See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: TIME FOR RUMSFELD TO GO (ARMY TIMES, NAVY TIMES, AIR FORCE TIMES, MARINE CORPS TIMES)
Source:
MSNBC (FROM ARMY TIMES)
URL Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15552388/
Published: Nov 3, 2006
Author: MILITARY TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD
Post Date: 2006-11-03 23:31:52 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 321
Comments: 28
Text of editorial calling for Rumsfeld to go Publications catering to the military will call Monday for secretary’s ouster MSNBC This editorial will appear in the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times on Monday under the headline “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.
Updated: 1 hour, 12 minutes ago
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: aristeides (#0)
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. And Cheney's been shredding papers, maybe they'll both resign.
Donald Rumsfeld must go. Does anyone really believe replacing Rumsfeld will make any difference whatsoever?
This is significant, ergo a few years tardy. RumDum could be the fall guy finally, although I'd prefer the two senior men to him are held accountable.
The services are sandbagging the administration right before the midterm elections. That is significant.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
I believe I remember reading a similar editorial in the Navy Times in 2004, right after the Abu Ghraib revelations, that at least strongly suggested that Rumsfeld ought to go. (I assume the sister publications carried the same editorial.) But this more forceful editorial a couple of days before the midterm elections is likely to have more effect. For one thing, I think it makes it much more likely that Jim Webb will win George Allen's seat in the Senate.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
Someone told me the other day that military absentee ballots are submitted on the Internet. I'm not sure if it is for all states or what... I recall receiving my absentee ballot about one month before the election, in the mail. I wish they published this about a month ago is what I am trying to say.
So this may not be optimal timing for affecting military votes. But it is optimal timing for affecting civilian votes, which I think will also be affected by this editorial.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
There are tons of veterans and retirees no longer in uniform, so you've got that correct.
But do you think a Democrat majority win will affect the course of the Iraq occupation? Honestly? Do you think another Secty of State would have a positive effect on the Iraq occupation? If so, what person as Secty of State would you recommend ( either Demcocrat or Republican) who could turn Iraq around? I think Iraq is like Vietnam. We should not be have been in Vietnam and we should not have been in Iraq. Rumsfeld is a minor problem in a huge disasterous foreign invasion and occupation. He's a small cog.
Whether or not Rumsfeld himself is only a minor problem, I have a feeling that the matter of whether he stays or goes is going to be tighly wound up with the other question of whether we stay in Iraq or not.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
Can anyone else remember such critique from the Armed Forces Newspapers before?? If I am reading this correctly, this is big.
Okay, I get it I think. In order to make a change in staying the course - ie. getting out - GWB needs to be able to change direction while saving face - ergo, a fall guy - RumDum. Dems win a majority, "twist" GWB's arm ( or at least so he will claim) and then we start major troop withdrawal under the auspices of a new Secty of Defense. That sounds nice. But why didn't the Democrats/Republicans vote with Murtha to have a timetable for an expedited troop departure and then "force" GWB to change Secty of Defense and course a few months ago?
No. This is just byzantine intrigue and political manuevering among Beltway elites. Rummy's "running of the war" is just an excuse to get rid of him. As with everything in DC- the real reasons for firings or resignations are hidden from us and the public reasons given have little to do with reality. By the way- All of these military publications: Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times - are owned and published by ONE COMPANY- the Gannett corporation- the largest newspaper owner in the country and isn't too shabby with TV station ownership either.
Congress doesn't want that sort of power, and would rather pin all blame on the Executive Branch to insure re-election. That is why Congress gave up the power to declare wars, as then they would have to defend the choice in their home districts.
Can anyone else remember such critique from the Armed Forces Newspapers before?? If I am reading this correctly, this is big. I agree.
and we still pay these treasonous cowards and vote for them like they legitimately represent us. unreal.
Well thank you, burkeman, for that heads up about Gannett. So the "Army Times" is not owned by say the Army ( as one would expect) - it is owned by a civilian owned media giant corporation? So what you have revealed is that there is no there there. This article is a "canned" message brought to you and me and in particular directed at the cannon fodder and their kin who seem to be getting a bit nervous as of late and doubting "the mission" - this message is being delivered by the same PTB, no doubt sanctioned by DC chickenhawk punks who thrust us into this useless war "mission" in the first place. Nice. Well heck if the sheeple and the cannon fodder are willing to be fooled over and over and over again, can you blame the evil ones for making use of us willing victims? http://projects.wash ingtonpost.com/post200/2006/GCI/ Gannett Corporate information for those who care to read further... Oh yes Iraq is all rumdums fault - help is on the way - why a new Secty of Defense will make all the difference in the world, you wait and see - heck let's not wait, let's just go invade Iran, take on a new mission, especially when we get those fine warriors known as the Dimwit Party elected into holding the majority in both houses, I'm sure everything will just work out fine. March on... P.S. the only beltway gossip I read in December 2004 January 2005 about RumDum being more of a useless tool than anyone who would replace him is that RumDum was a) vehemently opposed to the draft and b) he was not interested in taking on Iran since the military had their hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan. That's why the neocons have been dumping on RumDum 24/7 since December of 2004.
A Coup D'Etat in America by Richard Carlucci Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:42:33 PM PST Adapted from a comment in Georgia10's frontpage diary. History will mark this as the moment sanity began to flow back into the halls of power. To publish this kind of scathing critique in all four US Military Times magazines, on the eve of the most important election in modern American history, will go down as the boldest statement our military has ever made. Make no mistake - this is as close to a coup as we have ever seen in this nation. Richard Carlucci's diary :: :: The military has seen enough, and it is obvious that they will not allow our fuck-up of a President to take this country any further along the path toward destruction. In that editorial I see not just a repudiation of Rumsfeld, but of the entire war. The entire foreign policy. Read between the lines, friends, and you'll see that our armed forces have drawn a line in the sane. A line between sanity and insanity. Between truth and lies. Between what duty requires and what loyalty to this country will not allow. The war is OVER. Our military commanders are refusing to follow Bush over a cliff, and they have put their foot down in order to stop this train wreck. Read their words closely - for we can all rest assured that each and every one was chosen very, VERY carefully. The message is clear in this passage from their letter: 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. They're telling us that the Administration has lied to us the whole time about EVERYTHING. And the Generals will not tolerate it any longer. They will not remain silent while more of our nation's finest die for a lost cause - for a failed policy - for a doomed war effort. The military has spoken. They have made their demand. I would not want to be George W. Bush on a good day. And I certainly would not want to be him for the next four days. No doubt the White House is calling in back-up plumbing specialists, because the Administration is collectively shitting bricks as we speak. I would be, too, if I were them. And yet I have confidence. This is the best news of the election cycle, as far as I'm concerned. I am certain, my fellow Americans, that our generals agreed on a plan for what to do if Bush refuses their demand long before this editorial was written. It gives me comfort to know that someone with our best interests in mind is now in control. I never thought I'd see the day - not in this country. God help us all if Bush refuses. :::: I say this not because I want to be alarmist. Of course I am a bit, but these days you can't afford not to be. No, I say this because the content, nature, and timing of this letter are simply unprecedented. I don't know what effect our generals intend, and I don't know what response they intend either. But I DO know that our generals, unlike our civilian leaders, don't launch into uncharted territory without a plan. And they don't make demands like this..... well, EVER. So something is afoot. The President has a choice. He either submits to the demands of his generals, and the coup will be official. Or, he refuses. What they intend to do about that I don't know, but you can bet it's something. And at the very least the political ramifications will be catastrophic. If Bush refuses, it will set the stage, at a minimum, for impeachment. Perhaps this is what our generals intended. Methinks they may be signalling a willingness to attest to high crimes and misdemeanors, if not high treason, if the Democrats ask their opinion. But whatever their intention is, we have a genuine crisis on our hands. And not just a political one. Update [2006-11-4 2:29:52 by Richard Carlucci]:: Thanks to everyone who has re- assured me that I'm over-reacting. It's nice to be on the rec'd list, but it's even nicer to know that so many others think I'm probably off the mark on a subject as serious as this. For the record, I never meant to imply a tanks-in-the-street Coup. That will probably never happen in America. But an editorial like this, coming out at this time, doesn't get printed simultaneously in these magazines unless some very important Generals want to send a clear message that the President's choice with respect to Rumsfeld is not in their interests. This, I believe, is as close as it gets to a coup d'etat in America. And frankly, I wouldn't want to get any closer. I'm just glad that the people who have our best interests in mind are finally willing to call the shots on Iraq, even if it means usurping their Commander in Chief. That's what I really see going on here. Tags: Coup d'Etat, Iraq, generals, George W. Bush, Recommended (all tags) _____________________________________________________________________________ Lots of predictable hand-wring over this over on KOS where I saw this. http://www.dailyk os.com/story/2006/11/4/04233/2962#c211 ______________________________________________________________________________ But there still are a few poster with starch in their drawers over there. 11-7: A Clarifying Moment. (0 / 0) It'll become impossible to deny that the Bush administration is a rogue regime. 11-7 will not be the beginning of the Bush administration's war on the Constitution. 11-7 will be the day the Bush administration's war on the Constitution becomes an inescapable reality. What George W. Bush likes to call "a clarifying moment." With all the scandals still fresh in the nation's mind, the media will be unable to spin it as a result of "values voters." On 11-7, the war comes home. It will be time to choose sides. Either you are with the regime that stole the election. Or you are against it. Which side will the Democratic Party be on? Will the Democratic Party be the vehicle for fighting the illegitimate regime? Or will it collaborate in the regime's crimes? What is the meaning of a "loyal opposition" when the party in power is recognized as a criminal organization? What is a loyal opposition supposed to be loyal to? Power? Or the Constitution? Will the leaders of the Democratic Party be "good sports" once again - or will a leader emerge with the gravitas to deal with the gravity of the situation? We are much more likely to need a Martin Luther King - a leader willing to risk spending time in a jail cell - than another career politician. Will Hillary be willing to do time? Will John Kerry report for duty - at a sit-in at the White House? Does Al Gore care enough about the earth to march in the street? On 11-7, the gloves come off. If they steal this thing now, with the polls so overwhelmingly against them, the reaction is going to be furious. Of course the polls are looking great. But get real: There is no way George Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are about to allow themselves to be investigated by the likes of Henry Waxman and John Conyers. As Bush Sr. might say: Not. Gonna. Happen. Especially when the penalty for stealing elections is so inconsequential. Some liberal huffing and puffing. A few bashed skulls. A stern lecture from Keith Olbermann. But there won't be any actual proof that they stole it - computer hacking leaves no fingerprints - and election law is notoriously weak when it comes to enforcement. 11-7 is the day the consequences of losing the right of habeus corpus starts to sink in. "Politics is the entertainment arm of Industry." - Zappa by CheeseMoose on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 06:54:26 AM PST
Basically, yes. This "editorial" is just a veiled chickenhawk attack on Rummy, who- as you pointed out- is not warmongering enough for the Neo-whores and their beltway warmonger allies who want to attack Iran. It no more reflects the opinion of the armed servies or anyone in it, unless by coincidence, than NOW represents the views of American men. Gannett, by the way, is infamous as a DOD propanganda conduit. They were the ones who coordinated the publishing of fake "letters home" from the troops that were published in the small town papers they own. It was the same letter- basically saying all was well in Iraq and how great things were going- just signed under different names.
Since the amred services don't own any of those publications- I doubt anyone wearing a uniform had anything to do with that editorial. Those papers are owned by Gannett Corp- a neowhore ally- and sometime Pentagon propaganda conduit. What this means- is not that the Armed Services are unhappy with Rummy (though I have no doubt they are) but rather it means that Gannett Corp is attacking rummy on behalf of beltway factionis that are unhappy with him under cover of their Armed Services newspapers.
randge, what's to read between the lines? "the military" has seen what exactly? Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, Air Force Times - these are military publications in name only. They are all different versions of what Gannett Corporation wants the military who are doing the fighting and dying to believe is true. These publications are not owned by the DoD. Best case scenario, the guys who are claiming to be military who are writing these articles are some little civilian reporters who have not seen anything more fearsome than fire crackers going off on July 4th. At worst, the "reporters", letters to the editor could be our very own psychops personnel who have their HQ in Langely, coincidentally. Gannett Corporation HQ is located in McLean, Virginia. Let your fingers do the handy dandy typying of the word Langley together with McLean into Google ( heck they are watching anyways so go to the belly of the beast). Do you know what pops up as one of the first hits? C-I-A website. And on that C-I-A website there is a very nice explanation for all you newbies who want to sign up about why it's confusing what city C-I-A is located in...is it McLean or Langely? Answer: both "Despite the name change in 1910, the name "Langley" still lingers to describe the McLean neighborhood where the CIA is located." The "military" is planning to do nothing except what it is told, likely by a new neocon tool warming the chair at the desk of Secty of Defense after the elction is over and there's 2 more years of clear sailing for the elite - the grunts are dumb pawns ( to quote Kissinger) and the top brass are looking for a nice cushy retirement with golf privileges at some of the best courses around. Read Burkeman's post #13 and my post #17. There is no there there. There is no "this is big." The only thing big about this article and between the lines is that the information conveyed is a BIG bunch of meaningless "canned" hot air.
Of course this attack is on behalf of a "faction." That faction is the Pentagon brass.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
Are those postings by the real Richard Carlucci, former SecDef (and founder of the Carlyle Corp.), or by someone who has adopted his name as a screen name?
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
The Pentagon "Brass" are de-balled eunuchs and politicized lackies who don't have the stones to say anything until safely retired with full pensions and then nothing to controversial that would upset their post military careers as money grubbing "consultants" for MIC firms. That some or most of the brass may agree with the assessment of Rummy in that editorial is inconsequential. They are not the hand behind this message.
Oops, my mistake. The SecDef was Frank Carlucci.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
Good catch - I needed disambiguation (thanks Wiekipida)
Bush will never fire RumDum, I agree. RumDum might develop some sort of health issues that may require him to step down and spend more time with his family. Bush will never admit he's a world class screwup. And the beat goes on.
You never know, if you are aggressive enough and skillful enough you can get the criminal aspects of Bush's war making to hurt him enough he'd at least regret what he's done. I want to see him held accountable and with any luck ad justice he will.
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.
#2. To: aristeides (#0)
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.
#3. To: aristeides (#0)
Donald Rumsfeld must go.
#4. To: scrapper2 (#2)
#5. To: Fred Mertz (#3)
#6. To: aristeides (#5)
#7. To: Fred Mertz (#6)
#8. To: aristeides (#7)
#9. To: aristeides (#7)
So this may not be optimal timing for affecting military votes. But it is optimal timing for affecting civilian votes, which I think will also be affected by this editorial.
#10. To: scrapper2 (#9)
#11. To: aristeides (#4)
The services are sandbagging the administration right before the midterm elections. That is significant
#12. To: aristeides (#10)
Whether or not Rumsfeld himself is only a minor problem, I have a feeling that the matter of whether he stays or goes is going to be tighly wound up with the other question of whether we stay in Iraq or not.
#13. To: scrapper2 (#2)
Does anyone really believe replacing Rumsfeld will make any difference whatsoever?
#14. To: scrapper2 (#12)
#15. To: tom007 (#11)
The services are sandbagging the administration right before the midterm elections. That is significant
#16. To: JohnGalt (#14)
That is why Congress gave up the power to declare wars, as then they would have to defend the choice in their home districts.
#17. To: Burkeman1, aristedes, tom007, Fred Mertz, robin (#13)
By the way- All of these military publications: Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times - are owned and published by ONE COMPANY- the Gannett corporation- the largest newspaper owner in the country and isn't too shabby with TV station ownership either.
#18. To: scrapper2 (#17)
Some are calling this
If Bush steals the election, The Homeland War begins.
#19. To: scrapper2 (#17)
This article is a "canned" message brought to you and me and in particular directed at the cannon fodder and their kin who seem to be getting a bit nervous as of late and doubting "the mission" - this message is being delivered by the same PTB, no doubt sanctioned by DC chickenhawk punks who thrust us into this useless war "mission" in the first place.
#20. To: randge (#18)
Read between the lines, friends, and you'll see that our armed forces have drawn a line in the sane.
#21. To: randge, Burkeman1, Fred Mertz, aristedes, tom007, robin (#18)
Read between the lines, friends, and you'll see that our armed forces have drawn a line in the sane. A line between sanity and insanity. Between truth and lies. Between what duty requires and what loyalty to this country will not allow.
#22. To: Burkeman1 (#20)
#23. To: randge (#18)
#24. To: aristeides (#22)
#25. To: randge (#23)
#26. To: aristeides (#25)
e. The SecDef was Frank Carlucci.
#27. To: Burkeman1 (#24)
#28. To: Fred Mertz (#27)
"Bush will never admit he's a world class screwup."
we need to promise to protect them too.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest