Will they have to listen??
Posted on Sat, Nov. 04, 2006
Military-oriented media urge Bush to fire Rumsfeld
Associated Press
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Military Times Media Group, a Gannett subsidiary that publishes the Army Times and other military-oriented periodicals, said Friday that it was calling for President Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
A group editorial to be published Monday in four periodicals -- the Army Times, the Navy Times, the Marine Corps Times and the Air Force Times -- says active-duty military leaders are beginning to voice misgivings about the war's planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.
``Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large,'' the editorial says. ``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.''
The editorial concludes: ``Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go.''
Will they have to listen??
It was interesting to find out a couple of facts:
1) The Army Times is not a publication of the government in any way but rather is, as you say, a Gannet publication (as is the Sacremento Bee and USA Today among others). Plus it is targeted AT the military, not a publication FROM the military;
2) Hodierne has called for Rumsfeld's resignation before - in 2004 around the time of Abu Graib.
When you hear the Army Times is calling for the resignation of the Secretary of Defense it sounds momentous until you start to figure out the real (sordid?) facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------
From the 2004 call for his resignation:
The Military Times is a private group of newspapers devoted to reporting on military affairs with a target audience of military personnel and their families. The papers include the Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times, and Marine Corps Times.
Understandably, the papers have a consistently pro-military perspective.
Has The Today Show ever been interested in the Military Times' perspective before now? Of course not! Who wants to hear that our military and its civilian leaders are good, dedicated people? Certainly not the liberal lights at The Today Show.
But suddenly, this morning, there was a senior editor of the Military Times, Robert Hodierne, appearing on Today and being treated by Katie with almost as much solicitude as she would reserve for Hillary Clinton.
Why? Because the Military Times had written an article taking a shot at Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers. The article suggested they were responsible for the Abu Gharaib prison abuse and raised the possibility that they should resign. <snip>(Source)
Great oped piece from the Globe. Worthwhile reading.
In brief, Carroll asks the question, "will our country accept defeat?" in order to end the war in Iraq. History shows that in Vietnam even though public sentiment was against the war, the leaders werent able to accept defeat and pull the troops out. I hope we will learn the lessons from that war.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What it will take to end war
By James Carroll | November 6, 2006
THE WAR in Iraq has emerged as a key issue in tomorrow's election, but in what way can its course be influenced by voting results?
On the one hand, President Bush has just renewed allegiance to Donald Rumsfeld, the contractor of disaster, and to Dick Cheney, the architect. This suggests that, even after abandoning the rhetoric of "stay the course," Bush remains committed to the present folly. Two more years of Rumsfeld and Cheney in charge mean two more years of needless American casualties, jihadist recruitment, Middle East turmoil, and vast additions to the toll of Iraqi dead. If the elections maintain Republican majorities in Congress, the administration will feel no external pressure to change its Iraq policy. Absent that, Rumsfeld-Cheney will simply carry on.
On the other hand, Democrats could take the House, and perhaps even the Senate. What difference would that make to the war? Obviously, in one or both houses, the opposition could then convene hearings in which both the present conduct of the war and past failures and deceptions could be investigated. Congressional hearings can be a powerful forum. Until now, it has not served the Bush administration's purposes to have the American public well instructed on the complexities of Iraq, but intensive media focus on testimony by the war's witnesses, critics, and victims would change that.
We have been here before. Of all the acts of opposition to the war in Vietnam, none was more consequential than the hearings presided over by Senator William Fulbright -- a Democrat challenging a Democratic administration. The Fulbright hearings served as the nation's classroom, with a visceral uneasiness about the war evolving into informed opposition. The decisive election year was 1968, and, sure enough, voters cast their ballots for peace.
But if the past has ever offered instruction to the present, here is one lesson that must not be missed: The Vietnam War dragged on for nearly seven more years after that critical election. Why? Because public uneasiness with the course of the war was not enough. The only way out of the disaster was to accept defeat, and that America was loath to do. President Nixon came into office on the promise that he had a "secret plan" to end the war, but no sooner had he moved into the White House than he swore he would not be the first US president to lose a war. "Peace with honor" became the shibboleth. The killing continued, the air war came into its own, and more people died in Vietnam after 1968 than had died before. The American public's retreat from concern about the war was epitomized by Nixon's overwhelming reelection in 1972. How did that happen?
It is one thing to feel uneasy about your nation's war, or even to move to a position of outright opposition. It is another to face the harsh fact that the only way out of the war is to accept defeat. The goal of "peace with honor" assumes that the nation's honor has not already been squandered. During Vietnam, for all the widespread opposition to the war, the American public was never ready to face the full truth of what had been done in its name, and so the martial band played on. And on. The war ended not with a bang, but with a whimper, with the United States whining that somehow it had been the victim. Not incidental to the present disaster is the fact that the men dragging out that shameful last moment of Vietnam, when our nation's abject defeat was made plain for all the world to see, were Ford administration honchos Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.
Rumsfeld and Cheney are prepared to do it to their nation again. The question now is whether America will let them? The general uneasiness with the war in Iraq is mostly tied to how badly it has gone. Tactical and strategic planning have been bungled at every level, and the elusive enemy is yet to be understood in Washington. If the Democrats take power with the elections tomorrow, congressional hearings will have a lot of such questions to consider. But what about the moral question? For all of the anguish felt over the loss of American lives, can we acknowledge that there is something proper in the way that hubristic American power has been thwarted? Can we admit that the loss of honor will not come with how the war ends, because we lost our honor when we began it? This time, can we accept defeat?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My entire life I truly believed that the USA (American government specifically) always had the best intentions, and I was proud of that.Can we admit that the loss of honor will not come with how the war ends, because we lost our honor when we began it?
Oh the disagreements dh and I used to have over it.
Now I truly believe that BushCo don't have the best intentions and never did. It was all about the money and the power and at a certain point they were so sure of themselves that they didn't care who found out that they weren't exactly honest. It was all a means to an end.
I hate what they have done and how they have destroyed our honor.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My entire life I truly believed that the USA (American government specifically) always had the best intentions, and I was proud of that.Originally posted by Maureen in Italy:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Can we admit that the loss of honor will not come with how the war ends, because we lost our honor when we began it?
Oh the disagreements dh and I used to have over it.
Now I truly believe that BushCo don't have the best intentions and never did. It was all about the money and the power and at a certain point they were so sure of themselves that they didn't care who found out that they weren't exactly honest. It was all a means to an end.
I hate what they have done and how they have destroyed our honor.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is exactly how I feel. It also stymies me that some of the very things our current administration seems to condone would be considered 'terrorist' activities if it weren't the good ol' USA perpetrating it.
Me too.
Lori - Nothing sordid about it. As it says in your quote, they are publications that have a consistently pro-military stance.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not only that, but if they wrote things that the majority of the military opposed too much, wouldn't they likely lose a large percentage of their subscribers? Wouldn't that be silly?Originally posted by Jeeperrr:
Lori - Nothing sordid about it. As it says in your quote, they are publications that have a consistently pro-military stance.
Seems to me that they must know that their remarks will not meet with too much criticism or else they wouldn't take such a strong editorial POV.
We have been reading the Army Times for years, they have always been for the war in Iraq and antiRumsfeld. He has made bad choices, a lot of military members would agree and also disagree.
The Army Times is a huge publication for people in the Army and they usually have a lot of information. So even if they are not run by the Military, ask any military member, a lot of the information is valid.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks