Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times calling for Donald Rumsfeld to be fired. Coast Guard Times still on the fence   (sfgate.com) divider line 296
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

9533 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Nov 2006 at 12:34 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



296 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-11-04 06:38:07 AM  
Like Rumsfeld conducting a smart war has anything to do with his political appointment... Everyone in the administration has a job to do, Rummy's, for instance, is ensuring hustles like the Pentagon premier vendor program continue to operate smoothly (estimated $220 Million dollars in misallocated defense spending on Pentagon supplies alone). Running a good government was never the point.
 
2006-11-04 06:42:41 AM  
ElRonHubbardsBalls:

What's sad is that it is people in denial like youself who is going to get these fine kids needlessly killed.


Denial is a two way river.

I'm pointing out the experience of my family, nothing more.
 
2006-11-04 06:45:54 AM  
Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times are as much military papers as the USA Today is a US govt paper. I was in the Corps for 8 years and dont remember ever seeing a Marine Corps Times after leaving Paris Island. Oh yeah, and Rummie should probably move on if only to get people to stfu.
 
2006-11-04 06:49:01 AM  
Semper Gumby: I'm not a man. ;)

D'OH! Rock on with your bad self Coastie Hottie.
 
2006-11-04 06:49:26 AM  
www.uncleweed.net

The High Times read the article and approves this message.
 
2006-11-04 06:50:11 AM  
tecnoir: Oh yeah, and Rummie should probably move on if only to get people to stfu.

As if there aren't plenty more reasons why he should move on.
 
2006-11-04 07:05:09 AM  
What's wrong with you people? We've gotta stay the course, fight 'em over there or over here, remember 9-11, until it's mission accomplished. You're either with us, or against us.
 
2006-11-04 07:16:11 AM  
In other news, the majority of the working peoples thinks their bosses should be fired for making them do things they don't want to do and my own children would like a new daddy because I make them take out the trash and won't let them eat candy after 9pm.
 
2006-11-04 07:25:01 AM  
thrgd456: In other news, the majority of the working peoples thinks their bosses should be fired for making them do things they don't want to do and my own children would like a new daddy because I make them take out the trash and won't let them eat candy after 9pm.

What a ridiculous analogy.
 
2006-11-04 07:30:02 AM  
NewportBarGuy: What a ridiculous analogy.

Not if you're an authoritarian.
 
2006-11-04 07:31:06 AM  
swahnhennessy: Not if you're an authoritarian.

I guess so. BTW, nice work in the football pool.
 
2006-11-04 07:58:25 AM  
So, does anyone else see this as an indication that our nation's top brass would be willing to stage a military coup if Bush decides to declare himself "Leader for Life" in 2008?
 
2006-11-04 08:25:07 AM  
to be honest all the army, navy, times are really really bad. and as far as I know the only time anyone in the service actually reads them is when the new pay charts come out. So I really wouldn't take it seriously.
 
2006-11-04 08:29:27 AM  
We all know that as long as he is a loyal lapdog, Bush won't fire Rummy. Now if Rummy were to man up and admit he is clueless, he'd be gone in a blink.
 
2006-11-04 08:32:15 AM  
Why would anybody believe a single word about the military as printed by the San Francisco Gate?

Funny little opinion piece full of innuendo....

Oh thats right, Libtards live on innuendo and subterfuge.

I'm going to laugh next Wednesday when the Republicans hold both houses of Congress.
 
2006-11-04 08:45:02 AM  
ElRonHubbardsBalls: Wow...everyone who isnt Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush's useless wife is a liberal commie now. That's gonna be a problem there guys.

Looking to see what they come up with...

JabbaTheButt: Why would anybody believe a single word about the military as printed by the San Francisco Gate?

Funny little opinion piece full of innuendo....

Oh thats right, Libtards live on innuendo and subterfuge.

I'm going to laugh next Wednesday when the Republicans hold both houses of Congress.


...and I'm hoping this is sarcasm. Although you've got Diebold on your side.
 
2006-11-04 08:56:24 AM  
Though I'm a little late, I'll say that I am currently in the military, and by law I'm required to say that I support the President and SECDEF.

WildBlueBonnet - I have to say that almost every criticism of the war I've seen either specifically exempts the troops from its critique, or specifically targets senior officials. I rarely see anything saying that the troops are doing a bad job, or that they're evil, unless they refer to specific troops for specific incidents.

To your nephews (?), pass to them what I tell my friends who go to deploy: keep your head down, be safe, and make it back in one piece. "Do what you gotta do."
 
2006-11-04 08:59:38 AM  
As the risk of making a rational argument while not defending or slamming Rumsfeld:

Would this be news if USA Today called for him to resign/be fired? It would get some press I'm sure but not a big deal. Well, USA Today's parent company (Gannett) owns all of the _____ Times. Actually it really looks like a USA Today designed specifically for military members.

http://www.gannett.com/map/propmap.htm
(look under other pubs)

Any time a military service is in the title of a publication people assume it is the mouthpiece for military leadership. There have been many times when an article published in a War College Review gets the "the military thinks this" treatment. Not saying that some people in the military don't think along whatever "controversial" topic is being published, just saying it's not like generals and admirals sit around and try to influence military policy by writing an editorial.
 
2006-11-04 09:03:00 AM  
This strikes me as disturbing. The one thing we never never, ever want the military to do is work against its civilian leadership.

It doesn't matter how stupid and incompetent that leadership might be. Getting rid of bad civilian leaders is the job of the voters, not the military.

The traditional approach for making military opinion heard by the voters is for retired generals to speak out. That's safe, as long as the generals don't "un-retire" afterwards.

More direct approaches amount to meddling in the political process by the military. That is not a good thing.

Especially since public approval rating of the military typically is over twice as high as that of Congress. People would listen, and act, and that would effectively put the military in control.
 
2006-11-04 09:07:56 AM  
Irregardless: Is there anyone in this thread that is in uniform and can comment on what this kind of article being sent to the troops on the front lines might mean to them or do to their morale?

Would it be worse than having an arrogant, incompetent imbecile as SecDef?
 
2006-11-04 09:08:30 AM  
2006-11-04 05:32:35 AM Wild Bluebonnet

I have three members of my family in Iraq and they're not very fond of Rumsfeld, but what really concerns them is the hatred their fellow Americans are showing them.

How does an Aunt of three soldiers answer that?


I love this country. I think our troops are the finest in the world. They are doing their best with a very bad situation. For that, they should be applauded and considered the heroes they are.

The people responsible for getting them there, with no plan of action, no plan for victory, they are the ones who should be punish and hated. That would be the republican leadership in congress and President Bush and his executive staff, the cabinet, and everyone who shied away from confrontation as to how wrong their "facts " were.

And that's what 99 percent of those who oppose the war feel. Stop lying about what others think and feel. Stop lying. Just stop it and be a Christian for once.

I think Bush and his advisers should be jailed for their actions and behavior during this period of national shame that has sullied the good name of America through the world.

But that's just me.

/Support our troops: Impeach bush, fire Rumsfeld
 
2006-11-04 09:11:51 AM  
SomeAmerican: This strikes me as disturbing. The one thing we never never, ever want the military to do is work against its civilian leadership.

It's only fair, I guess. The civilian leadership has been abusing the military for a while now.

And it's not like they rebelled, they just pointed out the obvious--that the generals don't like Rumsfeld. They never have. Not since he cancelled the NBC-resistant auto-loading Paladins, not since he came in to try and shake things up according to his view of the new military that we would need in the future, not since he sent a small force of inadequately armored troops and equipment into a battle zome for which he was not prepared and had no plan, not since he helped foster a system where truck-driving retards make over six figures for driving a truck when they face death daily for a fraction of that, etc.

Guess what--the military isn't as happy with the Bush admin. as most Bush fans would have you believe.
 
2006-11-04 09:14:55 AM  
Wild Bluebonnet: I have three members of my family in Iraq and they're not very fond of Rumsfeld, but what really concerns them is the hatred their fellow Americans are showing them.

How does an Aunt of three soldiers answer that?


Tell them to stop playing with the 'vietnam' setting on their time machine.

Or quit listening to Rush. The 'hatred' for the troops is a lie concocted by GOP mouthpieces to vilianize critics of the administraton.
 
2006-11-04 09:22:52 AM  
king_dead: I hate to be a wet blanket here, but didn't Rummy already offer his resignation to Bush twice already, only to be denied by Bush?

Cheney and Rumsfeld are the ones running the show--Just like they did once already with another weak president. Points if you can identify who that was.
 
2006-11-04 09:25:09 AM  
What the Hell do those people know? Terrorists Loving Cut and Run Pussies.
 
2006-11-04 09:38:17 AM  
"2006-11-04 09:22:52 AM Skleenar

king_dead: I hate to be a wet blanket here, but didn't Rummy already offer his resignation to Bush twice already, only to be denied by Bush?

Cheney and Rumsfeld are the ones running the show--Just like they did once already with another weak president. Points if you can identify who that was."

Nixon?
 
2006-11-04 09:39:54 AM  
The election results will still be the same.

webpages.charter.net
 
2006-11-04 09:45:51 AM  
 
2006-11-04 09:56:54 AM  
2006-11-04 09:25:09 AM Sunny Ray

What the Hell do those people know? Terrorists Loving Cut and Run Pussies.


The Army/Navy/Marine newspapers? Totally.
 
2006-11-04 09:58:04 AM  
These newspapers do seem to have a special arrangment with the DoD in terms of distribution, etc. Not sure if they are actually read by their target audience.

I also have a question for the freepers reading this thread: Why was nation-building bad during the 1990s and a sap to military morale, but it is just fine today?

Irregardless
The US is soft. I am part of the US so I have to say that I am soft as well.

The American public's and politic's tolerance for a war of choice is very low. (The latter typically feeds off the other.)

America was not under mortal danger even on 9/11. The wettest dream of the terrorists is to blow up a bomb of some sort in an American city.

So why is a Cold War level of fear and paranoia somehow justifiable? Maybe deep down inside, people know this.

Wild Bluebonnet
They just want to finish their job, so everything was not in vain.

It seems all the liberals seem to have military friends/relatives who "want us out" and all the conservatives have military friends/relatives who "want us to finish the job."

I pointed out to a guy who served early on that it seems like when you talk to two different vets, it seems like two different wars. He said it was fairly dependent on where you were stationed.

I freely admit my sample size is limited.
 
2006-11-04 09:59:14 AM  
shotglasss
Tell me once more about the amazing accomplishments of Donald Rumself as SecDef.

Your picture might make more sense if it had Harry Reid's picture in the inset.
 
2006-11-04 10:05:37 AM  
This is just further evidence of a vast organized conspiracy of intelligent, knowledgeable, competent people against the egotistical neocon chickenhawks who got us into Iraq. Clearly, people such as retired and active-duty military commanders, Iraq veterans, academics who specialize in the Middle East, and private citizens with common sense who follow the news are all left-wing subversives who should be rounded up and imprisoned for the duration of the war. We need to silence their reality-based propaganda so that our brave egotistical neocon chickenhawks can finish the job.
 
2006-11-04 10:13:26 AM  
FlippityFlap: Nixon?

Close.

Google the term "palace coup" and maybe throw a cheney into the search box for hints.
 
2006-11-04 10:18:05 AM  
Hate to burst all these Bush-hating bubbles, but none of those publications, nor the article, was written by someone in the military.

The Times are CIVILIAN publications that are not associated with or reviewed/written by any military authority.

I know that the Air Force Times, for example, writes articles quite frequently that clash with the official Air Force policy/line...it is not military dissent, just some non-DoD civilian writing on his own.

Don't let the title fool you, opinions in that rag do not come from military folks.
 
2006-11-04 10:19:28 AM  
I'll wait to see what the right-wing publication of High Times has to say.
 
2006-11-04 10:20:48 AM  
Semper Gumby -

"Puddle pirate" lol

/my Dad was Coast Guard during Korean War
//I'll have to run that one by him
///though he's 72 now; it may *whoosh* right over his head :|
 
2006-11-04 10:21:35 AM  
I fixed that for ya:
We'veYou've gotta stay the course, you've got fight 'em over there or over here, remember 9-11, because the president didn't say it's mission accomplished because only a 'libtard' would believe this shiat. You're either with us being chickenhawks here in the good old USA, or against us.
 
2006-11-04 10:21:44 AM  
Kimbas Hate to burst all these Bush-hating bubbles, but none of those publications, nor the article, was written by someone in the military.

The Times are CIVILIAN publications that are not associated with or reviewed/written by any military authority.

I know that the Air Force Times, for example, writes articles quite frequently that clash with the official Air Force policy/line...it is not military dissent, just some non-DoD civilian writing on his own.

Don't let the title fool you, opinions in that rag do not come from military folks.


Did you think this up by yourself or did you just cut-n-run err paste from the comments already posted?

/Welcome to the thread
//Try reading a bit of it
 
2006-11-04 10:41:54 AM  
Good God. What timing ! This is NOT the US military or members thereof who put out this paper, it's the left leaning, anti-union Gannett company, timing this to influence the election. Ohterwise, they'd run it Wednesday so as to appear more neutral.

The Saddam verdict and cr@p like this should wait til Wednesday.

btw, the NY Times came out and said that the Iraq papers that were translated are real, and those papers (a) tie Saddam to terrorism and (b) indicate he was actively seeking to build an A-bomb.

I don't know if invading Iraq was the 100% right thing to do, but it wasn't the 100% wrong thing to do either. Try having that discussion with a liberal and their eyes will bleed, however. Not a lot of room for discussion with people who meet in book clubs to discuss "What's the Matter with Kansas ?"; assigning a pathological state to your political enemnies is a sign of tinfoil hatdom.

We cannot - and even Bush realizes this IMO - invade Iran. It's a huge country with coordinated defenses, and a highly developed society, unlike Iraq. Anyone who believe Iran wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes is an idiot, they're sitting on enough natural gas to power the solar system.

We are seeing the continuation of the Cold War, which never really ended. Putin is killing reporters. China thru its proxies is killing people in Darfur. And now 6 Arab states want nuclear power. So, You Make The Call, does the western world take the UN approach and sit around hoping things work out, or do we take 'em out now and turn the desert into glass ? Neither option sounds appealing.

Liberals need to figure out what to do about nuclear ambitions in the Muslim world. Pelosi stated clearly several months ago that the Democratic Party has no official stance on Iraq, so obviously the Dems are no help. If the warlords get to Pervez Musharraf they'll have atomic weapons, and Pelosi would not have an answer.

The Republicans need an answer for the history books as to how the new, improved Afghanistan is something other than the world's supplier of opium.

The US shoulda toppled the Talaban, put a government in place, and left. The US shoulda toppled Saddam, split the country up, and just defended the oil operations and Baghdad itself.

/2 much coffee
 
2006-11-04 10:52:46 AM  
Wusses. As we all know, you have to go to war with the SECDEF you have, not the SECDEF you want.
 
2006-11-04 10:57:43 AM  
TheSwissNavy:
We cannot - and even Bush realizes this IMO - invade Iran. It's a huge country with coordinated defenses, and a highly developed society, unlike Iraq. Anyone who believe Iran wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes is an idiot, they're sitting on enough natural gas to power the solar system.

Liberals need to figure out what to do about nuclear ambitions in the Muslim world. Pelosi stated clearly several months ago that the Democratic Party has no official stance on Iraq, so obviously the Dems are no help. If the warlords get to Pervez Musharraf they'll have atomic weapons, and Pelosi would not have an answer.


Wait. The republican plan of wasting our money, troops, and diplomatic goodwill on a war against a country that wasn't a threat will help us against a country that is a threat... how? Please explain to me how the Republican plan is going to make us safer against Iran and N. Korea.
 
2006-11-04 11:00:51 AM  
What's their plan, they don't have a plan... when the military talks about getting rid of people... you gotta ask them... what's your plan?
 
2006-11-04 11:20:25 AM  
Where does the JFA Times stand on this?
 
2006-11-04 11:25:07 AM  
Smarshmallow - as soon as you explain the Democratic policy on Iraq ! Oh, wait, they don't have one....

Bush's plan, fwiw, was to stabilize Iraq and thus provide a check against Iran, sort of like renewing a bad neighborhood in the inner city. Instead the war is going as well as LA's effort against gangs, which is to say, it's not going well.

As a parallel, in Paris alone, disaffected Muslims burn 100 cars a night, on average, and constantly attack the police. A party with an unworkable answer (Republicans) has a better chance of dealing with that sort of thing than a party which proudly proclaims it has no answer.

The Democrats tried 1:1 talks with Kim in NK. Well, that went great, since he has some sort of a-bomb now. Mutual negotiations with the other Asian nations and the US are the way to go because if Japan doesn't care about NK, why should we ? NK is a client state of China, otherwise, China would wipe Kim off the map in a weekend.

Many liberals want the US to DO Something about Darfur and can't tolerate Bush's hesitance to use military force to stop the genocide. When did military force suddenly become the answer ?

/avoid this crap, vote Libertarian
 
2006-11-04 11:26:14 AM  
ElRonHubbardsBalls: I mean, you don't exactly see Pinky firing The Brain, do you?



I laughed. Thank you :D
 
2006-11-04 11:30:38 AM  
TheSwissNavy
There is a wall in front of us.

One guy decides to knock it down by banging his head against the wall. The other guy isn't so sure about what to do about it.

Who is the smarter guy?
 
2006-11-04 11:32:18 AM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2006-11-04 11:33:49 AM  
ElRonHubbardsBalls: So your being an American prevents you from looking at one of our leaders as the psyhopath that he so clearly is. That's some nice blinders you got there, buddy.

Bush is absolutely incapable of empathy to the point of being disordered.


See I don't buy it. I know he's callous, but I don't believe to the level of being a psychopathic personality. I do, however, believe that he is near criminally negligent as a president. He is, possibly, criminally negligent. That would depend on whether we could prove that he knew that prewar intel was wrong. If we could prove that, I'd approve charging him with treason.

It is, I know, hard to see empathy in this man. I can't prove that he has it, but will not write it off completely as I cannot view his state of mind.
 
2006-11-04 11:34:03 AM  
Those publications are run by 'rats, like all print media.
 
2006-11-04 11:50:45 AM  
TheSwissNavy:

btw, the NY Times came out and said that the Iraq papers that were translated are real, and those papers (a) tie Saddam to terrorism and (b) indicate he was actively seeking to build an A-bomb.

The NYTimes article covered no new ground: "But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb."

It's been well covered for 10 years that one of the results of the Persian Gulf War was the discovery that up to the time of the Gulf War (1991) Saddam had a WMD program and was suspected to have been as little as a year from developing a nuclear weapon - hence the WMD inspections of the 1990s.

What has caused the confusion to people was this poorly-worded paragraph from the NYTimes article: "Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away."

Better-worded, what they meant by the "as little as a year away" reference was again, at the time of the Persian Gulf War. A lot of conservative blogs jumped on this without remembering that the whole "year away" mantra had been covered for 10 or more years and was the impetus behind the whole WMD disarmament and inspection thing. PowerLine sheepishly admitted in a correction that the Times articles was poorly written and was referring to the time of the Persian Gulf War.

The impact of the NYTimes article was not the "sudden revelation" that Saddam had once had an active WMD program (again, as the article states early on, these documents date prior to 1991), but that the content of these documents provide a roadmap for others to follow.

Additionally, the NYTimes article didn't discuss any ties between Saddam and terrorists revealed in the papers, which is not to say that an Arabic-reading person might not find some sort of connection somewhere persuing through tens of thousands of documents. People get all worked up about even the most remote and miniscule ties that might have tenuously existed between Saddam and terrorists - without applying pragmatism to it. Governments do all sorts of dealings with a spectrum of contacts to advance their own ends. In the 1980s the Reagan administration had dealings in the whole Iran-Contra scheme of things. Why? Well, for pragmatic reasons that appeared to make sense at the time to those making the decisions. Saddam's ties to terrorists, even Ansar Al-Islam or his promise to reward suicide bombers against Israel, were always a lot weaker than what went on in Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the PLO, etc.

Yout concern about how "liberals" versus "conservatives" will handle or solve the Iraq problem is, unfortunately, a prevalent notion that's the result of rhetoric. "Conservatives" have been handling the problem already and not doing a bang-up job, probably because "conservative" has nothing to do with what's been done, nor would "liberal."

Apply any problem you can think of - whether it be as simple as changing a tire, debugging a computer program, finding one's way from point A to point B, or whatever. We do not solve problems by thinking in terms of "liberal" and "conservative" - that very thinking, or at least the rhetorical framing of that form of thinking, which primarily is coming from Republicans who always try to cast "liberal" in a bad light - obfuscates the simple, pragmatic, and, one would think "conservative" viewpoint that to solve any problem, one has to find one or more of the "right" ways to solve it.

People need to remember that Republican Presidents' solutions to military situations they considered to be quagmires or potential quagmires was for 40 years to resolve it through peace talks, troop withdrawals, and military restraint. Eisenhower recognized the stalemate in Korea and specifically and famously campaigned "I will go to Korea" and end the conflict. He didn't cut-and-run; although presumably modern hawks might accuse him of that. He found what he believed was the best pragmatic choice at the time - not a solution, since some problems are, unfortunately, not solvable by our own actions alone or even in the time when we would want them to be solved. Nixon similarly campaigned in both 1968 and 1972 specifically promising to end our participation in Vietnam, hopefully "with honor." And here's the funny thing about that: despite all the howling chicken-little "sky is falling" domino-theory predictions that abandoning Vietnam would most assuredly cause a wave of Communism that would sweep Southeast Asia, what did we really get? Because all those doom-and-gloom predictions - so similar to the ones we hear today (let alone our long-held "reverse-domino-theory" that we will institute freedom and democracy in Iraq and it will sweep through the Middle East, turning that region into an oasis of peace) - turned out to be, well, wrong.

Communist Vietnam invaded its neighbor Communist Cambodia and toppled Pol Pot. Last year President Bush welcomed the Vietnamese Prime Minister to the White House. And in two weeks Bush will be at the APEC conference in - Hanoi.

People need to take a chill pill about all this.
 
Displayed 50 of 296 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report