Military Newspapers: Rumsfeld Must Go

[The Colonel 333]

Military Newspapers: Rumsfeld Must Go
UPI | November 04, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO - Four publications of the Military Times Media Group plan to call on U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

The Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times will issue the call in an editorial scheduled to run Monday, the newspaper said.

The Chronicle published the text of the editorial on its Web site Friday.

The editorial says the truth about the war in Iraq "been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington." Instead, the editorial says President George W. Bush, Vice President **** Cheney and Rumsfeld have issued "one rosy reassurance after another."

The editorial notes that Bush recently said Rumsfeld would keep his job for the remainder of Bush's term in office.

"This is a mistake," the editorial says. "Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large."

The editorial characterizes military officers as "loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail," and says "they have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority

Military Newspapers: Rumsfeld Must Go

[anabolicrhino]

Military Newspapers: Rumsfeld Must Go
UPI | November 04, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO - Four publications of the Military Times Media Group plan to call on U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

The Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times will issue the call in an editorial scheduled to run Monday, the newspaper said.

The Chronicle published the text of the editorial on its Web site Friday.

The editorial says the truth about the war in Iraq "been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington." Instead, the editorial says President George W. Bush, Vice President **** Cheney and Rumsfeld have issued "one rosy reassurance after another."

The editorial notes that Bush recently said Rumsfeld would keep his job for the remainder of Bush's term in office.

"This is a mistake," the editorial says. "Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large."

The editorial characterizes military officers as "loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail," and says "they have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority

Military Newspapers: Rumsfeld Must Go

Rumsfeld hs been critisized by a few generals mainly for the US policy of "stay the course" which is low on objectives and high on casualties. This policy directly opposes how the generals have been trained. The goal of any military action is to achieve their pre-stated objective(goals) as quickly as possibile with the lowest amount of human and equipment losses.(efficiently) The current startegy seems to be wait for a soldier to be attacked by an IED than retaliate. This strategy "requires casualties" and is fruitless, there are no rewards. Generals and military personel are trained to achieve goals, not to become unwilling targets for
the iraqii insurgency.

There is a great clip on Youtube, where Rumsfeld is having a Q&A with the troops and he gets heckled to the point of fustration. He responds with "I'm an old man, I need time to think"....yikes!

[Jason Pegg]

I thought this was a pretty solid reply:

I have found the story in question. As well as many of the replys to the request for them . Here is one that does not require 1 single word from me except this: My name is obtainable, where is the name of the editorial writer from Gannett Publishing that owns all 3 papers?



Robert Alan_guest is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Discuss the editorial
I read the editorial, and found its conclusion to be absurd, to say the least.
So some retired generals don't like the way things are going. BFD! Their opinions are just that. Opinions. They are not gospel, and are of no more merit than anyone else's.

And if they were so convinced that they are right, then why do they not have the courage to stand up and let us, soldiers and citizens alike, know just who they are? Why do they hide behind a cloak of anonimity?

They are in no danger of being court-martialed, demoted, losing their pension, or being punished in any other way, are they? No, of course not. Then why the cowardice? And that is precisely what they are, cowards.

If they had the courage of their convictions, they would come out of their closet, and say what they think in public, for all of us to see.
If I can do it, (and I often do), then why can't they? Are they afraid of being ridiculed, and ostracized by their buddies? Probably.

Now that I had had my say about the retired cowards, er, generals, on to the media.

The mainstream media has, since President Bush took office, accused him of just about everything except child molesting, and rape. And the Gannett group, which publishes the Army Times, is no different. In fact, after the New York Times, Gannett papers are among the most critical of everything the president says, or does.

This hatchet job on Mr. Rumsfield is just another effort by the media to chip away at President Bush, and the GOP in general. It is, simply put, politically motivated.

This editorial is, IMO, a misrepresentation of the truth.

Quote:
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.”

It seems to me that what Gen. Abizaid was doing was pointing out a possibility, not a forecast of things to come.

If I were to say, "I believe that the rising hatred of Islam in this country is probably as bad as I've seen it... and that if not stopped, it is possible that the US could move towards mass killings of muslims."
That viewpoint is no more, or less legitimate, or accurate than the generals view of Iraq. Of course, his statement was edited, and I have to wonder just what the writer of this editorial left out.

Quote:
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.

"Losing control"? I think not. America is one of the very few nations where a military leader can disagree with political policy and not have his head handed to him. I suggest that the writer go back to the late 1970's and see what the generals then thought publicly of Jimmy Carter. Or what they thought publicly of LBJ, and Robert McNamara. Or even further back, to Truman, and FDR.

There is ample historical precedent of generals openly disagreeing with official policy. In spite of that, they did their jobs anyway. Which is what the generals today are doing. Their jobs.

I defend Mr. Rumsfield not from partisanship, but because I believe that he is honestly trying to do the best possible job, under the worst possible circumstances. The media, the far left, and the Democrats have harped on him since day one. Not only is this not "fair", it's ethically wrong.

President Bush has stood by him, as well he should, knowing that it is unlikely that there is anyone else who could do the job half as well.

I have a child serving in Iraq, and if I thought for one minute that there was anyone who would make a better SecDef that Donald Rumsfield, I too would be demanding that he step down.

The sad part of this is, we are now victims of our own success. Since the end of the Vietnam war, the US has won every conflict it has been involved in. Our victories were quick, and the cost in lives was small.

Now, the public, and many in the media, as well as our politicians, have come to expect that this will be true of all conflicts. And when it does not go according to their wishes, they howl like banshees, demanding someone's head on a platter.

This is wrong. I believe that the Army Times Publishing Co., the Gannett Group, and the convieniently anonymous author of this "editorial" owes Mr. Rumsfield an apology.

They all were, and are, quite wrong.

Jason

[Dutchman]

Forty years ago when they sent my buddies and I into combat, we had a name for cowards like Rumpot and his sycophants..."ChickenHawks"! They never had the courage to stand up and be counted, only the balls to lie, cheat and manipulate those of us who grew up believing in this great country. These draftdodging SOBs are doing the same thing all over again. When the elections are over, watch as they stick it to the Guard and Reserves and change the rules,....again....on the number of and length of tours. The Military Times is right to call these cowards out and demand their removal. S**tcan Rummy!

[The Colonel 333]

Wow, I cant believe you just posted that. Or better yet I can't believe anyone would actually buy it. Let's see where to begin. First lets attack what there saying..

"I read the editorial, and found its conclusion to be absurd, to say the least.
So some retired generals don't like the way things are going. BFD! Their opinions are just that. Opinions. They are not gospel, and are of no more merit than anyone else's".

Uhhmm ok.... Wow what a deep revelation this man had, how on earth did he figure out that these opinions are only opinions. Perhaps he is used to assuming that most of what he hears is gospel and hear comes a mere opinion. I also like how when there opinion differs from his he blows it off with BFD !. How dare they give there opinion! Now here is my favorite part where he starts calling these Generals cowards.

"Then why the cowardice? And that is precisely what they are, cowards".

I just love when someone who does not have the courage, will, or want to join the military and actually put there life on the line in defense of this country starts calling those that do cowards, when they disagree with them. Man I am sick of the chicken hawk Mother F@*kers sitting behind there oak desk soaking up the A/C attacking the brave men and women of this country who actually have made sacrifice. Before anyone else jumps on the coward band wagon let me ask you, what have you done for the war effort? Have missed the birth of a child ? Have not seen your newborn for over a year ? Have you missed your wifes anniversary, birthday, Kids first day of school ? Have you sacrificed ANYTHING ? name one damn thing. These are just some of the more superficial sacrifices, I wont even touch the issue of loosing life or limbs because I know the chicken hawks can't even answer yes to these simple questions. Enjoy your hot shower and your day at the mall looking for a new set of clothes while you call the members of the military cowards. A@@hole.

"Now that I had had my say about the retired cowards, er, generals, on to the media"

Next thing to be done is attack the source... Oh boy here we go with the, it's the liberal medias fault line of bullsh*t. I am so tired of this weak, false and misleading argument. So just to be sure I have this correct. The Navy times, Army times, Air force times, and Marine corp times are now just another liberal biased media source. Really..... Where were all the chicken hawks trying to discredit these publications when they were writing editorials in favor of the war effort or saying good things about Rumsfeld ??

"This hatchet job on Mr. Rumsfield is just another effort by the media to chip away at President Bush, and the GOP in general. It is, simply put, politically motivated"

Yea right... Perhaps those that have never heard of these publications will buy that. The situation in Iraq has slowly but steadily gotten WORSE. Every time the news tells you how it is getting worse some jerk off wants to blast the source and try to convince you dont pay attention to the rising violence and death toll. That it's just some media biase against Rumsfeld or Bush. Look guys the facts are the facts. I really dont give a damn if we just completed building the 4th school in 3 years near baghdad if on the same day 10 of my fellow Americans gone blown to little pieces from a car bomb. Wake up from your fantasy world and look at the facts.
I also love how this person has convinced himself that somehow Rumsfeld is the ONLY man who could have done this good of a job. That somehow despite the fact that things have been getting worse and worse, that is was the best we could do. Bull. Usually when someone is not getting the job done you replace them with someone else. Any idea how many Generals Lincon went through before the north won the civil war ?????

"President Bush has stood by him, as well he should, knowing that it is unlikely that there is anyone else who could do the job half as well.

I have a child serving in Iraq, and if I thought for one minute that there was anyone who would make a better SecDef that Donald Rumsfield, I too would be demanding that he step down."

Wow so what your telling me is that we are unable to do this. That this was the perfect war and no one else could have done half as good a job ???? Because if we dont change something and keep deciding to "stay the course" then we will continue to get the same results and those results are leading us closer and closer to loosing this thing.

[The Colonel 333]

Forty years ago when they sent my buddies and I into combat, we had a name for cowards like Rumpot and his sycophants..."ChickenHawks"! They never had the courage to stand up and be counted, only the balls to lie, cheat and manipulate those of us who grew up believing in this great country. These draftdodging SOBs are doing the same thing all over again. When the elections are over, watch as they stick it to the Guard and Reserves and change the rules,....again....on the number of and length of tours. The Times is right to call these cowards out and demand their removal. S**tcan Rummy!

[RenegadeRows]

See ya later rumsfeld.

Bush names Gates to replace Rumsfeld - CNN.com

[glg]

yeah it looks like he's out of here. but by the same token are we shooting the messanger? if the boss is responsible why is the underling being sacrificed? why did it take a major shift in the election to suddenly tip the scales? personally I'm glad to see him go but I feel sorry for him. every bad decision made by the administration is now going to be dumped on him.

of course what's that old saying about 'paying the piper'....

[Jayhawkk]

I read the editorial, and found its conclusion to be absurd, to say the least.
So some retired generals don't like the way things are going. BFD! Their opinions are just that. Opinions. They are not gospel, and are of no more merit than anyone else's.

Your retired Generals are probably the ones with the most combat experience so I do value their opinions, for the most part, over joe blow.

They are in no danger of being court-martialed, demoted, losing their pension, or being punished in any other way, are they? No, of course not. Then why the cowardice? And that is precisely what they are, cowards.

Must be nice to say all this **** behind your job that doesn't castrate you for going against the grain. I'm sure some people had their agenda as most do. If I had a agenda to capture a rapist does me having an agenda automatically make it untrue?
Hell, you can recieve a lot of flack for saying something not politically acceptable. Most retired gens. are probably stillin the system somewhere.

[anabolicrhino]

yeah it looks like he's out of here. but by the same token are we shooting the messanger? if the boss is responsible why is the underling being sacrificed? why did it take a major shift in the election to suddenly tip the scales? personally I'm glad to see him go but I feel sorry for him. every bad decision made by the administration is now going to be dumped on him.

of course what's that old saying about 'paying the piper'....

This is a classic power elite move. When one of the old guard gets a little "long in the tooth", they send him out to pasture with a fat "scapegoat" tag, this is his last "official duty" for the "team". It is similar to when William Casey, the CIA director was dying, so they blamed Iran-Contra on him. Gates is the same guy who replaced Casey as Cia director in 1987. Nice bunch of fellas!!

[roadrage]

Rumsfelds not the only one taking the blame. Bush's approval rating is at 33%. The lowest of his term in office.

[anabolicrhino]

Rumsfelds not the only one taking the blame. Bush's approval rating is at 33%. The lowest of his term in office.

Cheney could be next. He will probably contract some mystery ailment, then retire to halliburton . This will be followed by the division of Iraq into three seperate states, which oddly enough is how it was about 100 years ago before British imperialism made its last stand... coincidence?... maybe, Bagdad will become the next Jerusalem?

[motive]

i dont know if anyone else mentioned this but rumsfield wanted to change military retirement to 30 yrs. lets see here ive been in the military for 5 years and ive been in the middle east 2 1/2 of those years.... sure ill retire after 15 years of sand! to hell with that

[Ron Jeremy]

We messed up big time going into Iraq. We can defeat any military but not a way of life. It is impossible to fight a war house to house. We see the terrorists as, well, terrorists. They see themselves as preserving their way of life (whatever that may be).

[Squeaks4ver]

No. it is impossible to conduct a war the way the liberals want us to. There is and never will be any such thing as a zero casualty war. We can and have totally defeated a nation's ways of life. We did it to japan with two bombs.

[DAdams91982]

No. it is impossible to conduct a war the way the liberals want us to. There is and never will be any such thing as a zero casualty war. We can and have totally defeated a nation's ways of life. We did it to japan with two bombs.

DAMN Squeaks... Im loving you more and more!!!!

Adams

[somewhatgifted]

We messed up big time going into Iraq. We can defeat any military but not a way of life. It is impossible to fight a war house to house. We see the terrorists as, well, terrorists. They see themselves as preserving their way of life (whatever that may be).

Finally a clue. the difference between power and force is why this wont end.

[anabolicrhino]

No. it is impossible to conduct a war the way the liberals want us to. There is and never will be any such thing as a zero casualty war. We can and have totally defeated a nation's ways of life. We did it to japan with two bombs.

So, I wonder why the USA just doesn't nuke Iraq?..and Iran?..and North Korea?...and Chavez?. It can't be the "radiation" thing, because they have been using depleated uranuim(DU) since 1991 and there really has only been maybe 40% of the USA military veterans that have any real health issues. The number of mutated Iraqi children that have been born without limbs and eyes is really no more that about 25%.

The Iraqi people should welcome their "way of life being defeated", then they can get on with their "economic boom" like the one that followed the nuclear bombs in Japan. Ingrates!!!

[Squeaks4ver]

Nuclear arms are just not needed just yet. With Japan, they were more dedicated to the cause and would have used every last man woman and child to fly their cherry blossom planes into our countries. In order to beat that type of cancer you must remove the whole social body part it has spread to. In the case of Iraq. We still have some time to do some local tomotherapy (spelling) solutions.

[somewhatgifted]

So, I wonder why the USA just doesn't nuke Iraq?..and Iran?..and North Korea?...and Chavez?. It can't be the "radiation" thing, because they have been using depleated uranuim(DU) since 1991 and there really has only been maybe 40% of the USA military veterans that have any real health issues. The number of mutated Iraqi children that have been born without limbs and eyes is really no more that about 25%.

The Iraqi people should welcome their "way of life being defeated", then they can get on with their "economic boom" like the one that followed the nuclear bombs in Japan. Ingrates!!!

Sweet poetic injustise. nice post.