[atari 2600]

The Army Times, The Navy Times, and The Air Force Times will all print the damning letter to the editor asking for Donald Rumsfeld to tender his resignation as Secretary of Defense.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110406Z.shtml

The papers are sold to American servicemen and women. They are published by the Military Times Media Group, which is a subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc.
It should be noted that Gannett, which owns USA Today and an array of many other media outlets including television stations, radio stations and newspapers, has actually often been identified as having a very Conservative-bent to their news journalism.

[atari 2600]

text of the letter

"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 US 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 US 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.

[static-harmony]

I've heard about this, I hope he resigns.

[atari 2600]

Bush has already issued a statement declaring that no amount of pressure is going to cause his administration to fire Donald Rumsfeld.

[static-harmony]

That is one of the dumbest moves he has done so far. Can't he see that he is a bad person to lead our army.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

Bush has already issued a statement declaring that no amount of pressure is going to cause his administration to fire Donald Rumsfeld.

which once again proves that imbeciles never change their minds

[ricechex]

I had heard it was Monday that would come out. But of course, somebody probably wants to minimize the impact/influence on the election. I don't see why not, b/c to hear what these generals have to say would help people guage the importance of it on their vote. That's fair game. Oh well.

[ricechex]

Army editor explains timing:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ar...g_of_1106.html

Now i don't understand why this story didn't get more coverage thus far, at least from what i have seen.

[krastian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

which once again proves that imbeciles never change their minds

Not to mention they are too arrogant to change their minds/admit fault.....what a bunch of fucking babies/spoiled brats. I try not to think about it all that much because it infuriates me. It's a shame that I can't ignore reality.

[Intellivision]

So, it's official, Donald Rumsfeld is fleeing the scene of his crimes to go live with Wesley Snipes in Namibia. Bon Voyage, Rummy!

[static-harmony]

I am so happy today that the Dems won and now this, this is just gold.

[jon boy]

yeah but who will replace him? another bush puppet in for his own gain?

[static-harmony]

Let's hope the Dems win the Senate, and they come out with someone who is in the middle.

[Intellivision]

It's being decided right here in my backyard.

Some of George Allen's smear-campaign commercials were ridiculous.

[tesla69]

sounds like he'll fit right in

from Marshall and Scott Cocaine Politics
Signs of any new thinking about drug issues in Congress are hard to find. The U.S. Senate confirmed the nomination of Robert Gates as CIA director by a vote of 64 to 31 on November 5, 1991, despite voluminous testimony suggesting that he lied as to his ignorance of key matters in the Iran-Contra affair and that he distorted the production of intelligence estimates to serve the political ends of his boss, former Reagan campaign director William Casey. In this respect, one critic testified that Gates pushed the administration line on "narcoterrorism," which blamed drug trafficking on leftwing states and insurgent movements (see Chapter 2). Accusing Gates of shopping for analysts to make that case, Mel Goodman testified that "a senior analyst was called in by Bob Gates and told that Bill Casey wanted a memo that would link drug dealers to international terrorists. This senior analyst looked at the evidence and couldn't make those conclusions. The evidence wasn't there. He was told to go back and look again. He did that. Said the evidence wasn't there. Gates took the project away from him and gave it to another analyst. I believe there is an ethical issue here." Gates admitted asking analysts to look into accusations of a linkage between traffickers and terrorists but said in his defense that three separate agency analyses concluded any such linkage was weak.