Army Times: "Time for Rumsfeld to go"

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Army Times: "Time for Rumsfeld to go"

Postby sunny » Sat Nov 04, 2006 12:27 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/indexn/detail?blogid=16&entry_id=10582">www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/bl...y_id=10582</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>An editorial scheduled to appear on Monday in Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times, calls for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.<br><br>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.<br><br>Here is the text of the editorial, an advance copy of which we received this afternoon.<br><br>----------------<br><br><br>Time for Rumsfeld to go<br><br>"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."<br><br>That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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."<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br><br>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.<br><br>Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.<br><br>And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.<br><br>Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.<br><br>This is a mistake.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.<br><br>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.<br><br>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:<br><br>Donald Rumsfeld must go.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Army Times: "Time for Rumsfeld to go"

Postby dbeach » Sat Nov 04, 2006 3:30 pm

this is large <br><br>"Stars and Stripes" paper would be larger ...<br><br> <br>but this may be a signal that Rummy the tamiflu stock holder must resign..<br><br>but the real villains remain on the campaign trail<br>assuring us that the "Long War on Terror" must continue<br><br><br>Rummy may be no longer useful to the fascist Bush agenda of Martial Law..as he becomes so unpopular with the Militar{fascists} who will be ordered to enforce it.<br><br>what is evident is how the top penatgon brass have become politicians during the Bush regime.. <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Army Times: "Time for Rumsfeld to go"

Postby sunny » Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:14 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/4/04233/2962">www.dailykos.com/story/20...04233/2962</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>A Coup D'Etat in America (?)<br>by Richard Carlucci <br><br>History will mark this as the moment sanity began to flow back into the halls of power.<br><br>To publish this kind of scathing critique in all four US Military Times magazines, on the eve of the most important election in modern American history, will go down as the boldest statement our military has ever made.<br><br>Make no mistake - this is as close to a coup as we have ever seen in this nation.<br><br><br>Richard Carlucci's diary :: :: <br>The military has seen enough, and it is obvious that they will not allow our @#%$-up of a President to take this country any further along the path toward destruction. In that editorial I see not just a repudiation of Rumsfeld, but of the entire war. The entire foreign policy.<br><br>Read between the lines, friends, and you'll see that our armed forces have drawn a line in the sane. A line between sanity and insanity. Between truth and lies. Between what duty requires and what loyalty to this country will not allow.<br><br>The war is OVER. Our military commanders are refusing to follow Bush over a cliff, and they have put their foot down in order to stop this train wreck.<br><br>Read their words closely - for we can all rest assured that each and every one was chosen very, VERY carefully.<br><br>The message is clear in this passage from their letter:<br><br><br>Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.<br><br>And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.<br><br><br><br>They're telling us that the Administration has lied to us the whole time about EVERYTHING. And the Generals will not tolerate it any longer. They will not remain silent while more of our nation's finest die for a lost cause - for a failed policy - for a doomed war effort.<br><br>The military has spoken. They have made their demand.<br><br>I would not want to be George W. Bush on a good day. And I certainly would not want to be him for the next four days. No doubt the White House is calling in back-up plumbing specialists, because the Administration is collectively shitting bricks as we speak. I would be, too, if I were them. <br><br>And yet I have confidence. This is the best news of the election cycle, as far as I'm concerned.<br><br>I am certain, my fellow Americans, that our generals agreed on a plan for what to do if Bush refuses their demand long before this editorial was written. It gives me comfort to know that someone with our best interests in mind is now in control.<br><br>I never thought I'd see the day - not in this country. God help us all if Bush refuses.<br><br>::::<br><br>I say this not because I want to be alarmist. Of course I am a bit, but these days you can't afford not to be. No, I say this because the content, nature, and timing of this letter are simply unprecedented. <br><br>I don't know what effect our generals intend, and I don't know what response they intend either. But I DO know that our generals, unlike our civilian leaders, don't launch into uncharted territory without a plan. <br><br>And they don't make demands like this..... well, EVER. So something is afoot. <br><br>The President has a choice. He either submits to the demands of his generals, and the coup will be official. Or, he refuses. What they intend to do about that I don't know, but you can bet it's something. And at the very least the political ramifications will be catastrophic. <br><br>If Bush refuses, it will set the stage, at a minimum, for impeachment. Perhaps this is what our generals intended. Methinks they may be signalling a willingness to attest to high crimes and misdemeanors, if not high treason, if the Democrats ask their opinion. <br><br>But whatever their intention is, we have a genuine crisis on our hands. And not just a political one. <br><br><br>Update [2006-11-4 2:29:52 by Richard Carlucci]:: Thanks to everyone who has re-assured me that I'm over-reacting. It's nice to be on the rec'd list, but it's even nicer to know that so many others think I'm probably off the mark on a subject as serious as this. <br><br>For the record, I never meant to imply a tanks-in-the-street Coup. That will probably never happen in America. But an editorial like this, coming out at this time, doesn't get printed simultaneously in these magazines unless some very important Generals want to send a clear message that the President's choice with respect to Rumsfeld is not in their interests. This, I believe, is as close as it gets to a coup d'etat in America. And frankly, I wouldn't want to get any closer. <br><br>I'm just glad that the people who have our best interests in mind are finally willing to call the shots on Iraq, even if it means usurping their Commander in Chief. That's what I really see going on here. <br><br>edited to add this comment from the diary:<br><br> Timing is not insane if the military were told (17+ / 0-) <br>to undertake a pre-emptive attack against Iran before the elections - and have refused.<br><br>That might explain timing. If Rummy turned up to a meeting of the joint chiefs of staff with another half-assed plan under his arm, rolled it out on the table and said "Go do this..."<br><br>And they looked at him and said "No....."<br><br>That might have brought everything to a head.<br><br>Damn those librul genruls....<br><br>The road to truth is long, and lined the entire way with annoying bastards. <br><br>by Last Best Chance on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 03:00:06 AM PST<br><br><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sunny@rigorousintuition>sunny</A> at: 11/4/06 5:18 pm<br></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Army Times: "Time for Rumsfeld to go"

Postby sunny » Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:28 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://billmon.org/archives/002925.html">billmon.org/archives/002925.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Long ago, I worked for the company that owns the military Times publications, although my own paper was aimed at the civilian side of the government (we called our small corner of the newsroom "the demilitarized zone."<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> Maybe things have changed in 20 years but I can assure you that back then the Times papers were even more mindlessly pro-military than the Pentagon itself (which is kind of like being more Catholic than the pope, but with superior firepower). If they're taking aim at the SecDef -- and timing their battery fire for maximum political effect -- it's reasonable to believe that the generals have reached a point that in many countries would be followed in short order by a military coup.<br><br>They are, in other words, right @#%$ pissed at Shrub for giving Rummy the presidential promise of another two years on the job.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>~snip~<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>That Rumsfeld needs to go is self-evident to everyone but Dick, Shrub and Don himself. Based on this Vanity Fair article, I'd say it's the one thing both the neocons (who have their own sins to atone for) and the generals can agree on. But trying to make Rummy the sole scapegoat for America's failure in Iraq is as big a lie as Shrub's insistence that the SecDef has done, and is still doing, a great job. It looks to me like the Times papers are simply pandering to their special constituency (something that was also their editorial bread and butter when I was there.) <br><br>The Dems may applaud now, but if I were them, I'd be extremely wary of the precedent. As a group, the joint chiefs are developing a taste for bureaucratic blood -- they're trying to destroy Rumsfeld just as they destroyed Les Aspin and emasculated Wesley Clark. Only now they're doing it openly (or at least semi-openly) and in the middle of an election campaign.<br><br>That's usually not a good sign for a republican government -- and I'm not talking about the political party.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br>Posted by billmon at November 4, 2006 12:27 AM <br> <p></p><i></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

87% voted in favor of ousting Scumsfeld

Postby The Omega Man » Sat Nov 04, 2006 9:18 pm

On an MSNBC Live Vote 87% of 63,377 responses want him gone. Check it out here: <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://<!--EZCODE">MSNBC Live Vote</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
The Omega Man
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:14 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Army Times: "Time for Rumsfeld to go"

Postby dbeach » Sat Nov 04, 2006 9:23 pm

before we get out the party hats..<br><br>lets think about the events of 2000 and the aftermath where Bush won with the SC intervention..the Military kicked back and alloweed the criminals to have their way ..<br>ever since there have been numerous opportunities for this fattest of fat cats pentagon to stand up for the Citizens yet remained totally into the coup and the facade of bush as president..Until Poppy O Bush is arrested for his numerous crimes including the murder of JFK and 9/11 then I will pass on the party mood..<br><br>I am pleased by this but in no way encouraged that the bush mean machine will ever see Justice <br> MCA and the warner amendment are about the worst laws in history <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Army Times: "Time for Rumsfeld to go"

Postby rain » Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:06 pm

Neo Culpa<br>As Iraq slips further into chaos, the war's neoconservative boosters have turned sharply on the Bush administration, charging that their grand designs have been undermined by White House incompetence. In a series of exclusive interviews, Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, David Frum, and others play the blame game with shocking frankness. Target No. 1: the president himself.<br>by David Rose VF.COM November 3, 2006 <br><br>I remember sitting with Richard Perle in his suite at London's Grosvenor House hotel and receiving a private lecture on the importance of securing victory in Iraq. "Iraq is a very good candidate for democratic reform," he said. "It won't be Westminster overnight, but the great democracies of the world didn't achieve the full, rich structure of democratic governance overnight. The Iraqis have a decent chance of succeeding." Perle seemed to exude the scent of liberation, as well as a whiff of gunpowder. It was February 2003, and Operation Iraqi Freedom, the culmination of his long campaign on behalf of regime change in Iraq, was less than a month away. <br><br>Three years later, Perle and I meet again at his home outside Washington, D.C. It is October, the worst month for U.S. casualties in Iraq in almost two years, and Republicans are bracing for losses in the upcoming midterm elections. As he looks into my eyes, speaking slowly and with obvious deliberation, Perle is unrecognizable as the confident hawk who, as chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, had invited the exiled Iraqi dissident Ahmad Chalabi to its first meeting after 9/11. "The levels of brutality that we've seen are truly horrifying, and I have to say, I underestimated the depravity," Perle says now, adding that total defeat—an American withdrawal that leaves Iraq as an anarchic "failed state"—is not yet inevitable but is becoming more likely. "And then," says Perle, "you'll get all the mayhem that the world is capable of creating."<br><br>According to Perle, who left the Defense Policy Board in 2004, this unfolding catastrophe has a central cause: devastating dysfunction within the administration of President George W. Bush. Perle says, "The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly.… At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible.… I don't think he realized the extent of the opposition within his own administration, and the disloyalty."<br><br> George W. Bush. Photograph by Annie Leibovitz.<br>Perle goes so far as to say that, if he had his time over, he would not have advocated an invasion of Iraq: "I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.' … I don't say that because I no longer believe that Saddam had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, or that he was not in contact with terrorists. I believe those two premises were both correct. Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have."<br><br>Having spoken with Perle, I wonder: What do the rest of the pro-war neoconservatives think? If the much caricatured "Prince of Darkness" is now plagued with doubt, how do his comrades-in-arms feel? I am particularly interested in finding out because I interviewed many neocons before the invasion and, like many people, found much to admire in their vision of spreading democracy in the Middle East. <br><br>I expect to encounter disappointment. What I find instead is despair, and fury at the incompetence of the Bush administration the neoconservatives once saw as their brightest hope.<br><br>To David Frum, the former White House speechwriter who co-wrote Bush's 2002 State of the Union address that accused Iraq of being part of an "axis of evil," it now looks as if defeat may be inescapable, because "the insurgency has proven it can kill anyone who cooperates, and the United States and its friends have failed to prove that it can protect them." This situation, he says, must ultimately be blamed on "failure at the center"—starting with President Bush. <br><br>pg.1 of 3....<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612">www.vanityfair.com/politi...cons200612</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.vanityfair.com/images/politics/2006/12/poar11_neocons0612.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>again, the forehead.<br><br>eh, got to include this one. it's so iconic.<br><br>http://www.vanityfair.com/images/politics/2006/12/poar10_neocons0612.jpg<br> <p></p><i></i>
rain
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 12:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Army Times: "Time for Rumsfeld to go"

Postby rain » Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:09 pm

eh, try again.<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.vanityfair.com/images/politics/2006/12/poar10_neocons0612.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rain@rigorousintuition>rain</A> at: 11/4/06 7:12 pm<br></i>
rain
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 12:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Richard Perle's quote

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:52 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>the great democracies of the world didn't achieve the full, rich structure of democratic governance overnight. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>:lol<br><br>Oh, if only that were really funny.<br>Yup, "democracy" has been berry berry good to him. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: putch vs Rummy--another blow: leak re 1999 war game

Postby pepsified thinker » Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:13 am

I just started another thread about it, but maybe it should be down here, added to this; seems like the sudden surfacing of info re a 1999 war game that <br><br>a) showed a need for at least 400,000 'boots on the ground' (my choice to use that phrase, but still...) and that <br><br>b) even then, Iraq would probably fall apart, <br><br>is going to hurt Rumsfeld in particular. <br><br>As I say in that other post--probably lots of people knew about that game, but seems like the kind of thing military would remember--especially if they later wanted more guys for the job and Rummy said 'no'. <p></p><i></i>
pepsified thinker
 
Posts: 1025
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

4 Major Mil Papers sayin it

Postby 4911 » Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:19 am

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/041106Rumsfeld.htm">www.prisonplanet.com/arti...msfeld.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END-->         <br><br><br><br><br>4 Leading Military Papers: 'Rumsfeld Must Go'<br><br>Editor & Publisher<br>Saturday, November 4, 2006<br><br>NEW YORK An editorial set to appear on Monday -- election eve -- in the four leading newspapers for the military calls for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.<br><br>The papers are the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times. They are published by the Military Times Media Group, a subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc. President Bush said this week that he wanted Rumsfeld to serve out the next two years.<br><br>"We say that Rumsfeld must be replaced,” Alex Neill, the managing editor of the Army Times, told The Virginian-Pilot Friday night. “Given the state of affairs with Iraq and the military right now, we think it’s a good time for new leadership there.”<br><br>The editorial was based on a decision of the publications’ editorial board, Neill told the paper.<br><br>The timing of the editorial was coincidental, Neill said.<br>But he added, "President Bush came out and said that Donald Rumsfeld is in for the duration … so it’s just a timely issue for us. And our position is that it is not the best course for the military” for Rumsfeld to remain the Pentagon chief.<br><br>Neill said he was uncertain how troops will react. “I think we’ll hear from both sides,” he said. “It will be interesting to find out if it swings significantly one way or the other."<br><br>The Ross Report at the Web site of the San Francisco Chronicle posted the advance text of the editorial tonight, and this was cited by MSNBC. Andrew S. Ross is executive foreign and national editor of the paper. Here is the text, as posted, under the heading, "Time for Rumsfeld to go."<br>*<br><br>"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."<br><br>That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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."<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.<br><br>And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.<br><br>Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.<br><br>This is a mistake.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.<br><br>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.<br><br>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:<br><br>Donald Rumsfeld must go. <p></p><i></i>
4911
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:34 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 4 Major Mil Papers sayin it

Postby Dreams End » Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:59 am

Right on cue... <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: 4 Major Mil Papers sayin it

Postby erosoplier » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:01 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Right on cue...<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>So we seem to be looking at an attempt at a very soft counter-coup. An attempt to excise a crucial pivot which says "...and onwards to Iran!!"<br><br>Do these appear to be "dark forces" at work to you DE? <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
erosoplier
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 4 Major Mil Papers sayin it

Postby AlicetheCurious » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:16 am

The military had its own role in the criminal conspiracy to invade and occupy Iraq, but having a chimp as the Commander-in-Chief and a bloodsucker as the Secretary of Defence, certainly constitutes a mitigating factor.<br><br>What really turns my stomach is those damn Neocon rats swimming away from the sinking Bush ship, but not before sh*tting on it one last time.<br><br>My own understanding is not that they are shocked -- shocked! -- at the "vicious sectarianism" of the Iraqi people, nor at the level of violence, nor at the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars spent to drag a very rich country, not to its knees, but to its belly, with its face in the (radioactive) dust.<br><br>They're 'disgusted' because, as I understand it, the main objectives of the invasion were: <br><br>1) to turn Iraq into a big ally of Israel by having the new "democratically-elected" Iraqi puppet government sign a peace treaty with Israel; even their stooge, Ahmed Chalabi, was not able to deliver, and the collapse of Iraq since the invasion has made a peace treaty with Israel impossible;<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Sources at the State Department said that concluding a peace treaty with Israel is to be <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>'top of the agenda' for a new Iraqi government</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, and Chalabi is known to have discussed Iraq's recognition of the state of Israel.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,940250,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/S...50,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>2) to immediately build an oil and gas pipeline between Kirkuk and Haifa, <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.astandforjustice.org/israqoil.htm" target="top">pumping Iraqi oil to Israel</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->;<br><br>3) to "secure access" to Iraqi water by Israel;<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Closely tied to the disputes surrounding Iraq and Syria's water supply is the proximity to Israel. Syria faces water difficulties on its southwestern border as well in the water-rich area of the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since 1967. The Golan Heights has important water resources that, according to Professor Emeritus Dan Zaslavsky at Bar-Ilan University, if handed back over to Syria would mean that Israel loses nearly one-third of its fresh water.<br><br>On May 7, 2003 Secretary of State Colin Powell met with Bouthaina Shabaan of Syria to reaffirm the United States' commitment to returning the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since 1967, as a key step in the peace process between Syria and Israel.<br><br>Should the U.S. broker a peace plan that guaranteed the Golan to Syria, Israel would have to find a replacement source for its lost resources. Stephen Pelletiere, a former CIA analyst, wrote in the New York Times that Turkey had envisioned building a Peace Pipeline carrying water that would extend to the southern Gulf States, and as he sees it, "by extension to Israel." He continued by saying that "no progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->."<br><br>http://www.counterpunch.org/wells05162003.html<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>all of which have failed miserably.<br><br>The fourth objective, to divide Iraq along ethnic/religious lines, into three mutually hostile mini-states, is the only one that appears to have a chance of "success".<br><br>I suspect that these Israeli moles (rats) are going to give their Democratic stooges a chance to do the job that the Republicans proved too "incompetent" to finish. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=alicethecurious>AlicetheCurious</A> at: 11/6/06 5:00 am<br></i>
AlicetheCurious
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:45 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 4 Major Mil Papers sayin it

Postby Dreams End » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:30 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>So we seem to be looking at an attempt at a very soft counter-coup. An attempt to excise a crucial pivot which says "...and onwards to Iran!!"<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Who runs Abu Ghraib? <br><br>I'll give you a hint...it isn't Rumsfeld.<br><br>However, I suppose a "soft counter coup" or "palace coup" as I probably sould have termed it is better than the alternative...and wouldn't you know that Carlucci hints about that alternative pretty strongly, doesn't he?<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>I am certain, my fellow Americans, that our generals agreed on a plan for what to do if Bush refuses their demand long before this editorial was written. It gives me comfort to know that someone with our best interests in mind is now in control.<br><br>I never thought I'd see the day - not in this country. God help us all if Bush refuses.<br><br>::::<br><br>I say this not because I want to be alarmist. Of course I am a bit, but these days you can't afford not to be. No, I say this because the content, nature, and timing of this letter are simply unprecedented.<br><br>I don't know what effect our generals intend, and I don't know what response they intend either. But I DO know that our generals, unlike our civilian leaders, don't launch into uncharted territory without a plan.<br><br>And they don't make demands like this..... well, EVER. So something is afoot. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>In the actual piece, he makes sure to say he doesn't mean a "tanks in the street" coup.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>For the record, I never meant to imply a tanks-in-the-street Coup. That will probably never happen in America. But an editorial like this, coming out at this time, doesn't get printed simultaneously in these magazines unless some very important Generals want to send a clear message that the President's choice with respect to Rumsfeld is not in their interests. This, I believe, is as close as it gets to a coup d'etat in America. And frankly, I wouldn't want to get any closer.<br><br>I'm just glad that the people who have our best interests in mind are finally willing to call the shots on Iraq, even if it means usurping their Commander in Chief. That's what I really see going on here.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>But sunny also posted the concerns that I've had for quite some time...is this now our "hope"? Rather than people taking to the streets we hope that "enlightened" military generals, who Carlucci keeps saying have our "best interests in mind" will, through public pressure, private threat or worse, start playing a role in elections? Is that the precedent you all want....candidates for office needing to be vetted by the generals? <br><br>One more day and then all this I can just chalk up to my paranoid fantasies..... <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 


Return to Politics and Stolen Elections

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest