From: "Rich Gauszka" 

Ah Yes - now that the Military Times opposes Bush in one area it is a
mish-mosh of leftist talking points - GMAB

It's called reality Mark

Will the Bush adherents  now ask for a paper burning at all military bases?

"Mark"  wrote in message
news:454c19dd$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> 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  Dem's jaws drop yet again "why can't the American public see what we see?
> Dayyammn, we blew it again">
>
>
>
> "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 < IMO sends a strong
message>
>>
>>
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