Military Newspapers calling for Rummy's head

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061104/pl_afp/usvoteiraqmilitary_061104172840


WASHINGTON (AFP) - Four US military newspapers catering to all the branches of the US armed forces will reportedly publish an editorial on the eve of the November 7 congressional election, demanding the resignation of US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

An advance copy of the article titled "Time for Rumsfeld to Go" was obtained by the television network and posed on its website late Friday. It is scheduled for simultaneous publication Monday by the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times, NBC News said.

"Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large," the advance copy said.

"His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised," the editorial continued. "And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt."

Addressing President George W. Bush, who reaffirmed his confidence in Rumsfeld just this past week, the newspaper assured him they were not trying to influence the elections.

"Regardless of which party wins November 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go," the article said.

There was no immediate comment from either the Pentagon on the White House about the report.

[gtownspur]

Nov 7, must indicate that these people who work for these publications must not have a political agenda.

[jochhejaam]

Big Whoop. The military has nothing to do with what's published in these newspapers, as the article is probably trying to lead people to believe. They're owned by the Ganett Co. which also publishes USA Today.

[PixelPusher]

Political ideology aside, just what is it exactly about Rummy's job performance that garners your support? Is it as simple as "firing Rumsfeld would be a sign of weakness", or do you actually approve of his management at the Pentagon?

[ChumpDumper]

That's a good question. I'd be interested to see the case for Rummy beyond "stay the course."

[clambake]

They won't turn on him until bush does. Don't you get it? They're waiting for permission.

[ChumpDumper]

That's funny, because he and Cheney have done more to hurt this President than anyone else.

[clambake]

I don't think we'll be hearing any coherent positives on rummies stategy. Not included in the programming.

[jochhejaam]

Political ideology aside, just what is it exactly about Rummy's job performance that garners your support? Is it as simple as "firing Rumsfeld would be a sign of weakness", or do you actually approve of his management at the Pentagon?
My post was in regards to the general insignificance of these "military newspapers" calling for Rumsfeld's resignation (newspapers have been doing so for quite some time). It's an attempt to mislead the ignorant into believing that the position is a coup by our military, which is not the case.

Honestly, at this point in time, what would be accomplished by Rumsfeld resigning?

[ChumpDumper]

Honestly, at this point in time, what would be accomplished by Rumsfeld resigning?It would accomplish getting someone else as Secretary of Defense. If we are reviewing our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, what better time to bring in someone new?

[clambake]

And we love your post!!! Thank you!!!!

And Rummy has been great at.........................?

[jochhejaam]

And we love your post!!! Thank you!!!!

And Rummy has been great at.........................?
Thank you CB..., but where did I say anything about endorsing Rumsfeld?

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=ChumpDumper]It would accomplish getting someone else as Secretary of Defense.
Profound! You're probably the only one who would have deciphered that.





If we are reviewing our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, what better time to bring in someone new?
A shake up with 2 years left, for the sake of review when review is already under way?
Try again CD, I really don't think that's even close to being enough of a reason to justify Rummy's resignation.

[clambake]

I guess thats implied by your full endorsement of this Iraq strategy.

Now, if you mean nothing beyond a protected green zone, I'll stand corrected.

I think we can both agree that there's no money to be made in a swift victory and political success.

[ChumpDumper]

A shake up with 2 years left, for the sake of review when review is already under way? For the sake of changing what hasn't worked the past three years. If Rummy's relationship with the military is beyond repair, why keep it for another two years?

[jochhejaam]

I guess thats implied by your full endorsement of this Iraq strategy.

Where did I fully endorse "this Iraq strategy"?

[ChumpDumper]

"If it's broke, don't fix it."

[jochhejaam]

For the sake of changing what hasn't worked the past three years. If Rummy's relationship with the military is beyond repair, why keep it for another two years?
Is there a consensus that it's in a state of total disrepair?

I'm no different from anyone else that has the best interests of America in mind, I'm just not so sure that his resignation would usher in anything to alter the status quo.

[clambake]

Your continued refusal to demand rummies dismissal for incompetence.

Don't you think removing incompetence is a no-brainer?

[clambake]

I think total disrepair is obvious when our troops are taking orders from Al-Sadr.

Wouldn't you agree?

[ChumpDumper]

Is there a consensus that it's in a state of total disrepair? Well, they removed or forced out all the generals who openly disagreed with them. It's pretty telling if disent still remains after those purges.
I'm no different from anyone else that has the best interests of America in mind, I'm just not so sure that his resignation would usher in anything to alter the status quo.Are you kidding me? You think there would be no difference in defense strategy if, say, Colin Powell were Secretary of Defense?

Seriously?

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=clambake]Your continued refusal to demand rummies dismissal for incompetence.
I'm not so sure how much weight I my insistance for his dismissal would carry? :lol


Don't you think removing incompetence is a no-brainer?
What would change by having a new Bush appointee as Sec. of Defense?

[clambake]

Well, at some point we could weed out all the suckers.

[clambake]

Colin Powell wouldn't accept the position. He can't get bush to look at the wolf that's eating him.

[jochhejaam]

You think there would be no difference in defense strategy if, say, Colin Powell were Secretary of Defense?

Seriously?
What strategy do you believe Powell would implement at this time that would make a difference?

[jochhejaam]

Well, at some point we could weed out all the suckers.
Do you have any particular "suckers" in mind?

[ChumpDumper]

What strategy do you believe Powell would implement at this time that would make a difference?Are you kidding me? Do you think his and Rummy's thoughts about the military are the same? Do you think his relationship to the generals on the ground is the same?

[jochhejaam]

Are you kidding me? Do you think his and Rummy's thoughts about the military are the same? Do you think his relationship to the generals on the ground is the same?
The question, which you completely ignored, was "what strategy would Powell implement at this time that would make a difference".

[ChumpDumper]

From what I know about Powell, there would likely be a change in troop strength and deployment -- most likely an increase in troops since generals would feel more free to say they need them.

Now you can tell me how keeping Rumsfeld will improve the situation.

[clambake]

I think he would look at this situation for what it is. If the goal is to win, more troops. not 20k or 30k, more like 250k.

I don't think Powell would accept, but if he did he wouldn't allow people that were formally on our hit list to give orders to our troops. That is a good example of disrepair.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Bush's refusal to get rid of Rumsfield is my biggest complaint with our president right now. The guy doesn't know how to fight a war, and his branches are disenchanted with his leadership (Rumsefeld's).

[ChumpDumper]

Rummy was more committed to proving his "modernization" of the armed forces was the way to go than actually achieving our policy goals in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now he can't bring himself to say he was wrong in the face of the quagmire in Iraq and the resurgence of the Taliban.

[jochhejaam]

Now you can tell me how keeping Rumsfeld will improve the situation.
I didn't start a thread stating that keeping will improve the situation. I've only suggested that him resigning may not be a positive except for those who are looking to score political points. Political points won't improve the situation in Iraq one iota.

The burden is on the supporters of this thread making a strong case for how Rummy resigning will be a positive.
Detailed specifics would be nice (aka, a plan)

[ChumpDumper]

Detailed specifics would be nice (aka, a plan)What's the plan now? What has it been for the past three years?

All you've said is the status quo is is acceptable for another two years. The burden is on you to explain why.

[jochhejaam]

What's the plan now? What has it been for the past three years?

All you've said is the status quo is is acceptable for another two years. The burden is on you to explain why.
Monotonous, isn't it?

Actually you brought up the fact that we are reviewing our policies, and I agreed. How is that suggesting that the status quo is acceptable?

I thought the latest was that we aren't necessarily "staying the course"?

[ChumpDumper]

Actually you brought up the fact that we are reviewing our policies, and I agreed. How is that suggesting that the status quo is acceptable?There is only so much that could change given the overall military policy Rummy still espouses. If that policy has led to the current failures, how will they make anything better?
I thought the latest was that we aren't necessarily "staying the course"?The latest was they stopped using that phrase because it wasn't testing well in focus groups.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=ChumpDumper]There is only so much that could change given the overall military policy Rummy still espouses. If that policy has led to the current failures, how will they make anything better?
Unless we have someone ready, willing and capable of reversing or improving the present situation, then we keep Rumsfeld and hope that the "review of policy" that you mentioned, improves the situation.

I think everyone's for improvement, just not into experimenting or yielding to the demands of a Party who's strong suit is complaining without presenting a viable solution.

[ChumpDumper]

Unless we have someone ready, willing and capable of reversing or improving the present situation, then we keep Rumsfeld and hope that the "review of policy" that you mentioned, improves the situation.There are plenty of qualified guys out there, and the review of policy won't change Rummy's mind about his "new" army.
I think everyone's for improvement, just not into experimenting or yielding to the demands of a Party who's strong suit is complaining without presenting a viable solution.Were the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq not treated as experiments themselves, I might be more inclined to stick with the unapologetic architect of those experiments.

[jochhejaam]

There are plenty of qualified guys out there, and the review of policy won't change Rummy's mind about his "new" army.
Would you mind providing a list of the "plenty of qualified guys out there" who are ready, willing and capable of taking over for Rumsfeld?

[gtownspur]

There are plenty of qualified guys out there, and the review of policy won't change Rummy's mind about his "new" army.

If we had had a different Sec. we would of just had more troops and probably a draft. Be thankful Rummy's modernized army and belief in a volunteer army is what makes you sit here all content and moan about his shortcomings.

Were the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq not treated as experiments themselves, I might be more inclined to stick with the unapologetic architect of those experiments.

THe Invasions themselves were done magnificently, we crushed any standing army in less than a couple of days.

You couldn't say that about Vietnam.

So your example is moot.

It's the peace which we are obligated by the UN to keep is what is being criticized here.

[ChumpDumper]

Would you mind providing a list of the "plenty of qualified guys out there" who are ready, willing and capable of taking over for Rumsfeld?Who has been asked?

[gtownspur]

Who has been asked?

Ok, for shits and giggles just name people who would be qualified in handling this long operation.

[ChumpDumper]

If we had had a different Sec. we would of just had more troops and probably a draft. Be thankful Rummy's modernized army and belief in a volunteer army is what makes you sit here all content and moan about his shortcomings.I'm not thankful he loses wars to make a point.
THe Invasions themselves were done magnificently, we crushed any standing army in less than a couple of days.Was that ever in doubt? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
It's the peace which we are obligated by the UN to keep is what is being criticized here.:lmao Bullshit.

Rummy's invasion let Osama escape into Pakistan.

Rummy's invasion allowed for an insurgency to begin in Iraq.

It's nice that we can beat up on weakened, poorly led armies with little command and control infrastructure. I doubt any Defense Secretary could screw that up. Trying to pretend like the occupations aren't a direct result of the invasions, trying to pretend that Rummy has no responsibility for the way the occupations have gone and trying to pretend the only reason we are still there is the UN is the stupidest thing you have ever tried to pull here.

And that's saying something.

[ChumpDumper]

Ok, for shits and giggles just name people who would be qualified in handling this long operation.Only one living person on the planet is qualified to be Secretary of Defense?

[jochhejaam]

It was a mistake for me to say there are "plenty of qualified guys" capable of filling in for Rummy, because I can't back up what I said. My bad.


No problemo.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, there is only one person on the entire planet qualified to be Secretary of Defense even though ChumpDumper already used the example of Powell.

[jochhejaam]

We already dismissed the idea of Powell, but I'm still going to use him as an answer for my "plenty of qualilfied guys" comment. Can't come up with anything else. :oops

Yep, you put you're foot in you're mouth on that one.

Not to worry, it happens.

[gtownspur]

I'm not thankful he loses wars to make a point.

I know you weren't reffering to me. Because that's not what I said.
This is what i said....

<<<If we had had a different Sec. we would of just had more troops and probably a draft. Be thankful Rummy's modernized army and belief in a volunteer army is what makes you sit here all content and moan about his shortcomings. >>>

....You could see it on this very same thread page on response #40.



Was that ever in doubt? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.:lmao Bullshit.

Yes you were questoning the invasion

You just did below in this same post and you did before in response #38

"Were the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq not treated as experiments themselves, I might be more inclined to stick with the unapologetic architect of those experiments."

Rummy's invasion let Osama escape into Pakistan.

I thought you weren't questioning the greatness of the invasion.



Rummy's invasion allowed for an insurgency to begin in Iraq.

THere you go again.

It's nice that we can beat up on weakened, poorly led armies with little command and control infrastructure. I doubt any Defense Secretary could screw that up. Trying to pretend like the occupations aren't a direct result of the invasions, trying to pretend that Rummy has no responsibility for the way the occupations have gone and trying to pretend the only reason we are still there is the UN is the stupidest thing you have ever tried to pull here.

How bout trying not to contradict your own statements. Because you obviously have no point.

And that's saying something.

That nobody is questioning the invasion but yourself...gotcha!

[gtownspur]

You see,

that's why CHump just sticks to dissecting everyones individual sentences for shits and giggles and hardly ever takes a stance.

[ChumpDumper]

I know you weren't reffering to me.Of course I am. You said I should be thankful. I'm not.
Yes you were questoning the invasionOf course I question the invasion, idiot. They turned out really well, right? Mission accomplished, no continuing hostilities, our troops are on their way home, right?
I thought you weren't questioning the greatness of the invasion.I don't question the brilliance of beating up on weak armies, but there is much more to it. If you want to cherry pick success, then by all means declare Rummy beyond reproach and perfect.
How bout trying not to contradict your own statements. Because you obviously have no point.My point is Rummy made critical mistakes in the invasions and occupations of both Afghanistan and Iraq. If you're contention is he is perfect, say so.
That nobody is questioning the invasion but yourself...gotcha! Osama is very happy how the invasion went, since it allowed him to escape.

[gtownspur]

"Was that ever in doubt? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.:lmao Bullshit."

-ChumpDump commenting on wether the invasions were done magnificently. Read Post response #43 of his.

This would lead anyone to believe he has the shortest memory of all time.

[ChumpDumper]

"Was that ever in doubt? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.:lmao Bullshit."

-ChumpDump commenting on wether the invasions were done magnificently. Read Post response #43 of his.

This would lead anyone to believe he has the shortest memory of all time.Yeah, I'm talking about the initial military operations to defeat organized military resistance. If you want to parse the meaning of "invasion" the rest of the evening feel free

[gtownspur]

.My point is Rummy made critical mistakes in the invasions and occupations of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

So you're saying Rummy personally orchestrated Torah Borah?

And as far as IRaq, we killed AL Zarqawi, that didn't end anything.

If you're contention is he is perfect, say so.Osama is very happy how the invasion went, since it allowed him to escape.

I'll say it.

Osama is perfectly happy we invaded two muslim nations and wiped out his resources and have turned most of the arab royalty against him.

[ChumpDumper]

There is little doubt that the US can kick any other army's ass. That was never the problem. It was always what to do next.

[gtownspur]

Yeah, I'm talking about the initial military operations to defeat organized military resistance. If you want to parse the meaning of "invasion" the rest of the evening feel free

Continues to put foot in mouth.


That is the original invasion retard.

We're no longer fighting an organized army.

Wake up.

[gtownspur]

There is little doubt that the US can kick any other army's ass. That was never the problem. It was always what to do next.


What to do next would have been to commit more troops to Iraq and still have more deaths and more escalation. Because more troop commitment didn't help in Vietnam.

We would of also had to have start a draft.

Unless you're omniscient, I don't see how one can say that a different general would have done better or worse.

[ChumpDumper]

So you're saying Rummy personally orchestrated Torah Borah?Where does the buck stop with you? Who is responsible for the strategy used in Afghanistan and Iraq?
And as far as IRaq, we killed AL Zarqawi, that didn't end anything.You mean after the insurgency had firmly entrenched itself in Iraq it didn't change anything to kill one of it's leaders? Sure.
Osama is perfectly happy we invaded two muslim nations and wiped out his resources and have turned most of the arab royalty against him.He is alive to be perfectly happy. And the Taliban are back. Mission accomplished.

[gtownspur]

You mean after the insurgency had firmly entrenched itself in Iraq it didn't change anything to kill one of it's leaders?

I'll play devils advocate.

Yes! it will, after all we killed Zarqawi and now Iraq is a top tourist destination!!!

Sure.He is alive to be perfectly happy. And the Taliban are back. Mission accomplished.

You mean the Taliban is governing afghanistan and are driving out the military.

This will surely stop if we kill OSama!!

[ChumpDumper]

What to do next would have been to commit more troops to Iraq and still have more deaths and more escalation. Because more troop commitment didn't help in Vietnam.So it is best to leave large parts of the country lawless and the borders open. Understood.
We would of also had to have start a draft.So? We're at war aren't we?
Unless you're omniscient, I don't see how one can say that a different general would have done better or worse.A differenct Secretary of Defense who planned for the occupation of two countries more than six weeks before an invasion would have made an enormous difference, as would one who would have appointed someone who had some actual knowledge of the mideast to oversee the occupation, as would one who would have cooperated better with the CIA which was already on the ground in Afghanistan, as would one who would have considered the consequences of throwing the entire Iraqi army out of work while leaving them armed to the teeth. And so on.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes! it will, after all we killed Zarqawi and now Iraq is a top tourist destination!!!I certainly got that impression from the administration after getting him and Saddam and his sons.
You mean the Taliban is governing afghanistan and are driving out the military.I mean the Taliban is firmly entrenched in Waziristan where nothing can be done about them and they are free to attack Afghanistan and plot other terraist acts at their leisure.
This will surely stop if we kill OSama!!There's a good chance it would have stopped had he not been allowed to escape to Pakistan when even Iran was cooperating with us.

[gtownspur]

So it is best to leave large parts of the country lawless and the borders open. Understood.
I'm not sure how you're going to surveillence every square inch in IRaq?

So? We're at war aren't we?

YEs, Now go a step further and advocate a draft while we're at it.


A differenct Secretary of Defense who planned for the occupation of two countries more than six weeks before an invasion would have made an enormous difference, as would one who would have appointed someone who had some actual knowledge of the mideast to oversee the occupation,

Do you even know who that person is who oversees the whole operation?


as would one who would have cooperated better with the CIA which was already on the ground in Afghanistan,

Wait we didn't cooperate with the CIA?

YOu seem to know all this by detail.

Link?

as would one who would have considered the consequences of throwing the entire Iraqi army out of work while leaving them armed to the teeth. And so on.

That's right we should of rounded them all up with out due process and Abu Graihb them.

[gtownspur]

I certainly got that impression from the administration after getting him and Saddam and his sons.

You sure do get alot of impressions while managing to go off subject.

I mean the Taliban is firmly entrenched in Waziristan where nothing can be done about them and they are free to attack Afghanistan and plot other terraist acts at their leisure.There's a good chance it would have stopped had he not been allowed to escape to Pakistan when even Iran was cooperating with us.

SO the Taliban has gone from a powerful govt to a rag tag group of terrorist.
My how they've upgraded!!

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not sure how you're going to surveillence every square inch in IRaq?I'm not sure how you're going to declare a country safe hiding in a green zone.
YEs, Now go a step further and advocate a draft while we're at it.
Why not? Why aren't we, as a nation, actually acting like we are at war and making the all-out sacrifices that are needed in a war?
Wait we didn't cooperate with the CIA?

YOu seem to know all this by detail.

Link?Are you telling me you DON'T know about this?

Sad.
That's right we should of rounded them all up with out due process and Abu Graihb them.That would have been better, since they wouldn't be killing our troops now.

[ChumpDumper]

You sure do get alot of impressions while managing to go off subject.This certainly is the subject.
SO the Taliban has gone from a powerful govt to a rag tag group of terrorist.
My how they've upgraded!!Nah, they just control Waziristan instead of Afghanistan. It's more of a lateral move.

[gtownspur]

That's right we should of rounded them all up with out due process and Abu Graihb them.[QUOTE]That would have been better, since they wouldn't be killing our troops now.

Well why not do it to save civilians too?

[Yonivore]

Just in case you hadn't heard, all four are just industry magazines published by Gannett, which also owns USAToday. They're "military" magazines in the sense they cover the military.

But not "military magazines" in the sense that they're actually published by the armed forces.

The editorials they offer may or may be persuasive (haven't read them myself), and the editorials are in fact written by former military personnel.

Still, the media is breathlessly reporting this as if official military papers like Stars and Stripes had come out against Rumsfeld -- which would be so enormous it also wouldn't ever happen (can't criticize superiors, after all).

So, if you're imagining that the actual military is now in open revolt against Rumsfeld, you've been "inadvertantly misled" by our very fair and balanced media.

By the way, Fox has been hyping this all day, too.

[ChumpDumper]

Well why not do it to save civilians too?Round up insurgents? Sure.

[ChumpDumper]

Just in case you hadn't heard, all four are just industry magazines published by Gannett, which also owns USAToday. They're "military" magazines in the sense they cover the military.

But not "military magazines" in the sense that they're actually published by the armed forces. Already covered.
The editorials they offer may or may be persuasive (haven't read them myself), and the editorials are in fact written by former military personnel.

Still, the media is breathlessly reporting this as if official military papers like Stars and Stripes had come out against Rumsfeld -- which would be so enormous it also wouldn't ever happen (can't criticize superiors, after all).

So, if you're imagining that the actual military is now in open revolt against Rumsfeld, you've been "inadvertantly misled" by our very fair and balanced media.

By the way, Fox has been hyping this all day, too.Nah, we're way past that.

[ChumpDumper]

Editorial

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.

http://armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php

[George Gervin's Afro]

Question for the war supporters. Intel was bad, we had no post war plan, and things are getting worse. Is anyone accountable?

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, San Fran-cis-co values are to blame for everything.

[ChumpDumper]

Bump, mofos.

[ChumpDumper]

Would you mind providing a list of the "plenty of qualified guys out there" who are ready, willing and capable of taking over for Rumsfeld?Robert Gates, apparently.

Now Bush is talking about bringing "fresh eyes" to the situation.

:downspin:

[DarkReign]

With all due respect, you guys got so fucking pwnd on the Rummy issue. Seriously raped.

[PixelPusher]

They won't turn on him until bush does. Don't you get it? They're waiting for permission.
Permission granted.