‘Rumsfeld must go’

SICKGUY · 11-04-2006, 01:10 AM

Military papers: 'Rumsfeld must go' - Politics - MSNBC.com

Just days after President Bush publicly affirmed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's job security through the end of his term, a family of publications catering to the military will publish an editorial calling for the defense secretary's removal.

wow, even military leaders want his ass gone. what will bush do?

IminWonderland · 11-04-2006, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by SICKGUY

Military papers: 'Rumsfeld must go' - Politics - MSNBC.com

wow, even military leaders want his ass gone. what will bush do?

HE is the DECIDER. Not the Military Leaders. And he will probably just keep doing what he has been doing. He doesn't listen to polls....or read papers....It doesn't matter what other people day. He loves Good Ole Rummy...

Diesel66 · 11-04-2006, 03:26 AM

Originally Posted by SICKGUY

wow, even military leaders want his ass gone. what will bush do?

Military Times is a private newspaper.

SoFlaJDM · 11-04-2006, 09:17 AM

he listens to the generals... amirite?

SICKGUY · 11-04-2006, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Military Times is a private newspaper.

and your point is?

motivez · 11-04-2006, 07:29 PM

I think he should go too. I think if Bush had replaced him sometime last year they would not be losing as badly as they are right now with the elections.

I think the fact that he's kept him is indicative of the arrogance that permeates this Administration.. the holier than thou attitude, the we're always right attitude, etc..

He needs to go because he's done a horrible job.

KatKanPlay · 11-04-2006, 07:52 PM

Rumsfeld isnt going anywhere. They arent going to get rid of him. It is beyond politics, it as if he is in his rightful place as a core member of NPAC. He may be forced to resign, but it wont be by the administration or a republican congress.

Diesel66 · 11-04-2006, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by SICKGUY

and your point is?

This is the opinion of the editorial board not neccesarily the opinion of generals.

Donkey® · 11-05-2006, 12:48 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

This is the opinion of the editorial board not neccesarily the opinion of generals.

I am pretty sure the Generals have come out and said the same things.

CNN.com - Ex-U.S. Iraq general: Rumsfeld should quit - Apr 13, 2006

"(CNN) -- Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004 and 2005, is calling on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign, joining three other retired U.S. generals who've recently made similar public calls.

The White House on Wednesday reaffirmed its support for Rumsfeld. Spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters Rumsfeld "is doing a great job."

Batiste's public call to replace Rumsfeld follows similar announcements from retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni -- a former chief of the U.S. Central Command -- and retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, who first announced his opinion in Time magazine."

WickedLou9 · 11-06-2006, 10:39 AM

I think that there are 3 people in the country that think Rumsfeld should stay.

six6ftr · 11-06-2006, 10:47 AM

Being that most of the military reads the times, there might be some major criticism fueling from the military on the way he handled things.

SICKGUY · 11-06-2006, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by six6ftr

Being that most of the military reads the times, there might be some major criticism fueling from the military on the way he handled things.

how do you feel about it? are you active military?

six6ftr · 11-07-2006, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by SICKGUY

how do you feel about it? are you active military?

I am no longer active. I am National Guard. I went over on the first wave at the beginning of the war. That is basically the only real newspaper we get in the PX's and Base exchanges. It normally gives us the recent updates of on the military and changes that are coming down. I feel that Rumsfeld was completely ineffective and had seasoned Generals by his side who to me were afraid to tell the truth and it was obvious that when they did, he did not listen anyway. Unfortunately these were only the ones that were chosen after the others retired rather than work for him. Just think back to the beginning when General Shinseki (Army chief of Staff) tried to tell him how many troops were needed for the war and how he was ridiculed for his knowledge of war. And of course being there and feeling like just a number out in the desert with no equipment, limited ammo, living like the homeless with no where to sleep or stay unless you count hundreds of troops scouring garbage bins for boxes to use as makeshift shelter from the sandstorms or piling 200+ soldiers in a 50 person tent.
I could go on forever.

IminWonderland · 11-07-2006, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by six6ftr

I am no longer active. I am National Guard. I went over on the first wave at the beginning of the war. That is basically the only real newspaper we get in the PX's and Base exchanges. It normally gives us the recent updates of on the military and changes that are coming down. I feel that Rumsfeld was completely ineffective and had seasoned Generals by his side who to me were afraid to tell the truth and it was obvious that when they did, he did not listen anyway. Unfortunately these were only the ones that were chosen after the others retired rather than work for him. Just think back to the beginning when General Shinseki (Army chief of Staff) tried to tell him how many troops were needed for the war and how he was ridiculed for his knowledge of war. And of course being there and feeling like just a number out in the desert with no equipment, limited ammo, living like the homeless with no where to sleep or stay unless you count hundreds of troops scouring garbage bins for boxes to use as makeshift shelter from the sandstorms or piling 200+ soldiers in a 50 person tent.
I could go on forever.

Honestly, reading that made me tear up. That's not the way our soldiers should be treated with us being the "richest" country in the world.

That literally makes me sick.

I'm so sorry that you had to go through that, and I hope this ends soon so you don't have to go back.

six6ftr · 11-07-2006, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Honestly, reading that made me tear up. That's not the way our soldiers should be treated with us being the "richest" country in the world.

That literally makes me sick.

I'm so sorry that you had to go through that, and I hope this ends soon so you don't have to go back.

Yes, there is no reason for it. Thanks for you support!

SICKGUY · 11-07-2006, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by six6ftr

Yes, there is no reason for it. Thanks for you support!

that is pretty ridiculous. its crazy to think its the republicans that go on and on about how they support the troops.

IminWonderland · 11-08-2006, 12:36 AM

Originally Posted by SICKGUY

that is pretty ridiculous. its crazy to think its the republicans that go on and on about how they support the troops.

They support the troops insomuch as they get to profit from them. If war wasn't profitable, they wouldn't be able to tout their "support" because then all they would have is a bunch of guys in camo gear.

Kinda like when Bush used that big ship for his Mission Accomplished...looked pretty good huh? But, if we aren't at war, and they aren't being used (and they are USED) who wants to take a nice press picture to some guys sitting behind desks?

avsp · 11-08-2006, 10:56 AM

just to be picky, ..., warships & the like are being 'used' even during peacetime.

The threat/possibility of their actual 'use' in anger is primarily what they are for IMO.

Its part of the difference between force & power, a thing that I cant help but feel that Runsfeld (& chums) forgot along the way.

This does not, in itself, invalidate arguements that wars are for profit, ..., cruise missile stocks do actually need to be 'used' in order to be restocked etc

IminWonderland · 11-08-2006, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by avsp

just to be picky, ..., warships & the like are being 'used' even during peacetime.

The threat/possibility of their actual 'use' in anger is primarily what they are for IMO.

Its part of the difference between force & power, a thing that I cant help but feel that Runsfeld (& chums) forgot along the way.

This does not, in itself, invalidate arguements that wars are for profit, ..., cruise missile stocks do actually need to be 'used' in order to be restocked etc

I am more talking about the use of soldiers. It is more exciting for a politician to stand next to some active duty soldiers on a boat...

Than it is some changing colors in the front of a building.

Diesel66 · 11-08-2006, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

I am more talking about the use of soldiers. It is more exciting for a politician to stand next to some active duty soldiers on a boat...

Than it is some changing colors in the front of a building.

Sure made those Sailors happy as hell, that is all that matters.