He'll be gone soon.

[bobpbx]

What I find amazing (and typical) is that Bush would just shrug this off. This is the arrogant attitude I cannot stomach. For God's sake, they work for us, not the other way around.

Army Times: 'Time for Rumsfeld to go'

POSTED: 5:21 p.m. EST, November 4, 2006

(CNN) -- An editorial to be published in an independent military publication Monday calls for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to be replaced.

And the Pentagon is countering by saying the new "chorus of criticism" is "old news."

The editorial will appear Monday in the four weekly publications that serve the four main branches of the U.S. military, according to the senior managing editor for Army Times Publications, the papers' parent company.

It is owned by the Gannett Company, publisher of USA Today and many local U.S. newspapers.

The editorial was posted Saturday on the Web sites of the four publications: Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and the Marine Corps Times. (Read the editorial)

It reads: "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."

The timing of the editorial's publishing was not prompted by Tuesday's midterm elections, said Army Times' editor Robert Hodierne.

It was inspired by Bush statement this week that he wants Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney in their posts through the end of his term, the editor said. (Watch Bush say Rumsfeld is staying on the job -- 1:20 )

Swaying conservative voters "is not our aim," Hodierne told CNN on Friday.

"Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large," the editorial states. "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."

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the president was told about the editorial, and his reaction was to "shrug it off."

....I snipped the remainder........bob

 

[BEHR655]

Yeah, so?????

 

[pinelandpaddler]

Bob, I am hard-pressed to think of one example where Bush has taken heed to reality and changed his ways, can you? This administration simply has too much disdain for the truth to do something like that.

 

[bobpbx]

Bob, I am hard-pressed to think of one example where Bush has taken heed to reality and changed his ways, can you? This administration simply has too much disain for the truth to do something like that.

Not one time has he listened, unless its to go out and beat the war drums to his base, like he is doing now. In other words, Rove is the fiddler, Bush is the dancer.

 

[Ben Ruset]

It's just amazing, although I don't know who we can replace Rumsfeld with.

 

[BEHR655]

Bob, I am hard-pressed to think of one example where Bush has taken heed to reality and changed his ways, can you? This administration simply has too much disdain for the truth to do something like that.

Who's reality? I for one think Bush has a better grasp of it than most of our self centered population. We've grown soft. We're at our end. Our grandchildren will live in a world where the USA is a second rate country, no longer the world leader. You blame Bush. I blame the Dems and the soft Americans.

Steve

 

[bobpbx]

Who's reality? I for one think Bush has a better grasp of it than most of our self centered population. We've grown soft. We're at our end. Our grandchildren will live in a world where the USA is a second rate country, no longer the world leader. You blame Bush. I blame the Dems and the soft Americans.Steve

How so? Lets unpackage that.

 

[BEHR655]

How so? Lets unpackage that.

You will have to wait until this evening for a response.

Steve

 

[Ben Ruset]

This is why I hate the politics forum. It gets me too mad.

 

[bobpbx]

This is why I hate the politics forum. It gets me too mad.

Tis a challenge to stay cool, yes. But thats good training for all of us-forces us to think before we speak.

 

[pinelandpaddler]

Hey Steve,

Who's reality?

The reality - objective Truth (notice the capital "T').

For instance, the Bush administration, desiring to convince the American people that Iraq was an imminent threat to our nation, haphazardly put together a case for dismantling Hussein of the WMDs that our administration assured us no doubt existed, all the while ignoring conflicting intelligence in preference for tid-bits of weakly supported data (however "solid" they said it was) that confirmed their doom and gloom scenario. This is behaviour that is indicative of an agenda that sees Truth as a convenient aide at best and a nuisance at worst.

Now that these detestable politicians have subjected tens of thousands of our troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to a quagmire of death and destruction, they haven't even made it a point to offer our soldiers the best that is available: They leave them out there with inferior and scarce armor while ignoring time and time again the advice of our very own Generals. They have no plan to succeed in Iraq, and rather than changing their policy, they parrot tired mantras about staying the course. Rather than work towards a solution that would put our troops and the Iraqis in a better situation, they spend a billion dollars on a mid-term election campaign dedicated to calling Democrats military-hating pussies.

I for one think Bush has a better grasp of it than most of our self centered population.

That might be true, but that's not saying much at all, is it? The fact remains that the man and his unwaivering administration have proven to be incompetent and inflexible, no matter how much the truth would change them.

We've grown soft. We're at our end. Our grandchildren will live in a world where the USA is a second rate country, no longer the world leader.

Sadly, I think you might be right. We are an Imperial power on its last leg, and that, I believe, has a whole lot to do with our horrendous policy in the middle east.

You blame Bush.

Not entirely. His administration undoubtedly made this situation a whole lot worse, but the problem did not originate with them.

 

[Lorun]

Hey Steve,



The reality - objective Truth (notice the capital "T').

Ignore the fact that over 75% of the people supported the war when we entered it. The fact that British Intelligence agreed that Iraq had WMDs. Russia told us that Iraq was aiming for us but did not want to get involved.

Also ignore that the NY Times recent headline stated that The Bush admin posted docs on the Internet on how to build an atom bomb attained from Iraq. Scientist reviewing this agreed that this was a big mistake since the docs actually show how to make the bomb. Yes they had the tech and the plans in place and were about a year away from building it. The headline was meant to bash Bush but the details of the article prove Iraq was planning on building the bomb.


Also ignore that the majority of the Dem senators voted for the war. Same guys saying it was a mistake. That’s great leadership.


Don't mention the economy. Jobless rate lower than the natural rate of 5%. I went to the mall last night and could not find a parking space. These are hard times indeed.


What a failure. A democratic Iraq that just convicted a muslim ruler to death. An Iraq that in 1/3 of it they are rebuilding req centers and schools.

 

[BigRedEye]

Lorun, the article I read stated the plans were left over from before the Persian Gulf war of 1990.

 

[Lorun]

Lorun, the article I read stated the plans were left over from before the Persian Gulf war of 1990.

It does state that the plans were from 1990/91. I just read it again.

This was the part of the article that was pushed to the bottom "Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq 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."

So according to the Times, we invaded Iraq just in time to prevent Saddam from having a nuclear weapon?

 

[pinelandpaddler]

Lorun wrote:

Ignore the fact that over 75% of the people supported the war when we entered it.

I don't see that I've ignored this. People are suckers, aren't they?

The fact that British Intelligence agreed that Iraq had WMDs.

The Brits have been our main sidekick against Iraq since the beginning. Does it surprise you that they jumped to beat the war drums with us while offering shoddy intelligence?

Russia told us that Iraq was aiming for us but did not want to get involved.

There was a reason why The U.S. didn't use Russia's warning to present their case for going to war, and the reason is because there was no reason at all to believe it.

Also ignore that the NY Times recent headline stated that The Bush admin posted docs on the Internet on how to build an atom bomb attained from Iraq.

1. These documents were from before the first gulf war.

2. Score another stupidity point for this administration for posting instructions on the internet on how to build an A-bomb.

Also ignore that the majority of the Dem senators voted for the war. Same guys saying it was a mistake. That’s great leadership.

Again, I ignore no such thing. The key difference, however, between the GOP and the Dems is that the former persist in their mistakes and choose not to conform to reality. The GOP can wallow in their own shit all they want, but why drag two nations along?

Don't mention the economy. Jobless rate lower than the natural rate of 5%. I went to the mall last night and could not find a parking space. These are hard times indeed.

Now you're going off-subject, I'm afraid.

What a failure. A democratic Iraq that just convicted a muslim ruler to death. An Iraq that in 1/3 of it they are rebuilding req centers and schools.

Things are just dandy over there, aren't they? If your idea of success in Iraq entails the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of U.S troops, and if your idea of success in Iraq involves a perpetually-worsening state of chaos with no improvement, let alone end, in view, then indeed this war has been successful.

 

[Ben Ruset]

Yes they had the tech and the plans in place and were about a year away from building it. The headline was meant to bash Bush but the details of the article prove Iraq was planning on building the bomb.

They did not have the tech. Plans are one thing, but the actual capability to build one is another story.

You need a signifigant infrastructure in place to build an atomic bomb. So far we have had zero evidence that that infrastructure was in place. Additionally, they have no delivery mechanisim to a bomb. Very few countries have ICBM technology advanced enough to reach us.

Also ignore that the majority of the Dem senators voted for the war. Same guys saying it was a mistake. That’s great leadership.

Yeah, they were tricked with the lies spouted out by W and his cronies. Much like most Americans were at the time.

 

[kingofthepines]

We should not lose sight of the fact that many were sounding the WMD alarm in Iraq long before anyone ever heard of George W Bush.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Discuss...

 

[gagliarchives]

Everyone knew he moved his immature WMD's into Syria eight months before we went in. Shit even the Syrians acknowledge that. But I guess Saron gas isn't really a WMD.

I'll stick to my guns and never vote Democrat

 

[pinelandpaddler]

We should not lose sight of the fact that many were sounding the WMD alarm in Iraq long before anyone ever heard of George W Bush.

I guess this let's the Bush team off the hook, eh?

 

[gagliarchives]

I think it's hilarious that people will blame just the current president without reading the facts. Clinton said it 4 years before anyone that he had to comply. But, people only seem to have short term when it comes to interpreting the media and what it feeds them.

And keep in mind, Saddam broke the law on 14 different occasions before the weak UN actually agreed on a resolution.

cough cough League of Nations 1938 cough cough