:
You can read the rest at the site:
http://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodupdate/index-b.html

 

[jillian]

Yeah? And?

Self-serving garbage from Rummy's department? You having trouble figuring out, Steffie, that Rummy's been saying "all's well" for the past three years? He's been lying about that for three years, too.

WASHINGTON - A leading conservative proponent of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq now says dysfunction within the Bush administration has turned U.S. policy there into a disaster.

Richard Perle, who chaired a committee of Pentagon policy advisers early in the Bush administration, said had he seen at the start of the war in 2003 where it would go, he probably would not have advocated an invasion to depose Saddam Hussein. Perle was an assistant secretary of defense under President Reagan.

"I probably would have said, 'Let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists,'" he told Vanity Fair magazine in its upcoming January issue.

Meanwhile, the Military Times Media Group, a Gannett Co. subsidiary that publishes Army Times and other military-oriented periodicals, said Friday it was calling for Bush to fire Rumsfeld. An editorial due to be published Monday says active-duty military leaders are beginning to voice misgivings about the war's planning and execution and dimming prospects for success. It declares that "Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large."

The editorial concludes by saying that regardless of which party wins in next week's election, the time has come "to face the hard bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go."

When asked about the Vanity Fair article and Perle's criticism, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, "We appreciate the Monday-morning quarterbacking, but the president has a plan to succeed in Iraq and we are going forward with it."

Other prominent conservatives criticized the administration's conduct of the war in the article, including Kenneth Adelman, who also served on the Defense Policy Board that informally advised President Bush. Adelman said he was "crushed" by the performance of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

The critiques in Vanity Fair come as growing numbers of Republicans have criticized Bush's policies on Iraq. The war, unpopular with many Americans, has become a top-tier issue in next week's congressional elections.

Perle said "you have to hold the president responsible" because he didn't recognize "disloyalty" by some in the administration. He said the White House's National Security Council, then run by now-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, did not serve Bush properly.

A year before the war, Adelman predicted demolishing Saddam's military power and liberating Iraq would be a "cakewalk." But he told the magazine he was mistaken in his high opinion of Bush's national security .

"They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era," he said. "Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061104/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_critics_8

Straight from the mouth of Richard Perle, the original neo-con.

 

[Stephanie]

Funny how this pops up AGAIN....right before an election....

 

[jillian]

About the kind of response we've learned to expect from ya. :baby:

 

[jillian]

Funny how this pops up AGAIN....right before an election....

The incompetence of the president and his buddy, Rummy? Unlike the garbage pursued by the right, its EXACTLY what should be discussed before the election.

 

[Stephanie]

Hey....I was just going to make a comeback reply on the snide little post, about.....your self portrait....

WHERE DID IT GO....

Oh well...About what we expect out of some......:baby4:

 

[dilloduck]

The incompetence of the president and his buddy, Rummy? Unlike the garbage pursued by the right, its EXACTLY what should be discussed before the election.

The Dems plan for the WOT should be too but I can't get a peep out of em.

 

[pegwinn]

The thread title is deliberately misleading.

First: The article isn't being published by a military person but by editors of military oriented civilian run newspapers.

Second: Nowhere in the article does it actually quote an active duty person calling for rummy to resign.

Disinformation is no longer a KGB specialty.

 

[Stephanie]

The thread title is deliberately misleading.

First: The article isn't being published by a military person but by editors of military oriented civilian run newspapers.

Second: Nowhere in the article does it actually quote an active duty person calling for rummy to resign.

Disinformation is no longer a KGB specialty.

That's all the Dem. party has is disinformation and propaganda...
They have no platform that will sell to middle America..
If they didn't lie, they know they wouldn't stand a chance....
But I believe America has caught on to it....

Pretty Pathetic and shady.....

 

[pegwinn]

But I believe America has caught on to it....

Let's hope so.

 

[jillian]

Let's hope so.

Actually, I think if you look at the polls, the ones who have been "found out" are you guys with your bizarre divisive policies and your failed Iraq policy. The normal conservatives are jumping ship like crazy... Your boys never even bothered to try to court the independents or moderates.

You can't maintain power when the only people who support you are extremists.... at least it looks that way.

 

[pegwinn]

Actually, I think if you look at the polls, the ones who have been "found out" are you guys with your bizarre divisive policies and your failed Iraq policy.

So I personally am bizarre, divisive, and I guess we should throw in extremist as well huh? The only poll I trust is the certified election returns. And I firmly believe that we get what we deserve. If the country has a nationwide stupid attack on Tuesday, then I guess I get to be the voice of reason for a couple of years.