From: "Rich Gauszka" 

It's not a liberal/conservative/Dem/Rep thing with the military and
Rumsfeld. They think he's  incompetent and what better time to send the
message

Here's the entire Military Times editorial 

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/foreigndesk/detail?blogid=16&entry_id=10582

ime 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.

"Mark"  wrote in message
news:454c0dee$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> So you're saying that the Gannett News Service (yes, I know it's a fond
> mischaracterization of the left to intimate that the Military Times Media
> Group as if they're published by the military) is carrying water for the
> Dems on the eve of the election -- color me completely unsurprised.
>
> I think the "Halp US Jon Carry" banner will save this election for the
> Reps, time will tell, but that's a more powerful message than anything old
> media can conjure up from their biased crock-pot of ineptitude.   prefer to think of it as a positive win thanks to the troop's banner, but
> I have no doubt that the Dems will take a negative view and blame
"Carry"
> for the loss -- c'est la vie... and hasta la vista at that, JFK>
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:454c0926$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> The voice of the military community appears to be pissed at Rummy
>>
>> http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/648
>> Military Times Media Group Calls for Rumsfeld Resignation
>> Submitted by Julie on Fri, 2006-11-03 20:13.
>> According to MSNBC, an editorial to be published on Monday in the
>> Military Times is said to call for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld.
>> The voice of military community saying Rumsfeld must go is huge, and may
>> swing Conservative votes.
>>
>> The article is reported to say that Rumsfeld should resign or be fired
>> regardless of who wins the majority after the elections on Tuesday.
>>
>> The Military Times provides publications for the 4 main branches of the
>> military - The Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Times, and the Marine Corp.
>> Times, which is the favored reading of troops overseas, on military
>> bases, and the military families who traditional vote conservatively.
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5