| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:00 pm Post subject: Army Times Calls for Rumsfeld's Resignation... |
 |
|
| Quote: |
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... |
http://armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:26 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| What? I suppose, implicitly, that means the U.S. is under a dictatorship that perpetrated 9/11 and other evil things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I saw this story yesterday. I've been wondering ever since what the relationship is between the Army Times and the military. What I'm getting at is how much (if any) the paper reflects the thinking of the military. I know even that is asking too much...there are bunches of opinions in the military...but I hope people understand what I mean. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| ...how much (if any) the paper reflects the thinking of the military. |
The combination of books like Cobra II, the "retired" flag officers who previously complained about Rumsfeld, the "leaked" story about H.W. Bush and, I believe, even Laura, allegedly suggesting "behind-the-scenes" that W. Bush replace Rumsfeld, and now this story from perhaps the Army's most important publication...
This is the rough equivalent of Pravda saying that maybe Stalin might have considered this agricultural program instead of that one during the Cold War period.
That is, given the U.S. pattern of civil-military relations, I'd say that the high command and its sympathizers have been engaging in the most direct -- and quite nuanced -- dialog they can get away with, with respect to telling NCA that Rumsfeld needs to go. And this for about a year now.
We will see what happens after the election, when it looks like things might change in the legislature. I still do not know how probable a replacement might be, though. W. Bush is loyal to Rumsfeld and a few others to a fault. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| W. Bush is loyal to Rumsfeld and a few others to a fault. |
Yes. And why???? I think this question is the one which BEGS. It isn't as simple as saying that Bush is loyal to his friends etc......There obviously IS a reason. I won't state my thinking, just would ask what others might think about what t/his reason might be. ???????
Anyways, if I had 5 minutes with Rumsfeld I'd sure as hell try to convince him to either retire to fly fish in Montana or offer to accompany him (and push) to a bridge over the Potomac.........He ain't no George Washington and certainly wouldn't make it.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| Quote: |
| W. Bush is loyal to Rumsfeld and a few others to a fault. |
Yes. And why? |
I strongly suspect he is loyal to his friends and there is not much more to it than that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meegook
Joined: 12 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bush can't let go of Rummy because they are in on 9/11 together. Rummy will only leave on his terms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Meegook wrote: |
| Bush can't let go of Rummy because they are in on 9/11 together. Rummy will only leave on his terms. |
So he is blackmailing W. Bush, is he? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meegook
Joined: 12 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| They're in 9/11 up to their necks together. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Meegook wrote: |
| They're in 9/11 up to their necks together. |
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| What? I suppose, implicitly, that means the U.S. is under a dictatorship that perpetrated 9/11 and other evil things. |
Actually, Nowhere Man, I suppose it does.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I've been wondering ever since what the relationship is between the Army Times and the military. What I'm getting at is how much (if any) the paper reflects the thinking of the military. I know even that is asking too much...there are bunches of opinions in the military...but I hope people understand what I mean.
|
According to Wikipedia, the Army Times is owned by the Gannett Company, the same people who put out USA Today. So no, it would not appear to have any formal connection to the US military. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I strongly suspect he is loyal to his friends and there is not much more to it than that.
|
That, and to force Rumsfeld out would be an admission that there had been mistakes. None of us like to admit to mistakes, but my impression is that it is even more true of him than the average.
Take a look at Adventurer's Neo Culpa thread. Vanity Fair is reporting a whole slew of neocons are openly calling the Bush administration incompetent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| ...would not appear to have any formal connection to the US military. |
This is true. There is no formal relationship, not like, say, Leatherneck or Military Affairs, or whatever it might be called today (I belive this VMI-sponsored journal changed its name in the 1990s).
But we do not need a CNN story to let us know that such a story could ring Rumsfeld's bell and elicit an immeditate response from the Pentagon's PR people and even W. Bush himself, right?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/04/rumsfeld.departure/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| it would not appear to have any formal connection to the US military. |
Formal or not, a publisher must have been chosen who would not be offensive. I would hazzard to bet this month's salary that whole issues go by without a Marxist article, for example.
What I'm really asking is this: Is the editorial really just the opinion of the editorial board, or are the generals trying to speak to the public? Only a handful of times in 200 years have generals taken a political position. Is this one of them--because the situation in Iraq is so dire that they (the generals) feel compelled to break tradition?
We have been extraordinarily well-served by our professional military staying out of politics. If this editorial is a message from the professionals, I think the public would (1) be stunned and (2) guaranteed to listen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Is the editorial really just the opinion of the editorial board, or are the generals trying to speak to the public? |
| Gopher wrote: |
| ...given the U.S. pattern of civil-military relations, I'd say that the high command and its sympathizers have been engaging in the most direct -- and quite nuanced -- dialog they can get away with, with respect to telling NCA that Rumsfeld needs to go. And this for about a year now. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
