Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 27, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Christmas Joy Without Piety




Living on a Dollar a Day


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Military Newspapers: ‘Rumsfeld Must Go’

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 3, 2006
Rumsfeld
AP / David Hume Kennerly

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in an Army helicopter flying him from Baghdad airport to Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison in 2004.

On Monday the Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times will run a joint editorial calling for the resignation or removal of the defense secretary: “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.”


From advance text of editorial, via SFGate:

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.

Link

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Brady Ravia, November 5, 2006 at 8:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When I was 13, (at last), a teen! I tryed to think what it would be like to be 15, 20, 25, then thirty. I must admit,I couldn’t imagin 30.
Now, at 50, with a son in Bagdad. I look back with wonder at my thoughts. I wondered why I was so lucky to be an American, instead of one of those kids my Mom sent money to. I remember thanking God for giving me so much.
Our leaders must be held accountable for their actions, the same way you or I would be. I will not be silent!
Thank you Grama for your prays.

Report this

By Truthbetold, November 5, 2006 at 8:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What is truly amazing is how people seem to think that calling for the resignation of Rumsfeld is new. This baffling bunch of criminals have been in office far too long and the AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE AT FAULT. This government does not exist without the people but why are people sitting around like they are too damn stupid to realize that they have been duped into a war by a bunch of greedy, corrupt and stupid whitemen.

People let the party loyalty go and look at reason. Troops are getting killed for lies and innocent people have died because of lies and what are Americans doing but sitting around with their fingers up their butts. Illegal immigration is rising and the government proposes bandages. Patriotism is standing up for what is right your countries values, liberties and freedoms. The fallacy that freedom cost has been the biggest crap in history.

This is how people are brainwashed into believing that their government has their best interest at heart. The country is being sold piece by piece to foreign countries but what are the citizens doing about it not a darn thing. People BUSH said on National TV that IRAQ had nothing to do with 9/11, so I ask “WHY IN THE HELL DID WE SEND TROOPS THERE IN THE FIRST DAMN PLACE?

Why have the troops not packed up their shit and come home because they too are brainwashed into believing they were going to be welcomed with flowers. There is a time to fight for your country but troops in Iraq are not fighting for the US interest but for greedy foreign bankers.
And people will argue that they cannot just cut and run, well it is not about cutting and running its about doing with is right, they now know that the run up to war was laced with bad intelligence and the intelligence has shown that IRAQ has nothing to do with 9/11, so why are people not protesting and getting rid of all those who signed their power away to BUSH. War should have only be declared as a last resort not a second.

Americans have yet to wake up from their sleep. They keep voting for these same people year after year in office. People when are you going to realize that the people must make sure these people do not serve decades in office.

Rumsfeld ,cheney, rice was there with BUSH Sr, and back with BUSH Jr, now that should have raised all kinds of flags to the American people.But yet they were duped into the so-called “War on Terrorism” (war on a crime) do you people really get it. If there was in fact a war on the crime of terrorism then why are the borders the last thing to be secured and are still not secured. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST!! Secondly why are foreigners working in the Immigration dept? There are so many things wrong with this country and this government that it would take a book.

Wake up people…Take a look at these. America to Facism…“V” for Vendetta. quite interesting to say the least.

Report this

By Isaac, November 5, 2006 at 3:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The important thing to take note of here is that President Bush has been advised MANY times that he needs to accept the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.  His former Chief of Staff Andy Card suggested it to the President several times.  Reprtedly, Donald Rumsfeld even turned in his resignation twice and both times the President refused to accept it. The President has shown that he will stick to his guns and do as he pleases even if it flies in the face of all the advice he has been given.  Should we expect anything ELSE from this President?  Here’s the real truth to the matter, President Bush does refuses to admit failure and so he will continue to stand behind his choices and strategies. But as they say, “pride goeth before the fall.”  Why have our national leaders become so afraid to admit when they are wrong?  It is much more noble to be truthful with the American public than to continue to sweep dirt under the rug and hope the problem goes away.

Report this

By mrJJ, November 5, 2006 at 1:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 10:38:22 AM PST

A big story in today’s New York Times (byline is David Rohde and James Risen) describes a new CIA assessment of the situation in Afghanistan that is damning for President George W. Bush and his famously inept administration, and issuing “increasingly dire warnings” about the situation there.

The Times notes that Bush cut funding for the Afghan war by 30 percent over the past year. Bush also “proposed the withdrawal of up to 3,000 American troops. At least 143 American and NATO troops have been killed in the Taliban resurgence this year, 55 more than died in all of 2005, and the planned withdrawal was canceled.”

The debacle in Iraq is getting all the headlines, but this administration’s famous detour on its self-declared “war on terror” to take out Saddam (now on the verge of execution himself), continues to weaken allied positions in Afghanistan, leaving Bush-picked Afghan leader Hamid Karzai “significantly weakened” and widely unpopular, according to “American officials”. Meanwhile, the Taliban grows in influence.

Report this

By one more thing, November 5, 2006 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

one more thing to add to Kellina’s list:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj1rT4bszWg

Rumsfeld announced the disappearance of 2.3 trillion (conveniently) on 9/10/01. What do you suppose someone could do with that kind of money? Does the missing money constitute some sort of motive for a crime? Rumsfeld vowed to do something about it, too, but then no one ever mentioned it again.

Report this

By G. Anderson, November 5, 2006 at 11:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What else can he do?

Because it means another war we’ve lost.

The Republican’s have to loose now, because if they don’t then they won’t be able to blame the Democrats, it will all be on them.

They started it, they lost it. So in too more years, they’ll be able to come back and accuse the Democrats of blowing it, because they didn’t stay the course.

They can always claim they were on the verge of winning and if the Dems hadn’t cut and run we would have won.

Report this

By armymom, November 5, 2006 at 10:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Has anyone listened to the troops?  My son is currently serving his second tour in Iraq.  His first tour he was full of optimism.  He could see the difference we were making in Iraq on a daily basis.  Now all he is worried about is staying alive. Every move we make over there is defensive. The base he was at his first tour was turned over to the Iraqi’s and has been destroyed. How many times do these kids have to serve in a war zone before they bring back the draft.  Either get more troops on active duty or start drafting.  No one should have to do three and four tours with no end in sight.  It is cruel and unusual punishment.  Oh that’s right its ok to be cruel and unusual to our troops just not the enemy detainees.

Report this

By us marine, November 5, 2006 at 10:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

to jvv #36535
the proof is in the lack of satisfaction that is commonly held in our administration by the bottom of the barrel american troops such as myself. (the ones who carry rifles) i have yet to meet a rifle carrying veteran of this war who supports rumsfield and this can only be a reflection of how our leaders feel. the proof is in the restrictive roe’s, the lack of support from the administration, poor gear that we are forced to fight with, and the general beleif that we have been sold out for oil, power, vendetta, and greed. look up PNAC. we dont mind going to iraq, were trying to kill bad guys, build schools, and promote liberty. thats what we do, but dont be fooled about why we were sent there. and it is a big surprise that these publications would print this article because they are all fine examples of orwellian propaganda stricly ment to reinforce our instant and willing obediance to orders. when have you read one last?

Report this

By Rabbit, November 5, 2006 at 9:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bush says Rummy stays. Could this piss off enough military in Va. to swing the elections there?

Report this

By Jon B, November 5, 2006 at 8:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Smaller ground force was one of Rumsfeld’s strategies. Generals wanted larger force, and they were either fired or threatened. The outcome is clear. The war is out of control and we are increasing the ground force. So many lives lost on both sides, 665,000 iraqi civilians included, because of this administration’s stupidity.

Mission NOT accomplished.

Report this

By Gunnery Sgt. D.R., November 5, 2006 at 8:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I would like to thank you all for supporting the armed forces. As I watch my fellow Marines die everyday I try to take comfort in the fact Americans understand this should not be. This is no longer a war this an occupation by the United States of America. I look into the eyes of many the Iraq citizens they do not want us here. The rules of engagment we are currently under makes us sitting ducks. Please say a prayer for us as we pray everyday this will end.

Report this

By kellina, November 5, 2006 at 7:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It looks like Rumsfeld (‘Dumsfeld,’ love it!) will face trial for war crimes, if not crimes against humanity, as an earlier commenter noted, citing the Nation article posted on the site “commondreams” (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1103-28.htm). We just have to get him to Germany to do it. And I suggest putting on trial Cheney, Bush, Rice, Yoo, Gonzales, Myers, Giuliani, Tenant, and quite a few others for not just 1) pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation, 2) war on false pretext, 3) improper troop levels, 4) improper troop armor and equipment, 5) using torture, 6) killing 655, 000+ Iraqis, etc., but also 6) the desecration of civil liberties here at home, 7) stealing the elections, 8) favoritism of corporate buddies in awarding war and reconstruction contracts. I’m sure I’m leaving something out – oh yes, 9/11 (an inside job if ever there was one).

It would be deliciously ironic if all these people were tried according to the letter of the law – the Military Commissions Law, of course. Or maybe just for fun we let them have a lawyer, but one of those poorly paid public defenders who typically sleep through trial. Then those charged can spend a couple of decades on death row.

That would be justice served.

Report this

By gerald, November 5, 2006 at 7:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Saddam Hussein was convicted today, by his own people, for “Crimes agains Humanity.” I am very happy as should everyone in the world that this tyrant and dictator is removed from power.  In fact citizens everywhere should feel confident that they too can and should stand up for their God given rights. Unfortunately there was no metion WMD.  I am upset that the finest, most courageous and brave, honorable, and caring arm forces in the world was told the truth about the war.  In fact, it is sad that they are still being lied to and are being used to further the political agendas of others.  For example, this week comments were made about the soldiers themselves not the war and how to win the war was being used as a political arena by both polital parties.  It is a shame.  I believe that only the most competent, those who have a clear plan and goal, on how to win or become successful;  One who knows what they are doing should lead such a great group of men and women defending this country.  This is one of the most, if not the most powerful arm forces as we know today.  Lets keep it that way.

Report this

By Kat, November 5, 2006 at 12:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

JVV - What is it about Bush, his administration and Rummy that compels your admiration? Their wonderful success in Iraq? Or is it spying on Americans? Bankupting the country? Their destruction of the enviroment? Their lying, corruption, hate mongering, murder and war-profiteering? Exactly what are you proud of them for? Hmmmm. Guess you don’t like the good ol’ days of no torture and habaes corpus either, huh.

Report this

By carol avigdor, November 4, 2006 at 10:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think what is being missed here is the fact that the war in Iraq is unjust, illegal and immoral, and that the crew of GWBush and company are guilty of massive war crimes and crimes against humanity, and are actively planning to commit more crimes by planning to attack Ira,possibly with nuclear weapons. The Democrats are not much better, as that they are talking about “prosecuting the war more efficiently”, and NOT ending the occupation of Iraq. And how many Democrats are speaking out AGAINST attacking Iran? ZERO.The Democrats are not going to come to the rescue. What will people do if they put all of their hopes in the Democrats and they continue the same old shit? People will then be demoralized and paralyzed. What it is going to take to get rid of this crew and reverse the entire direction that this country is going in is going to be the people of the US stepping forward in a way that has not been done before and force this regime out and to turn around the political climate and create an entire new atmosphere of debate and discussion. I would like to refer people to a website: http://www.worldcantwait.org to see what people all over the U.S. are doing.Thanks.

Report this

By Bukko in Australia, November 4, 2006 at 8:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sean, I went to the SFGate.com site (run by the San Francisco Chronicle, where I lived before I emigrated, so I hit that site a lot). I read the story on which this but was based. It’s an unsigned editorial representing the opinion of the military papers’ management. They apparently have been getting a lot of bad feedback re: Rumsfeld from military honchos, so that’s what prompted the editorial. When the Commander-in-Chimp said he would stick with Dumbsfeld for another two years, it was another straw on the camel’s brass.

That’s a serious situation, when the commanders behind the scenes are grizzling to the journos. (Aussie slang there…) It’s sounding closer and closer to a military rebellion. While I don’t generally favour mutiny, what can soldiers do when they have a commander who’s sending them needlessly into slaughter? Remember “The Charge of the Light Brigade”?

Report this

By Anybody in that White House ...Hello...hello, November 4, 2006 at 7:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

ring….ring….ring….ring(hell how many rings does it take)

          Hello, hello, hello:

Anybody in the White House there?  Or do you need hearing aids to realize you aren’t doing YOUR JOB!  Wake Up America our White House is empty!

cheers,
concerned mother

————————————————————————
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061104/ts_nm/security_internet_iraq_dc_7
———————————————————————
Scientists protested Web site nuclear data: report Sat Nov 4,

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Scientists at a U.S. weapons lab complained more than two weeks ago that captured Iraqi documents containing sensitive nuclear information were available on the Web site that the government shut down on Thursday, The New York Times reported on Saturday. 
A senior federal official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Times that scientists at California’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory protested some of the weapons papers on the site to the National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the     Department of Energy, in October. But the objections “never perked up to senior management,” the Times quoted the official as saying. “They stayed at the mid-levels.”

Managers at the security administration passed the warning to their counterparts at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversaw the Web site, the Times said, citing the official. And as a result, according to a nuclear weapons expert, the government pulled two nuclear papers from the Web site last month. The dangers of the documents, which were captured during the war, had been recognized at Livermore and in the wider community of government arms experts, he said.

“Those two documents were on everybody’s list,” the newspaper quoted him as saying.

The Times said federal officials were conducting a review to better understand how and when the warnings had originated and how the bureaucracy had responded.

The Bush administration set up the Web site in March at the urging of Republicans in Congress who said that public access to such materials from     Iraq could increase the understanding of the danger posed by     Saddam Hussein. It was shut down after the Times inquired about the disclosure of nuclear information and the experts’ complaints. Among documents posted were roughly a dozen that nuclear weapons experts said constituted a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

While Democrats have called for an investigation, the scientists’ two-week-old complaints, as outlined by federal officials on Friday, indicated for the first time that warnings about the site had come from the government’s own arms experts as well as from international weapons inspectors, the report said.

Report this

By Where are troops? Hiding @ K street project?, November 4, 2006 at 7:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So Bush, Rummey, Cheney where the hell are the rest of the troops?  Let me guess they are coming WHEN the troops in Iraq are all DEAD.
Just like Katrina….they are coming?  When in 2012?
  You have Blood on your hands by every “coffin” you FILL!
Sincerely,
Mother of US Special Forces Soldier
d-green
green
rangers
seals
——————————————————————-
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_WAR_GAMES?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
————————————————————————-
1999 War Games Foresaw Problems in Iraq
By JOHN HEILPRIN
Associated Press Writer
AP Photo/SAMIR MIZBAN
U.S. Video
 
WASHINGTON (AP)—The U.S. government conducted a series of secret war games in 1999 that anticipated an invasion of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, and even then chaos might ensue.

In its “Desert Crossing” games, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence officials assumed the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.

The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by the George Washington University’s National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library.

“The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops,” said Thomas Blanton, the archive’s director. “But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground.”
 
There are currently about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak of about 160,000 in January.

A spokeswoman for U.S. Central Command, which sponsored the seminar and declassified the secret report in 2004, declined to comment Saturday because she was not familiar with the documents.

The war games looked at “worst case” and “most likely” scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:

-“A change in regimes does not guarantee stability,” the 1999 seminar briefings said. “A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability.”

-“Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic - especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments.”

-“Iran’s anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq,” the briefings read. “The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad.”

-“The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development.”

-“Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government.”

-“A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners.”
On the Net:
National Security Archive: http://www.gwu.edu/nsarchiv/index.html
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Report this

By Sean, November 4, 2006 at 7:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is not clear from the article, can anyone tell if this is the type of editorial that identifies the author OR is it in the name of the various editors’ of these papers?  Unless it has the name of someone in the military or a military group is credited I don’t see how it will change the minds of the crazies running this illegal war…

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, November 4, 2006 at 7:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times are all deadly wrong many times over!

They should be calling for the impeachment and martial trial of their so-called “Commander-In-Chief” evil Bush, for all the lies, deception and falsehood propaganda machine he operated all these years. It would be a travesty of justice to place all the blame on devilish Rumsfeld while his boss, the devil himself, goes unpunished!

Report this

By mrJJ, November 4, 2006 at 7:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Documents: 1999 U.S. War Games Predicted Iraqi Chaos

Saturday , November 04, 200

WASHINGTON — The U.S. government conducted a series of secret war games in 1999 that anticipated an invasion of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, and even then chaos might ensue.

In its “Desert Crossing” games, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence officials assumed the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.

The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by the George Washington University’s National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library.

• Visit FOXNews.com’s Iraq center for more in-depth coverage.

“The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops,” said Thomas Blanton, the archive’s director. “But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground.”

There are currently about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak of about 160,000 in January.

A spokeswoman for U.S. Central Command, which sponsored the seminar and declassified the secret report in 2004, declined to comment Saturday because she was not familiar with the documents.

The war games looked at “worst case” and “most likely” scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:

—“A change in regimes does not guarantee stability,” the 1999 seminar briefings said. “A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability.”

—“Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic — especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments.”

—“Iran’s anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq,” the briefings read. “The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad.”

—“The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development.”

—“Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government.”

—“A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227567,00.html

Report this

By paul kibble, November 4, 2006 at 5:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re Comment #36535 by jvv:

You poor, deluded schmuck. Needless to say, there’s nothing resembling a closley reasoned rebuttal in your sad little mousesqueak of a post, since such a rebuttal would require logic, evidence, and all them thar other lib-rul traits that you and your fellow Neanderthal nosepickers disdain.

As your circle of True Believers grows ever smaller and smaller by the nanosecond, you desperately reach for any pretext, no matter how pathetically bogus, to explain why at least 60 percent of those good citizens polled now disapprove of the way the Dubster is “handling the situation in Iraq” and why a majority now favor withdrawal of our troops. (Hint on that “proof” business: Dubya’s “handling of the situation in Iraq war” is vaguely rumored to have some connection with one of the architects of said war, i.e., Rummy, which may be why all these criminally disloyal Americans now want his ass pink-slippedd. Try to keep up, jvv.)

So now of course with public support for the war at an all-time low and one of the most violent months ever in Iraq, the primary news source (according to commie traitor Colin Powell) for our military personnel apparently just up and decided to join this vast left-wing conspiracy of disinformation. Fool: the only one who’s going to be buying that ocean-front property in Arizona is you, moron. After all, you’ve already bought every lie about this war BushCo fed you, so you’re ripe for the picking, just like those Christers who now feel betrayed because Rove et al. were calling them nutjobs behind their backs. Awwwwwwwww.  Hello, sucker!

Thanks for a perfect illustration of cognitive dissonance, BTW. When one of you rightie’s cherished beliefs is “disconfirmed” by what the rest of us call “reality,” you adapt to changing bullshit rather than stay the ideological course, to borrow the current Liar-in-Chief’s new buzz phrase. So if more troops (and Iraqi civilians) have to die due to a disastrous non-plan engineered by these neocon pinheads, that’s OK as long as Rummy can save face and you can sit on your fat ass and pontificate on matters for which you have neither the moral authority nor the professional expertise to comment.  You’re a “true patriot,” all right, in the same way that Bush is a “true Christian.”

Report this

By Bukko in Australia, November 4, 2006 at 5:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If the Army Times et. al. is saying this, I regard that as REALLY significant. Contrary to what JVV claims, these are not “liberal” publications. My dad was career Army, and I grew up reading them. Mostly boring, like trade journals, useful for information like the latest promotion lists. They are VERY pro-military. If these insider’s guides to the minutiae of military life are calling for Rummy to resign, that’s like l’Osservatore Romano (the Vatican newspaper) asking the Pope to take a hike.

I agree with Chris—what more will it take? Soldiers shooting at Rummy every time he emerges from his bunker?

Report this

By Little Nel, November 4, 2006 at 5:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Has anyone noticed how much Don looks like Dudley Doright? The square chin, the resolute look. And he was a wrestler at Princeton. ( wow back in the 50’s they took on such wrestling power houses as Harvard, Yale, and Brown). Why is it that we have a while administration loaded with frat boys who majored in business or Poly Sci ?  No Physics majors in this bunch.

Report this

By lawlessone, November 4, 2006 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS - IMPEACH BUSH! TRY RUMSFELD!
Or, What Kerry Said May Have Been Clumsy, But That Doesn’t Mean He Was Wrong

  The Republican leadership have been loudly proclaiming Senator John Kerry attacked our troops and supports our enemies.  I subscribe to over a hundred publications of various sorts, not to mention being a junkie of news sources of all times from blogs to news channels.  Yet, not once have I ever run across anything that ever could be construed as anything but 100% support of the troops themselves.  Try using “The Google” as Bush ignorantly calls it or any of the other internet search engines and see for yourself by bringing up the actual words and context.

  The same goes for all the claims of the Republican leadership attempting to smear Senator Murtha and others who have chosen to question the strategy or tactics of the occupation of Iraq.  In general, no matter who is speaking, no matter how vociferous the well deserved condemnation of those in charge at the top levels, the individual in uniform serving his or her country has received nothing but support, encouragement, prayers and deference.

  The only notable exceptions are those individual soldiers who might have committed crimes such as the Abu Graib prisoner interrogation violations or the shooting of defenseless non combatants.  Even then, the inclination was to give the benefit of the doubt to them until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and instead look to the civilians in charge at the top levels that fostered an atmosphere which tacitly allowed such outrages.  Not even the harshest antiwar activists condemned all the military for what was undoubtedly the actions of the few.  Support for the actual troops on the ground has, for all practical purposes, been universal this time around.

  There have been legitimate concerns about the lowered admissions standards for recruits, reduced training and preparation and the climate of the end justifies the means.  At the same time, such concerns are offered to protect the troops, not attack them as the Republican leadership tries to spin it.  Better troops, better training - Reduced Risks.  In fact, such criticism is usually also coupled with demands for better armor, more troops to do the job, less frequent long deployments, better pay, better care and better benefits for the enlisted men and their families.  Somehow even those concerns are warped by the Republican leadership which, astonishingly, has fought implementation of all those in one way or another.  The troops carrying weapons get across the board support from one and all for their difficult and dangerous job and we are proud of their accomplishments.  We do not expect them to do the impossible as the occupant of the White House apparently does.

  Even the very top generals, for the most part, have escaped personal criticism from those opposing the degenerating Iraq occupation.  The wide spread assumption is that those generals have told Bush and Rumsfeld what was needed and the advice was ignored.  Most critics of the current Administration accept that men in uniform, generals included, must obey orders, be circumspect and keep secrets even when the secrecy was imposed for the sole purpose of prevention knowledge of active malfeasance by their bosses.  At worst, some opponents of the war have wished that the soldiers were more outspoken while in uniform about the obvious incompetency and failures of the Secretary of Defense and the White House.  After all, unless it has been rewritten from when I served, the Code of Military Justice, not to mention honor and morality itself, specifies that soldiers are required to disobey illegal orders such as torture or deliberately killing someone in custody.  If failures are not acknowledged and learned from, how can they possibly be avoided?

  The Republican leadership does not care about anything apparently except its own ego its all consuming desire to stay in power no matter who is harmed.  Bush trumpets that a desire to pull out of Iraq is a failure to “support the troops” or honor the lives of those already killed in what turns out to have been an unneeded invasion, at least as to the originally stated reasons for starting.  Even the most IQ challenged though among the voters ought to realize that the Republican leadership is primarily just trying to confuse lack of support for the President’s policies with lack of support for those who must attempt to carry them out under deadly fire.  In contrast, surely, it ought to be obvious that those who demand immediate withdrawal are requesting it to harm the troops.  The opposite seems to the goal even for the most strident activists. 

  Even if you buy the President’s assertion that it is better to “fight them over there,” how is it a lack of support for the troops to insist upon a cost/benefit analysis of the Iraq war, especially in terms of lives of those being sent there who have to die or live with the consequences?  Would it save more lives to not be there?  Would it be better to have the troops here protecting than there?  Would less enemies be created or united if we leave?  You can disagree with the long term result predictions one way or the other, but you cannot claim that a request to pull out as soon as possible is somehow an attack on our troops.  Moreover, as long as the Republican leadership tenaciously tries to remain in office by shouting “lack of support for the troops,” there can never be legitimate debate on the subject and we cannot know which is the better way to support those wearing our desert camo fatigues.

  The Republican leadership suggests that those who want our troops out of Iraq are “cowards.”  That is odd coming from many in the same Republican leadership who actually proved themselves cowardly during the Vietnam fighting by refusing to go there.  That aside, it is not fair to call those who are not opposed to wars in general, merely this particular fiasco, cowards.  Nor is it even fair to call pacifists who disagree with all wars cowards.  In this country, it takes far more courage and bravery to oppose a war than to support it as the Republicans prove almost every day with their retaliatory efforts.

  Worse, the Republican leadership in their efforts to subvert the elections, not to mention the concept of patriotism and free speech, label those who want out of Iraq as “traitors.”  A much better argument could be made that the Republican leadership with its refusal to find alternatives to oil, fighting the war on the cheap where troops were forced to buy their own body armor, or war profiteering or outright violations of almost every principle in the Constitution constitute the real traitors today.

    More importantly, for the Republican leadership to claim others are traitors, cowards or not supporting the popular troops shows just how much the Republican leadership are cowards themselves.  Their efforts to suppress constructive criticisms suggests they fear their own ideas, policies and arguments are not persuasive.  They are terrified of true democracy and unwilling to debate fairly.  It is time to stop listening to anything they have to say.

  As to the remarks by Senator Kerry that got the Republican leadership so excited, it should be noted that if the Republican leadership did not fervently believe in every single word the Senator said, then why are so few, if any, of their own privileged children are fighting in Iraq?  Kerry may have been stupid to make such a remark, but that does not make the remark inaccurate.

  In fact, if we are truly in a “Struggle for Civilization” itself as our fearful leader insists, then why aren’t the First Daughters wearing olive drab?  The next time any Republican mentions the words “support of the troops,” the words “lying hypocrites” deserve mention.

(more at resistence-is-possible.blogspot.com)

Report this

By Gramma Concept, November 4, 2006 at 3:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dear Friends,
Waking up can be a slow, painful process…....especially if you have been hypnotised by fear….....or have sat on your own legs too long….......or…..if you are a demon drunk on power…...I pray for Higher Ideals for All, and, for the the Will to Realize them…....Basically….....God Is Love…..war is hell…...Strive On!

Love,
Gramma

Report this

By Quy Tran, November 4, 2006 at 3:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This “invalid” machine ought to be discarded without hesitation. Its parts have to be selling to recycling factory for newer equipment.

The longer this non-sense machine is still on the top of Pentagon and our active brasses the more U.S. troops, not only in Iraq, will surely be killed in vague.

Everybody stays awake but only King George is sleepy so he still keeps this rusty machine in his cabinet. Is it time to throw all of them out of this world ? Absolutely YES, YES, YES.

Report this

By chuck, November 4, 2006 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Eliminate BushY, CheneY, RummY—-“Y?”—because they can’t say they were wrong about managing Iraq, Iran, No. Korea, Isreal, Syria et al. ” Y” because they are liars and don’t know whow to be effective.

Report this

By felicity, November 4, 2006 at 11:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The timing of this event means nothing or it means far more than we outsiders can probably even imagine.  This administration has engaged in illegal activity, domestically and internationally and if and when any supporting entity is removed chances are the entire structure will collapse.  We may close to a crisis in government.

Report this

By accomodations are AVAILABLE, November 4, 2006 at 11:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As I have stated before, all the individuals responsible for this ” bogus ” war NEED a JAIL CELL.
The continuing MURDER by supporters of such need JAILED as well.  There are many members in the House and Senate that are

        M u r d e r e r s !

Further, I understand that accomodations are still available, although FILLING up fast at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Alc…Alcatraz_Island

OR Abu Ghraib ( a delightful palace )!

I believe that the American US Citizens can still accomodate “Rummey” though. Further, that their “mothers” should have taught them the following :http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/whatsgoodfor.html
Have a lovely day, busy packaging.
Concerned Mother

Report this

By Kwagmyre, November 4, 2006 at 10:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Might as well face it, Rums failed to what was expected of him.

Report this

By us marine, November 4, 2006 at 10:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

this is good that our military leaders are coming out to the public with their views on war stategy and that many are publicly calling for change. i would like to remind americans that they are not only breaking tradition but also are risking their careers. public criticism the sec. of def. is strictly forbiden in the military ranks and these men will need the support of the men and women in uniform but most importantly the american people in order to avoid repurcussion.

Report this

By Peter Weiss, November 4, 2006 at 9:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For George W. Bush it has come down to this: Support Our Troops or Support Donald Rumsfeld.  And he has chosen to support his incompetent and mendacious Secretary of Defense.

The Presidents lack of respect for the military, his willingness to sacrifice American lives in a shameful immoral conflict, conducted with incompetence, and the illegal and impeachable actions he has taken to undermine and destroy this country are despicable.

But only slightly less distasteful is the Democratic Party’s inability to summon any outrage, any strong moral commitment to meaningful opposition. For them it is all reduced to the arithmetic of electoral politics. Will we see any strength of character from them after the elections restore them to power in Congress?

Report this

By AnnaCatherine, November 4, 2006 at 8:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why did this take so long? Rumsfeld has long been an albatross around the neck of the military. George Bush does not listen to his Generals as he says he does. He listens to Rumsfeld whose big achievements in life are arrogance and being an SOB. People are dying while this exercise in stupidity continues. Stage 1 of the new plan - Rummy goes. Then let’s find out where all the money went. That will explain why Don kept his job for so long. This gets uglier by the day. What a tradgedy.

Report this

By Rhonda, November 4, 2006 at 8:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Remsfeld must go all right…TO JAIL, along with the other war criminals in the Bush Whitehouse.

Report this

By ricky b, November 4, 2006 at 8:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

it’s a set-up ... Bush gets to look tough by firing Rummy the day before the elections… Rummy, the martyr, gets consulting deals with 72 defense contractors.

Report this

By Jim Thiele, November 4, 2006 at 8:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think it’s time for Rumsfeld to leave before we loose anymore of our top Generals.  It appears the only time they can speak out is after they take a retirement.  They risk their pensions by speaking out and we need them if we plan to maintain a strong milatary after an Iraq withdrawl.  Vote for Change on Nov. 7th.

jt

Report this

By A Voter, November 4, 2006 at 7:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Who can forget this image: George W Bush standing next to his good friend “Brownie” saying he did a “heckofa job” handling Hurricane Katrina.  It became crystal clear at this moment that this emperor has no clothes.
And how many times did we have to hear “Stay the Course” about Iraq?  I don’t know the exact number, you’ll have to ask Keith Oberman for that, but I think the results of this “policy” are self-evident.
And Rummy.  Jut another shameless example of how this president would rather stubbornly refuse to bend than to correct any error.  No matter the cost to the country he has sworn to serve.

Report this

By John E. Smith, November 4, 2006 at 7:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This says it all:

Army Times Publishing Company has an established reputation as a well-respected independent newspaper publishing company. General Colin Powell said it succinctly and well when he appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in 1992:

“A few weeks ago, all of the troops out in the field were still reading retrospectives about how well they had done in the Persian Gulf. They don’t read The Washington Post. They read such things called the Army Times, Navy Times, and the Air Force Times. Once a week, these are published, and they go all over the force. This is what the troops read.”

JES

Report this

By shama prasad, November 4, 2006 at 7:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Finally!  Except the very…very few, everyone had seen this coming.  I say it is a good riddance

Report this

By MARIAM RUSSELL, November 4, 2006 at 7:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I suppose if we cannot get rid of this bit of slime because it is a bit of slime, then stupidity will do.

Report this

By Chris, November 4, 2006 at 7:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

My God.

How much more will it take?

The Generals themselves are publically begging for people to vote Democratic—in addition to Richard Perle publically stating Bush is too incompetent to win the War in Iraq!

....and the Republican candidates are still “close to winning and keeping their seats.”

Scandal, after scandal after outrage after corruption after corruption—and the public is STILL going to vote Republican? STILL???

If we can’t throw the Republican bums out after ALL of these scandals—then we must admit that it is physically impossible to convince the Security Moms and NASCAR Dads to come to their senses.

If we can’t take back Congress after ALL of this scandal in the news 24hrs a day, every single day non-stop right up until the election—they obviously this country is lost and we should just quit.

Report this

By Jefferson's Guardian, November 4, 2006 at 5:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By continuing to put on the pressure, the regime has to eventually break. For additional insight on the Rumsfeld factor and how it relates to criminality and crimes against humanity, please read Jeremy Brecher’s and Brendan Smith’s article titled “War Criminals, Beware” in commondreams.org (borrowed from The Nation). The opening paragraph may entice you:

“On November 14 a group of lawyers and other experts will come before the German federal prosecutor and ask him to open a criminal investigation targeting Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and other key Bush Administration figures for war crimes. The recent passage of the Military Commissions Act provides a central argument for the legal action, under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction: It demonstrates the intent of the Bush Administration to immunize itself legally from prosecution in the United States, even for the most serious crimes.”

I mentioned in a previous comment (on the Bush “torture bill”) that the Military Commissions Act was passed and signed quickly in order to provide the “get-away car” in the event of criminal prosecution. The regime made it a priority to get this done before the November elections, fearing a Democratic congress may result.

If it takes one brick at a time, so be it.

Report this

By B, November 4, 2006 at 5:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I can hear the screaming now….“One day before elections!! NOT FAIR!”

To that I say, is it fair to wait? Isn’t the whole point as voters that we learn what is going on and vote accordingly?


  B

http://b-political.blogspot.com/

Report this

By Susan B, November 4, 2006 at 2:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

One can only hope that Pres. Bush will come down off his high horse long enough to listen and respond to our military he claims to care about so much.

Our President seems to think it is a sign of weakness to admit being wrong, and to consider other possibilites.  We have lost credibility with the rest of the world.  He seems to not care about that, or about our troops.

Report this

By Jackie T. Gabel, November 4, 2006 at 1:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mistakes, mistakes and more mistakes—limited hangouts streaming through the media so fast there’s no keeping up with them—the struggle now going on over policy in the War of Civilizations and attendant War of Terror breaks through here and there and how to get a read on it between news cycles is probably only doable by those not at liberty to share.

You got to feel for the generals—professional warriors taking orders from Big Oil—the oligarchs have gone too far—be ready for another big false flag incident at any time—one of the factions is going to loose it and a lot of innocent people may very well die—somehow we must end this nightmare—support 911Truth!

Report this

By mark, November 4, 2006 at 1:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I hear that Dairy Queen is looking for managers in the near the Pentagon…

Report this

By Rich, November 4, 2006 at 12:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The whole Bush Administration needs to be replaced.

What is replacing Rummy going to do? They will only fill his shoes with another lacky.

Report this

By tom phagan, November 3, 2006 at 11:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Not only should Rumsfeld resign, the President and the V.P. should also resign for the sake of America, They have taken this country on a journey so filthy and repugnant that the three of them should be held in the dock of justice and tried for treason, and if convicted, imprisioned for the rest of their lives.

Report this

By einsteinstoe, November 3, 2006 at 10:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have held the hope close to my heart that our military establishment would turn on BushCo. 
Of course thats what strength in honor and loyalty to the United States will do.

Report this

By jvv, November 3, 2006 at 10:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So where is your proof that the majority of the Americans think Rumsfeld has failed?  More liberal swag. So the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corp Times are now written by the same liberal media as the NY Times.  Seems logical.  If you believe that this isn’t about the mid-term elections, call me as I want to sell you some ocean front property in Arizona, or some stock in Air-America.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook