Reply With Quote
Nov 7, must indicate that these people who work for these publications must not have a political agenda.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061104...y_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 led "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.
Nov 7, must indicate that these people who work for these publications must not have a political agenda.
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.
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?
That's a good question. I'd be interested to see the case for Rummy beyond "stay the course."
They won't turn on him until bush does. Don't you get it? They're waiting for permission.
That's funny, because he and Cheney have done more to hurt this President than anyone else.
I don't think we'll be hearing any coherent positives on rummies stategy. Not included in the programming.
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?
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?Honestly, at this point in time, what would be accomplished by Rumsfeld resigning?
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?
[QUOTE]Profound! You're probably the only one who would have deciphered that.
A shake up with 2 years left, for the sake of review when review is already under way?If we are reviewing our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, what better time to bring in someone new?
Try again CD, I really don't think that's even close to being enough of a reason to justify Rummy's resignation.
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.
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?A shake up with 2 years left, for the sake of review when review is already under way?
Where did I fully endorse "this Iraq strategy"?
"If it's broke, don't fix it."
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.
Your continued refusal to demand rummies dismissal for incompetence.
Don't you think removing incompetence is a no-brainer?
I think total disrepair is obvious when our troops are taking orders from Al-Sadr.
Wouldn't you agree?
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.Is there a consensus that it's in a state of total disrepair?Are you kidding me? You think there would be no difference in defense strategy if, say, Colin Powell were Secretary of Defense?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.
Seriously?
[QUOTE]I'm not so sure how much weight I my insistance for his dismissal would carry?
What would change by having a new Bush appointee as Sec. of Defense?Don't you think removing incompetence is a no-brainer?
Well, at some point we could weed out all the suckers.
Colin Powell wouldn't accept the position. He can't get bush to look at the wolf that's eating him.
What strategy do you believe Powell would implement at this time that would make a difference?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
