1
   

The Times they are a'changing

 
 
Reply Fri 3 Nov, 2006 08:22 pm
The Army Times
The Navy Times
The Marine Times
The Air Force Times

It is reported by MSNBC tonight that all 4 of the above military content newspapers will call for Rumsfelds immediate resignation in their monday edition.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,500 • Replies: 41
No top replies

 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Nov, 2006 08:25 pm
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Nov, 2006 08:32 pm
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Nov, 2006 08:33 pm
Dys, really?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Nov, 2006 08:56 pm
littlek wrote:
Dys, really?

really
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Nov, 2006 09:13 pm
Rummy is in for a rumble.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Nov, 2006 10:03 pm
Bush has already said "Rummy, you are doing a heck of a job."
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Nov, 2006 10:43 pm
Well, if you say so. I do recall Beetle Bailey being dropped by the Stars and Stripes, but maybe so.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Nov, 2006 11:00 pm
Bush thinks everyone is doing a heckuva job. He thought Michael Brown was doing a heckuva job with Katrina while bodies were floating down the street. He thinks he himself is doing a heckuva job. I wish the Military times would call for Bush's resignation.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Nov, 2006 09:02 am
Confirmation:

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=18141
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Nov, 2006 09:05 am
Very interesting. I wonder what Bush's reaction will be!
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Nov, 2006 09:23 am
More confirmation:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003352525

...and about what Bush's reaction will be : I doubt he will address it at all, unless pressed - and if pressed, he will say as little about it as possible...
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Nov, 2006 09:31 am
I'm more concerned about timber.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Nov, 2006 10:31 am
parados wrote:
Bush has already said "Rummy, you are doing a heck of a job."


No kidding!

[URL=http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15516265/]MSNBC[/URL] wrote:
Rumsfeld and Cheney

Democrats and Republicans alike have called for Rumsfeld's resignation, arguing he has mishandled the war in Iraq where more than 2,800 members of the U.S. military have died since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. Cheney has faced sharp criticism for his hardline views and is viewed favorably by only about a third of Americans in polls. Bush said that "both those men are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them."


Laughing
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Nov, 2006 04:01 pm
Rummy is the life-saving leaky raft on top of quicksand that W is standing on.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Nov, 2006 05:53 pm
And, as far as I can work out, this is the original story, which MSNBC picked up:


The Ross Report

It, as did the last source cited on this thread, if not the first, contain the full text of the editorialto appear in all the papers:


"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."

That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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..........




(THat's an excerpt)
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 05:58 am
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Very interesting. I wonder what Bush's reaction will be!


The same as the Defense Department's Response.

Quote:
SUMMARY:

THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PROVIDED A BALANCED PICTURE: 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.

CHALLENGE THOSE WHO CLAIM ADMINISTRATION OFFERED A ROSY SCENARIO: We challenge those who say the Secretary has ever painted a "rosy picture" to provide his quotes as well as the full context of those remarks.

THIS IS OLD NEWS MASKED AS NEW NEWS: 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.

INSULTING MILITARY COMMANDERS: The assertion, without evidence, that senior military officers are "toeing the line" is an insult to their judgment and integrity.

IRAQIS ARE RISKING THEIR LIVES FOR THEIR COUNTRY: 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.

CHALLENGE POSED BY ENEMY IS TOUGH: 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 monolithic across the country. Many parts of Iraq are relatively peaceful.

WE WILL GIVE TROOPS WHAT THEY NEED TO WIN: 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. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong.


The "Military" Times isn't put out by the military.

It is a civilian magazine that is just an arm of Gannett (publisher of USA Today, among others). Few people know that. People buy it because it lists promotions, pay rates, benefits, and a few other standard features that are of interest. But many, many of their articles have had a typical MSM negative tone for quite some time now.
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 06:06 am
Heard a radio report from an "expert" on Iraq saying Iraqis dont identify strongly enough with a national identity to be able to hold a single country together. they do however identify most strongly with a religous identity which is either sunni or shi'ite. This so called "expert" was suggesting a divided iraq. For all intents two countries. shi'ites an one side of the border and sunnis on the other. Who decides which part of the country each gets was not discussed.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 10:04 am
SierraSong wrote:
The same as the Defense Department's Response.


And you just swallow it. No questions asked. The Defense Department has a neat little list of talking points, so why should you use your own brain. Nah. Just swallow, SS, just swallow....

Quote:
SUMMARY:

THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PROVIDED A BALANCED PICTURE: The Department has always attempted to clearly and accurately describe the challenges our forces face in Iraq and Afghanistan.



Let's have a very brief look at the attempt to "clearly and accurately describe the challenges", shall we:

Quote:
* Feb. 7, 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

* March 4, 2003, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. . . . Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait.

* March 11, 2003, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator."

* March 16, 2003, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."



So, SS, do you have any original thoughts on the matter? Was Rumsfeld painting a "rosy scenario" when he said that the conflict "could last six days, six weeks." Was it a realistic estimate when he said "I doubt six months?"
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 10:14 am
sierra giggles wrote:
Quote:
The "Military" Times isn't put out by the military.

It is a civilian magazine that is just an arm of Gannett (publisher of USA Today, among others). Few people know that. People buy it because it lists promotions, pay rates, benefits, and a few other standard features that are of interest. But many, many of their articles have had a typical MSM negative tone for quite some time now.


She loves her Dear Leader
she loves him so big
she loans him her lipstick, "Look!
No longer a pig!"
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Times they are a'changing
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 11:40:43