Military Times to publish editorial calling for Rumsfeld to resign.

[CellarDoor]

The editorial, released to NBC News on Friday ahead of its Monday publication date, stated, "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."

...

"This is not about the midterm elections," continued the editorial, which will appear in the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times, and Marine Corps Times on Monday. "Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go."

The newspapers are part of the Military Times Media Group, a subsidiary of the Gannett Co., Inc. The publications are sold to service members and their families.

Edit: Whoops, here's the link.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15552211/

One day before the election and these are going to be sent to many military families. I wonder what effect this will have. It could have an effect on places like Virginia. It's also interesting because Bush just said he plans on having Rummy stick around until '08. I have a hard time believing he'll be able to get away with that.

 

[Painman]

Ah, you beat me to the punch by mere seconds.

Here's a story link via The San Francisco Chronicle.

 

[theeedude]

Bush said that he wants Rumsfeld to stay. But I think if Dems control both houses, and start asking Rumsfeld hard questions that he hasn't had to answer till now, he won't take the heat.

 

[Painman]

I read or heard somewhere recently (I wish I could remember/link where) that basically BushCo plans to throw any subpoenas from a Democratic congress to the Supreme court for review and/or quashing. If so, it'll be a long, hard grind to get any hard answers, with the GOP and its media fluffers crying about mean, partisan, vengeful Dems ganging up on the Executive Branch the whole time. Get ready for a very ugly next 2 years.

 

[Craig234]

I'd far prefer for the democrats to fight him to restore the Congress' powers than to let the republicans throw them away and give him the 'unitary' presidency he wants.

 

[Jaskalas]

While I think our military action is necessary, I think our execution of it has been horrible and continues to be a failed policy. The military needs new leadership that isn?t afraid of doing what is necessary to get the job done. Unfortunately, that will never happen.

 

[Red Dawn]

Now the assholes are starting to eat their own. A note for the Bush apologists, don't try to spin this as me saying the soldiers in Iraq are stupid.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

Asked about the article, 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."

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Now the assholes are starting to eat their own. A note for the Bush apologists, don't try to spin this as me saying the soldiers in Iraq are stupid.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

Asked about the article, 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."

Cool the president has a secret plan again.

 

[Lemon law]

The #1 glaring failure in Iraq is that the Iraqi people have been subjected to 3.6 years of the Katrina treatment.

The rebuilding program should have hit the ground running---instead---they can't get a single thing built right---as money dissapears into corruption and graft.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The military Times have actually called for Rumsfeld's removal before, something like two years ago.

 

[DealMonkey]

The fact that Bush blindly values "loyalty" over doing a good job speaks VOLUMES about how messed up Bush's priorities are. Brownie and Rummie are just two of the more prominent examples.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The #1 glaring failure in Iraq is that the Iraqi people have been subjected to 3.6 years of the Katrina treatment.

The rebuilding program should have hit the ground running---instead---they can't get a single thing built right---as money dissapears into corruption and graft.

You are so right.
:thumbsup:

 

[dahunan]

I would love to see the accounts payable for the Four HUNDRED Billion dollars :-(

www.costofwar.com

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DonVito
The military Times have actually called for Rumsfeld's removal before, something like two years ago.

You mean this is just another politicaly motived OP-ED right before an election? Who would have thought.

And CellarDoor, there is no way this effects the vote of anyone in the military.
Getting rid of Rumsfeld is one thing, but elected Democrats is a totally different thing.

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DonVito
The military Times have actually called for Rumsfeld's removal before, something like two years ago.

You mean this is just another politicaly motived OP-ED right before an election? Who would have thought.

And CellarDoor, there is no way this effects the vote of anyone in the military.
Getting rid of Rumsfeld is one thing, but elected Democrats is a totally different thing.

They called for Rumsfeld to resign right after Abu Graib hit the airwaves. What election was that right before? :roll:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DonVito
The military Times have actually called for Rumsfeld's removal before, something like two years ago.

You mean this is just another politicaly motived OP-ED right before an election? Who would have thought.

And CellarDoor, there is no way this effects the vote of anyone in the military.
Getting rid of Rumsfeld is one thing, but elected Democrats is a totally different thing.

Yeah, that damn liberal Military Times :roll:

And getting rid of Rumsfeld and electing Democrats are NOT two different things. In a perfect world, they would be two distinct options...but here's the problem; President Bush is not the kind of leader who will do something like that on his own. He respects blind loyalty and a fraternity like atmosphere in his administration far more than competence or intelligence. And as long as the Republicans are in control of the entire government, they are going to let Bush get away with it. I think the main reason the Military Times is pushing for this right before the election is that they DON'T want electing Dems to be the only way to get rid of incompetent idiots in the Bush administration. If Bush would do his damn job, it wouldn't matter WHO was in control in the rest of the government, congressional Republicans can be spineless lapdogs all they want if Bush would do what he needs to do. But he isn't, so the choice is now whether or not you think he needs some adult supervision, regardless of whether you like those particular adults or not.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Termagant

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DonVito
The military Times have actually called for Rumsfeld's removal before, something like two years ago.

You mean this is just another politicaly motived OP-ED right before an election? Who would have thought.

And CellarDoor, there is no way this effects the vote of anyone in the military.
Getting rid of Rumsfeld is one thing, but elected Democrats is a totally different thing.

They called for Rumsfeld to resign right after Abu Graib hit the airwaves. What election was that right before? :roll:

Some of you guys are so dense.
They called for him to resign two years ago. And now RIGHT before an election, paper hits the day before, they decide that it is time to call for him to resign again??

How can this not be politically motivated?
Why not wait another week before putting this out there?
Furthermore, how many of their editorials do they release to NBC before printing them?

I do not see how you can look at this and not see some form of political motivation behind it. Or at least question the timing.

 

[Aisengard]

Great, so now the Military community is 'hard left'.

The farther right you go, the more left everything appears. You're off the deep end, Prof.

 

[Termagant]

IIRC Abu Graib came out in May or so of 2004.... So they were trying to sway the June school board primaries in Wichita Kansas????

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Great, so now the Military community is 'hard left'.

The farther right you go, the more left everything appears. You're off the deep end, Prof.

This isn't the military community. It is a private business that aims and writes these newspapers for members of the military.
Here is an OP-ED accusing the Air Force Times of bias. link

Last week the pro-troop organization Move America Forward, where I serve as chairman, was informed by two reporters of Air Force Times that they would not accept future PR materials from us.

I was dumbfounded. In the journalism business, it's almost unheard of to ban a group from sending you their news releases; let alone for a military publication to tell a pro-troop nonprofit group that their material would not be accepted.

In a voicemail message to one of our staffers, reporter Bryant Jordan made it clear that he didn't want to be bothered with news releases from "somebody on the right" who "is supporting the troops"

These papers are owned by the same people who own the USA Today.

Took about 30 seconds on Google to find accusation of bias against these people. Do the work yourself and then make a decision.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DonVito
The military Times have actually called for Rumsfeld's removal before, something like two years ago.

You mean this is just another politicaly motived OP-ED right before an election? Who would have thought.

And CellarDoor, there is no way this effects the vote of anyone in the military.
Getting rid of Rumsfeld is one thing, but elected Democrats is a totally different thing.

And you base this on...

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Great, so now the Military community is 'hard left'.

The farther right you go, the more left everything appears. You're off the deep end, Prof.

True that.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Great, so now the Military community is 'hard left'.

The farther right you go, the more left everything appears. You're off the deep end, Prof.

This isn't the military community. It is a private business that aims and writes these newspapers for members of the military.
Here is an OP-ED accusing the Air Force Times of bias. link

Last week the pro-troop organization Move America Forward, where I serve as chairman, was informed by two reporters of Air Force Times that they would not accept future PR materials from us.

I was dumbfounded. In the journalism business, it's almost unheard of to ban a group from sending you their news releases; let alone for a military publication to tell a pro-troop nonprofit group that their material would not be accepted.

In a voicemail message to one of our staffers, reporter Bryant Jordan made it clear that he didn't want to be bothered with news releases from "somebody on the right" who "is supporting the troops"

These papers are owned by the same people who own the USA Today.

Took about 30 seconds on Google to find accusation of bias against these people. Do the work yourself and then make a decision.

Once more for the short-bus crowd...ALLEGATIONS OF BIAS ARE NOT THE SAME AS BIAS. My brother has written for several newspapers, and he says they get TONS of crackpot BS from various groups demanding publication. The fact that "Move America Forward" claims that it's somehow their right to get their "news releases" published in a newspaper does not make it so, and a quick look at their website suggests no unbiased newspaper should come within 100 feet of their right-wing bullshit. They claim to be a "pro-troop" organization but virtually all of their "news" is outright attacks on "liberals" (their words, not mine) and assorted Democrats. Not exactly an organization that *I* would accept "news releases" from if I was an unbiased journalist, no matter WHAT focus-group tested phrase they use to describe themselves.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Termagant

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DonVito
The military Times have actually called for Rumsfeld's removal before, something like two years ago.

You mean this is just another politicaly motived OP-ED right before an election? Who would have thought.

And CellarDoor, there is no way this effects the vote of anyone in the military.
Getting rid of Rumsfeld is one thing, but elected Democrats is a totally different thing.

They called for Rumsfeld to resign right after Abu Graib hit the airwaves. What election was that right before? :roll:

Some of you guys are so dense.
They called for him to resign two years ago. And now RIGHT before an election, paper hits the day before, they decide that it is time to call for him to resign again??

How can this not be politically motivated?
Why not wait another week before putting this out there?
Furthermore, how many of their editorials do they release to NBC before printing them?

I do not see how you can look at this and not see some form of political motivation behind it. Or at least question the timing.

The timing makes perfect sense, actually. After the election is over, Bush has no motivation at all to listen to anyone telling him anything, no matter what the outcome is. He's not exactly a man who listens well, but if there IS a time to talk to him, it's when his party's political future is on the line.

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DonVito
The military Times have actually called for Rumsfeld's removal before, something like two years ago.

You mean this is just another politicaly motived OP-ED right before an election? Who would have thought.

And CellarDoor, there is no way this effects the vote of anyone in the military.
Getting rid of Rumsfeld is one thing, but elected Democrats is a totally different thing.

Oh, come on. This is news and is related to Iraq. I doubt it would force many military families to vote Democrat, but I could definitely see them NOT voting Republican or not voting at all. Perhaps you're right, but I don't think you can say it will have no effect at all.