"Rumsfeld Must Go" - Army Times editorial

[kallend 2,034]

www.armytimes.com/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

That liberal rag obviously doesn't know what it is talking about.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

That liberal rag obviously doesn't know what it is talking about.

Funny you should say that, since the military "Times" papers are a product of the Gannett group...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

So?

Do you think U.S. foreign policy should follow the daily whims of people who write editorials?

[rehmwa 2]

Only when those editorials agree with me.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Do you think U.S. foreign policy should follow the daily whims of people who write editorials?

No I think you need to Stay the Course.

[shropshire 0]

So, not the editorials... just the Headlines then

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[JohnRich 4]

Statement from the Department of Defense

Department of Defense spokesman Bryan Whitman

The Department has always attempted to clearly and accurately describe the challenges our forces face in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Secretary above all has always been very measured in describing the progress U.S forces are making in what will undoubtedly be a long struggle in the War on Terror. I would challenge those who say the Secretary has ever painted a “rosy picture” to provide those quotes as well as the full context of those remarks.

The new “chorus of criticism” noted by the editorials is actually old news and does not include commanders in the field, who remain committed to the mission.

The assertion, without evidence, that senior military officers are “toeing the line” is an insult to their judgement and integrity.

Iraqi security forces are making slow but measurable progress. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have made themselves and their families targets and put their lives at risk for their new country. They are increasingly taking the lead in operations. The disparagement of these forces is completely unfounded.

As long as the enemy is determined to thwart a free and democratic Iraq the stability throughout the country will fluctuate. However, the security situation is not monolith across the country and many parts of Iraq enjoy a peaceful existence.

This country and the leadership of the Defense Department are going to ensure that our military forces have the resources to successfully carry out their mission and to suggest otherwise is simply wrong.

Source: http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333775.php

[kallend 2,034]

Quote

Statement from the Department of Defense

So who is the top guy at the DoD? Could it be..... Rumsfeld?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So who is the top guy at the DoD? Could it be..... Rumsfeld?

So? Is he not allowed to have a statement issued in his defense to counter the editorial?

[racer42 0]

Quote

So?

Do you think U.S. foreign policy should follow the daily whims of people who write editorials?

I think US foreign policy should follow the will of the US people and starting tommorrow it just might( a little ).

L.A.S.T. #24
Co-Founder Biscuit Brothers Freefly Team
Electric Toaster #3
Co-Founder Team Non Sequitor
Co-Founder Team Happy Sock

[billvon 3,009]

>Is he not allowed to have a statement issued in his defense to counter the editorial?

He absolutely is! However, you often seem to question whether someone else's article is unbiased, has an agenda etc. And someone who is defending himself is about as biased a source you will find.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

So who is the top guy at the DoD? Could it be..... Rumsfeld?

So? Is he not allowed to have a statement issued in his defense to counter the editorial?

Of course he is. It's the substance of that statement that has so many Americans wondering just what the hell "alternate reality" Rummy's talking about:

Quote

The new “chorus of criticism” noted by the editorials is actually old news and does not include commanders in the field, who remain committed to the mission.

The assertion, without evidence, that senior military officers are “toeing the line” is an insult to their judgement and integrity.

Presumably, the Military Times does its reporting of sensitive subjects the same way other news media do: by talking to people "not-for-attribution". It's no secret that active-duty military officers are generally reticent to criticize top command in public.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

So?

Do you think U.S. foreign policy should follow the daily whims of people who write editorials?

I think US foreign policy should follow the will of the US people and starting tommorrow it just might( a little ).

Don't hold your breath. The President controls the military; and although the Congress controls the pursestrings, that's become a weak club to wield, given the commitment that's already been made.

[kallend 2,034]

Quote

Quote

So who is the top guy at the DoD? Could it be..... Rumsfeld?

So? Is he not allowed to have a statement issued in his defense to counter the editorial?

Oh haha. Next you'll be claiming it's independent judgment.

Iraq is a fiasco, and Rumsfeld is the highest ranking responsible party that can be fired. He should go.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

So? Is he not allowed to have a statement issued in his defense to counter the editorial?

Oh haha. Next you'll be claiming it's independent judgment.

Iraq is a fiasco, and Rumsfeld is the highest ranking responsible party that can be fired. He should go.

So if I've got your position correct, it is:

1) Anyone who writes an editorial criticizing Rumsfield is absolutely correct, and;
2) Anyone who defends Rumsfield is lying and deceitful.

So much for an open mind.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

So if I've got your position correct, it is:

1) Anyone who writes an editorial criticizing Rumsfield is absolutely correct, and;
2) Anyone who defends Rumsfield is lying and deceitful.

No, he was saying that a DoD statement defending their own boss should be considered biased.

Common sense and not overly difficult to grasp.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

No, he was saying that a DoD statement defending their own boss should be considered biased.

Common sense and not overly difficult to grasp.

It's not overly difficult to notice that you ignored the other half of the equation.

How do you know the writer of the editorial isn't also biased? Do you automatically presume without question that his assessment is correct? Why did you not address that part of the bias equation? What makes you think the official rebuttal is going to be more biased and untrustworthy than the original editorial?

P.S. Please spare me your fucking insults.

[pleasebequiet 0]

Quote

Quote

So?

Do you think U.S. foreign policy should follow the daily whims of people who write editorials?

I think US foreign policy should follow the will of the US people and starting tommorrow it just might( a little ).

absolutely not... the vast majority of americans have not the slightest idea of what our foreign policy should be and some who do have an idea really can't grasp the global ramifications.

Liberalism today translates into a whimpering isolationism in foreign policy,a mulish obstructionism in domestic policy, and a pusillanimous pussyfooting on the critical issue of law and order.
Spiro

[billvon 3,009]

>How do you know the writer of the editorial isn't also biased?

You don't. All you know for sure is that the response from Rumsfeld's organization is going to say what Rumsfeld wants it to.

>What makes you think the official rebuttal is going to be more
>biased and untrustworthy than the original editorial?

There are several possibilities. One possibility you can eliminate is that the DOD reply is unbiased with respect to Rumsfeld. It would be like claiming a press release from the North Korean government shows no bias towards Kim Jong-Il.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

The new “chorus of criticism” noted by the editorials is actually old news and does not include commanders in the field

I'm rather convinced that the executive office wouldn't hesitate to sack anyone who expressed open displeasure with the current leadership. Much as MacArthur was sacked after criticizing Truman. It's as much a hallmark of obstinate and spiteful executive leadership as anything IMO that you don't hear much coming from the field.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

How do you know the writer of the editorial isn't also biased? Do you automatically presume without question that his assessment is correct? Why did you not address that part of the bias equation? What makes you think the official rebuttal is going to be more biased and untrustworthy than the original editorial?

I don't. Nor did I claim it wasn't biased. As an outsider, I would think the Army Times does not make a habit of openly go after one of the top guys. If I am wrong, I'll be the first to admit it.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Much as MacArthur was sacked after criticizing Truman. It's as much a hallmark of obstinate and spiteful executive leadership as anything IMO that you don't hear much coming from the field.

Wrong.

Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 88:

Quote

ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Much as MacArthur was sacked after criticizing Truman. It's as much a hallmark of obstinate and spiteful executive leadership as anything IMO that you don't hear much coming from the field.

Wrong.

Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 88:

Quote

ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

So. I guess you just blindly follow unless you are told to act on an unlawfull order? No wonder I got out ASAP

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[mnealtx 0]

Dude - as much as you hate anyone telling you what to do, I'm amazed you even enlisted in the first place!!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706