Army Times - time for Rumsfeld to go

[buckthesystem]

Now I realise that this will be "not what some of you want to hear", but do not "kneejerk" and start yelling at the messenger. I am only reporting the facts, this paper says that this was reported in the Army Times:

"An editorial scheduled to appear on Monday in Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times, calls for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The papers are sold to American servicemen and women. They are published by the Military Times Media Group, which is a subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc.

Here is the text of the editorial, an advance copy of which we received this afternoon.

----------------

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".

(continues...link....)

[Guest yod]

Doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks....

The Commander in Chief makes that decision.

As it should be....

[buckthesystem]

quote by buck:

I am only reporting the facts, this paper says that this was reported in the Army Times:

"An editorial scheduled to appear on Monday in Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times, calls for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

An editorial does not represent the facts of anything... An editorial represents the political position and personal opinion of the head or heads of the paper they publish.

My Web Blog

You are "nitpicking about words". The FACT is that the San Francisco Chronicle said that the "Army Times" and other military papers will, on Monday, report that "military leaders" wanted to "put the skids under" Donald Rumsfeld:

"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"

I have not proffered an opinion on this. However, woe to any commander-in-chief who does not have the backing of his military.

.

[Akabu]

You also have to understand that this is coming from the Gannett Co. A decidedly left leaning publishing organization. To consider an "Editorial" about the military from this organization as a view of the military as a whole is not exactly sturdy ground.

Sure, there are those in the military who are unhappy with serving in a combat zone, but speaking as a former Marine with 10 years in the service I can bet that the ones who are complaining the most would also say they would not have joined the military if they thought they would go to combat. I served with many of these "types" of people in Beirut, Libya (Gulf of Sidra), Panama, and Desert Shield/Storm. They all say the same thing. "I wanted to learn a trade and not go to college, I did not want to go to combat."

Back to the original thought though. This is an Editorial, not a news story.

[buckthesystem]

This was a news story from the San Francisco Chronical quoting from the editorial that will appear in the "Army Times" and other military papers.

Quibbling over what words were used does not make it any less true. Obviously you don't believe that Rumsfeld should go, but others do. Are their views of any less value?

[billie]

It's not the point about the views. Everyone's views are valuable, but views are opinions, not facts. The ones editorial in nature are tobe labeled opinion pieces/editorials. That's all everyone's saying, not that those views aren't valid or meaningful.

[Guest yod]

it is only a fact that this is someone's opinion.

Who would believe that the San Francisco Chronicle would say a negative word about someone in the Bush Administration!??

I am totally shocked!

[followerofjesus]

Bush is your daddy

[billie]

[JustinM]

Dissent of that caliber should not be published or distributed to military service members in combat. If a soldier were to make that statement in a combat zone he'd be court-martialed for insubordination. You cannot divide the soldiers from their leaders or seek to do so.