From: "Mark" 

Oh please Rich, that editorial reads like a mish-mosh of leftist talking
points, complete with mandy-pandy references to long dead (well I don't
actually know if she's dead, but I think it a safe assumption) Pulitzer
prize winners (as if a Pulitzer is anything to write home about in the real
scheme of things).

I cannot believe anyone would give that editorial any more than a passing
glance, and if they gave it even that much notice it certainly would
influence them to stop that mind-set from ever gaining control over
anything.

Advantage: Reps 



"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:454c15fa{at}w3.nls.net...
> 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. 
>> > 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