| |
Main
Date: 04 Nov 2006 01:43:25
From: multi
Subject: OT: Rumsfeld Must Go
|
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.
*********
Note: although I agree with the above, I didn't write it. It is from
the treasonous, disloyal, blame-America-first, military establishment.
It is the last part of an editorial which will appear Monday in all
four service papers: the Army Times, the Air Force Times, the Navy
Times, and the Marine Corps Times. Entire text here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/indexn/detail?blogid=16&entry_id=10582
|
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 09:18:18
From: Kenn Smith
Subject: Re: OT: Rumsfeld Must Go
|
A small correction. The four Times newsapers mentioned are not
affiliated with the Pentagon or the military, they are part of the
Gannett Newspaper syndicate. While they report extensively on items of
interest to the various services doing so often brings them in conflict
with service leaders. So, no, the editorial is not from the military
establishment, it is from a profit making newspaper chain.
I don't disagree with the editorial but implying that it originated from
within the military is inaccurate.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 09:23:45
From: multi
Subject: Re: OT: Rumsfeld Must Go
|
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 09:18:18 -0600, grizzledbear@webtv.net (Kenn Smith)
wrote:
>A small correction. The four Times newsapers mentioned are not
>affiliated with the Pentagon or the military, they are part of the
>Gannett Newspaper syndicate. While they report extensively on items of
>interest to the various services doing so often brings them in conflict
>with service leaders. So, no, the editorial is not from the military
>establishment, it is from a profit making newspaper chain.
>
>I don't disagree with the editorial but implying that it originated from
>within the military is inaccurate.
You are correct. I must have been thinking of the Stars and Stripes.
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 13:50:58
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Rumsfeld Must Go
|
The World Wide Wade wrote:
> In article <4hnok255i5hc5hjmpdbarvafvls18dhll9@4ax.com>,
> multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > *********
> > Note: although I agree with the above, I didn't write it. It is from
> > the treasonous, disloyal, blame-America-first, military establishment.
> > It is the last part of an editorial which will appear Monday in all
> > four service papers: the Army Times, the Air Force Times, the Navy
> > Times, and the Marine Corps Times. Entire text here:
> > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/indexn/detail?blogid=16&entry_id=10
> > 582
>
> I think the world would be safer if Rumsfeld stayed on. He's an
> utter disaster, and even most of the right wants him to go. If he
> stays, he continues to taint Bush and makes it harder for the
> neocon cabal to take us further into their nightmare vortex. Two
> more years of this 21st Century Schizoid regime - with all its
> repellent TV facial recognition - gives us a good chance at
> gridlock in the foreign policy arena, which as Martha would say
> is a good thing.
I think Rumsfeld will be gone by the end of the year. Either he'll quit
on his own, or Bush will tell him to quit and to say he was doing it on
his own.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 07:52:15
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: OT: Rumsfeld Must Go
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1162677058.279499.18400@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> I think Rumsfeld will be gone by the end of the year. Either he'll quit
> on his own, or Bush will tell him to quit and to say he was doing it on
> his own.
No hope of that, and rightly so. Rumsfeld can do no further harm at this
point, and frankly, the biggest injustice would be for him to find a way off
the hook. I would imagine his life must be nothing but pain right about
now. While I don't wish misery on even those who deserve it, someone must
suffer through the nightmare that being SoD has become. Is it nothing more
than simple justice that the one man remaining in the Admin most responsible
for making it a nightmare should be the one to stew in it awhile longer?
US military policy is a completely intractable puzzle at the moment. I
really don't think it matters who the SoD is at the moment. So long as the
Bush Administration's time has not run out, realistically there can be no
resolution. It will take a Nixon in the White House before any solution is
possible. That is to say, someone who can make the tough choices without
any prior culpability in getting us in the mess to begin with.
Whether it makes smart foreign policy or not, 'Cut and run' is unacceptably
unpalatable to the current Administration because it represents an admission
that their sunshine policies have led to a disaster. That may be the clear
truth, but they won't be acknowledging that truth any time soon. Rumsfeld
leaving office before the natural end of the Bush Admin represents the same
admission, therefore he will stay until Jan 2009 barring a fatal heart
attack.
He decorated the office. He should be the one to enjoy the ambience.
Scott
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 13:32:21
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: OT: Rumsfeld Must Go
|
In article <4hnok255i5hc5hjmpdbarvafvls18dhll9@4ax.com >,
multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
> 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.
>
> *********
> Note: although I agree with the above, I didn't write it. It is from
> the treasonous, disloyal, blame-America-first, military establishment.
> It is the last part of an editorial which will appear Monday in all
> four service papers: the Army Times, the Air Force Times, the Navy
> Times, and the Marine Corps Times. Entire text here:
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/indexn/detail?blogid=16&entry_id=10
> 582
I think the world would be safer if Rumsfeld stayed on. He's an
utter disaster, and even most of the right wants him to go. If he
stays, he continues to taint Bush and makes it harder for the
neocon cabal to take us further into their nightmare vortex. Two
more years of this 21st Century Schizoid regime - with all its
repellent TV facial recognition - gives us a good chance at
gridlock in the foreign policy arena, which as Martha would say
is a good thing.
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 07:40:33
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Rumsfeld Must Go
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1162677058.279499.18400@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > I think Rumsfeld will be gone by the end of the year. Either he'll quit
> > on his own, or Bush will tell him to quit and to say he was doing it on
> > his own.
>
> No hope of that, and rightly so. Rumsfeld can do no further harm at this
> point, and frankly, the biggest injustice would be for him to find a way off
> the hook. I would imagine his life must be nothing but pain right about
> now. While I don't wish misery on even those who deserve it, someone must
> suffer through the nightmare that being SoD has become. Is it nothing more
> than simple justice that the one man remaining in the Admin most responsible
> for making it a nightmare should be the one to stew in it awhile longer?
>
> US military policy is a completely intractable puzzle at the moment. I
> really don't think it matters who the SoD is at the moment. So long as the
> Bush Administration's time has not run out, realistically there can be no
> resolution. It will take a Nixon in the White House before any solution is
> possible. That is to say, someone who can make the tough choices without
> any prior culpability in getting us in the mess to begin with.
>
> Whether it makes smart foreign policy or not, 'Cut and run' is unacceptably
> unpalatable to the current Administration because it represents an admission
> that their sunshine policies have led to a disaster. That may be the clear
> truth, but they won't be acknowledging that truth any time soon. Rumsfeld
> leaving office before the natural end of the Bush Admin represents the same
> admission, therefore he will stay until Jan 2009 barring a fatal heart
> attack.
>
> He decorated the office. He should be the one to enjoy the ambience.
>
> Scott
You're looking at this through a moral lens, when it's more a political
issue. Rumsfeld has lost the respect of the military establishment,
within his department and in the services. It is impossible to manage a
bureaucracy under those circumstances. He knows this and he knows that
his continued presence is harmful to Bush.
I agree with your Nixon analogy. I just hope whoever takes ofc. in 2009
will make the tough choices and, unlike Nixon, the right ones.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 03:03:10
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: OT: Rumsfeld Must Go
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1162741233.532010.128060@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> You're looking at this through a moral lens, when it's more a political
> issue. Rumsfeld has lost the respect of the military establishment,
> within his department and in the services. It is impossible to manage a
> bureaucracy under those circumstances. He knows this and he knows that
> his continued presence is harmful to Bush.
My analysis isn't really a moral one (other than the just desserts element),
but precisely a political one. Unfortunately, politics will be the deciding
factor, and _because_ of that - not in spite of it - Rumsfeld will stay.
The moral decision would be to remove him from office, for all the reasons
you mentioned. That would be a smart move from the standpoint of what will
lead to the best overall results for the country, but a silly move if all
you care about is the well being of the GOP / Bush Administration.
Things will go badly for them in the next few years no matter what they do.
The only question is which path does the least damage to the party and the
Admin. Just my opinion, but from that standpoint I'd do exactly what they
happen to be doing (i.e. Rumsfeld for the duration with the full public
support of the President). The issues you have raised are a bit esoteric
for the majority of the population (which is where it counts politically).
There's no question that everything you wrote is 100% correct. There is a
question whether that matters outside of Cambridge, MA and similiar places.
Most importantly, does it matter on Main St.? Also just my opinion, but I
think the majority of people tune out such discussions if they happen to
accidently come across them in the first place.
The only thing that could change this IMO would be for a sudden tilt towards
catastrophic in Iraq or Afghanistan. At that point, Bush would probably not
have any credible choice but to fire Rumsfeld, since that would get Main
Street's undivided attention.
>
> I agree with your Nixon analogy. I just hope whoever takes ofc. in 2009
> will make the tough choices and, unlike Nixon, the right ones.
The problem remains as to what the right choice is. The opposition still
has a hell of a problem, just like Nixon in '68. It's easy to be against
what Bush & Co. did to get us in such a bad place. It's not easy to say
what should be done to get us out. We're about to find out who among the
Democratic elite are really masochists. If I were in a position to do so, I
wouldn't run for all the tea in China. What a nightmare ride that will
be...
Scott
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 11:54:57
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: OT: Rumsfeld Must Go
|
multi wrote:
> 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.
You know, there's a reason the terrorists are backing Democrats for
this year's election:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 16:02:22
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Rumsfeld Must Go
|
In article <1162756497.797174.115130@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote:
> multi wrote:
> > 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.
>
> You know, there's a reason the terrorists are backing Democrats for
> this year's election:
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747
In order to believe that, you have to believe than WND has any kind of
credibility. I certainly don't.
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 17:32:17
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: OT: Rumsfeld Must Go
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <1162756497.797174.115130@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> multi wrote:
>>> 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.
>> You know, there's a reason the terrorists are backing Democrats for
>> this year's election:
>>
>> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747
>
> In order to believe that, you have to believe than WND has any kind of
> credibility. I certainly don't.
I hope you don't rely upon CBS, CNN or the NYT for information of any kind.
|
|
