Army Times calls for Rumsfeld's departure

[Jamie_B]

How many people, how long, how many times is this going to take???

[quote]CNN) -- An editorial to be published in a major military publication Monday calls for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's replacement.

And the Pentagon is countering by saying the new "chorus of criticism" is "old news."

The editorial will be in four independent publications that serve the four main branches of the U.S. military, according to the senior managing editor for Army Times Publications, the papers' parent company.

The timing was not prompted not by Tuesday's midterm elections, said Army Times' editor Robert Hodierne.

It was inspired after Bush's stated earlier this week that he wants Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney in their posts through the end of his term, the editor said.(Watch Bush say Rumsfeld is staying on the job -- 1:20 )

Swaying conservative voters "is not our aim," he told CNN on Friday.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the president was told about the editorial, and his reaction was to "shrug it off."

Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman downplayed the "new chorus of criticism."

[It] is actually old news and does not include commanders in the field, who remain committed to the mission," Whitman said.

"The assertion, without evidence, that senior military officers are 'toeing the line' is an insult to their judgment and integrity," he added.

Hodierne counters by saying that Rumsfeld has "lost the support and respect of the military leadership" considering "some of the public statements that military leaders are making."

"...with their [other military leaders'] disagreements, [it] added up with all of the other missteps we believe he's made, that it's time for him to be replaced," Hodierne said.

Army Times Publications publishes the Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and the Marine Corps Times.

Whitman said Rumsfeld has always "clearly and accurately" described the challenges facing U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Secretary of Defense has always said the "war on terror" will be a long struggle, Whitman said.

"This country and the leadership of the Defense Department are going to ensure that our military forces have the resources to successfully carry out their mission, and to suggest otherwise is simply wrong," he said.

This is the second time the military publications have urged Rumsfeld to vacate his post.

In May 2004, when the Abu Ghraib prison scandal broke, an Army Times editorial said, "This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top."

Owned by the Gannett Company, Army Times Publishing is the world's largest publisher of defense and military-related periodicals, Hodierne said.

The four weekly newspapers, distributed in base convenience stores and commissaries around the world as well as delivered to subscribers, have a combined circulation of about 250,000.[/quote]

[|Bunghole|]

This is long overdue. Rummy actually has done some very good things in terms of the modernization of the military's structure and deployment of forces to fit the modern era.
However, he is an asshole and fails to be bipartisan enough to listen to differing opinions from his most senior commanders that are (Coy-GASP!) not "Yes" men.
It is time for him to go, everyone knows it and Bush's efforts to cling to him are at the least worrisome, and at worst, speaking volumes about who really runs this government.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='378384' date='Nov 4 2006, 08:33 PM']This is long overdue. Rummy actually has done some very good things in terms of the modernization of the military's structure and deployment of forces to fit the modern era.
However, he is an asshole and fails to be bipartisan enough to listen to differing opinions from his most senior commanders that are (Coy-GASP!) not "Yes" men.
It is time for him to go, everyone knows it and Bush's efforts to cling to him are at the least worrisome, and at worst, speaking volumes about who really runs this government.[/quote]



1 Billion % agree on all parts.

[TheBZ]

Like most aspects of American foreign policy right now...I consider Rumsfeld a symptom and not the problem.

Getting rid of him now would be a statement of sorts; but it does not change the fact that monied interests and corporate concerns have been directing foreign/war policy over the last 5 years.

I think it would be a grievous error on the part of the people to believe that removing the man, only to replace him with someone taking the same directions...Is going to make a difference in the moral and philosophical health of the military.

What needs to be judged at is the vectors of focus and propriety that are moving the military over the past few years...I do not believe that they are in the best interest of the American people; and removing Rumsfeld will not change that.

I think that as voters, your citizens have to come to grips with your military actions as an extention of your vote, and your authority in a democracy...And be far more judicious with the way that life and $$ are spent.

I believe that Rumsfeld is only a knight in this chess game...If that; and the fact that he is being sold out now by most party insiders seems to back up that assertion.

So who was/is really making this foreign and military policy, and why? Because these guys are not dummies...If the military was understaffed or underequipped with the invasion of Iraq, I am certain that it was a calculated gamble...If not a calculated loss. If the policy was flawed...It was by design.

Who is it that has been willing to sacrifice all of this political goodwill and military integrity, and to what end?

Those are the people who must be replaced...If indeed they can be replaced by anything less than a movement away from dollars, combustion engines, and a defensive navigation of the global political map.

BZ

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='TheBZ' post='378442' date='Nov 5 2006, 03:51 AM']Like most aspects of American foreign policy right now...I consider Rumsfeld a symptom and not the problem.

Getting rid of him now would be a statement of sorts; but it does not change the fact that monied interests and corporate concerns have been directing foreign/war policy over the last 5 years.

I think it would be a grievous error on the part of the people to believe that removing the man, only to replace him with someone taking the same directions...Is going to make a difference in the moral and philosophical health of the military.

What needs to be judged at is the vectors of focus and propriety that are moving the military over the past few years...[b]I do not believe that they are in the best interest of the American people[/b]; and removing Rumsfeld will not change that.

I think that as voters, your citizens have to come to grips with your military actions as an extention of your vote, and your authority in a democracy...And be far more judicious with the way that life and $$ are spent.

I believe that Rumsfeld is only a knight in this chess game...If that; and the fact that he is being sold out now by most party insiders seems to back up that assertion.

[b]So who was/is really making this foreign and military policy, and why? Because these guys are not dummies...If the military was understaffed or underequipped with the invasion of Iraq, I am certain that it was a calculated gamble...If not a calculated loss. If the policy was flawed...It was by design.[/b]

Who is it that has been willing to sacrifice all of this political goodwill and military integrity, and to what end?

Those are the people who must be replaced...If indeed they can be replaced by anything less than a movement away from dollars, combustion engines, and a defensive navigation of the global political map.

BZ[/quote]


Well deduced and well said, but don't count on the people. They had their chance - twice. If they can't even be counted on to have the integrity and awareness to make an appropriate statement, you can forget them ever moving to eradicate their real enemies from the halls of power.