Military Times to publish editorial calling for Rumsfeld to resign.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: 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.
I don't think someone in the military is going to sit home because of this OP-ED. I would think that the military should have some of the highest numbers of voter participation in the country since they have the most to lose/win in every election.

Don't be fooled by the "Military Times" headline, this is a private company with no ties to the military.
Everyone in the military knows that.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: 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.
I don't think someone in the military is going to sit home because of this OP-ED. I would think that the military should have some of the highest numbers of voter participation in the country since they have the most to lose/win in every election.

Don't be fooled by the "Military Times" headline, this is a private company with no ties to the military.
Everyone in the military knows that.

Yeah, except they sell mostly to military folks...and adopting a hugely liberal bent does not seem like a great way to market yourself to that particular segment of Americans. Of course don't let me stop you from inhabiting that fantasy world of yours, just don't expect the rest of us to buy it.
 

db

Lifer
Dec 6, 1999
10,575
292
126
After the elections, if Bush doesn't fire Rumsfeld (actually, Rummy would "retire" or "step down"), then the GOP will have Bush for lunch.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
PH, it's probably unwise for you to publicly criticize and mock the SecDef when you've taken such pains to remind us all that you're in the military. It's specifically criminalized for commissioned officers, but can also be the basis for action against enlisted members under Article 134, UCMJ, as conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline (this would be up to your commander).
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
20
81
Originally posted by: 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.


Not only that, but blind loyalty can be very dangerous.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Originally posted by: 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.

A totally politically motivated move!!!
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: 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.


Not only that, but blind loyalty can be very dangerous.

fixed!!! Sent to an eye doctor!!
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Well-----I am not in the military----and I am also on record----Rummy needs to go.

But even then, the question then becomes---what could a new secretary of defense do?

We effectively lost the peace in Iraq the day the looting started---and that was caused by Rummy rejecting the advice of Shinseki---and going too light.

And here we are---3.6 years later---with a well entrenched insurgency---its going to take a complete genius to turn things around now,

But it won't take a genius of a secretary of defense to at least get the US death toll down---nor will it take a genius to realize that we are going to have to stop the sectarian violence.

We are no longer dealing with a sham Iraqi government of our creation---the real Iraqi government is the various war lords and sectarian leaders who are establishing power bases
all over Iraq.

But the real benefit of replacing Rummy will be removing his demoralizing effect on the army---and Rummy the thought police effectively prevents the company commander on the ground and those higher up the chain from trying anything innovative---any political solution will involve offering the Iraqi man or woman on the street a safer and better life.
And the latter is the one factor Rummy cares least about.
 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: 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.

A totally politically motivated move!!!

What else would it be? Its criticizing a politician. It would still be "politically motivated" if it was published next week, next month, or even next year. Whats wrong with people writing their opinions about the administration with elections coming up?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
You mean this is just another politicaly motived OP-ED right before an election? Who would have thought.
Obviously, not you. Exactly what I'd expect from a neocon sycophant incapable of thought.
Some of you guys are so dense.
.
.
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.
Dense? Pot, meet kettle. These quotes from the Military Times editorial address your lame attempts to dissemble and distract from the content of the article:
"We say that Rumsfeld must be replaced,? Alex Neill, the managing editor of the Army Times, told The Virginian-Pilot Friday night. ?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 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.
.
.
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.
.
.
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.
So do these quotes from The San Francisco Chronicle:
What prompted the paper's new editorial, said Hodierne, who was in Qatar editing stories by the chain's 13 embedded journalists during the initial Iraq invasion in 2003, was President Bush's statement Wednesday that he planned to keep Rumsfeld and that the Pentagon chief was doing a "fantastic job."

That caused the paper to rush an editorial into print, said Hodierne, who stressed that the timing was not influenced by next week's election. "Nobody who is up for election Tuesday has any control over whether Rumsfeld stays as secretary of defense," he said.
When it comes to the best interests of the country and American troops, it's obvious you're on the side of those who don't give a damn about them. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:
 

Horus

Platinum Member
Dec 27, 2003
2,838
1
0
Originally posted by: 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.

I can tell you what he'd like to do, probably.

1) Pull all US troops into Kuwait.
2) 10MT Thermonuclear warhead on Baghdad.