Posted: 03/November/2006 at 23:08 | IP Logged  |

Wow, most of you civilian types would be surprised how much free debate occurs in the Army Times, but this is like history-making.

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.

The editorial, released to NBC News on Friday ahead of its Monday publication date, stated, "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 editorial will appear just one day before the midterm election, in which GOP candidates have been losing ground, according to recent polls.

"This is not about the midterm elections," continued the editorial, which will appear in the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times, and Marine Corps Times on Monday. "Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go."

The newspapers are published by the Military Times Media Group.

On Wednesday, Bush had said he wants Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney to remain in his administration until the end of his presidency, extending a vote of confidence to two of the most-criticized members of his team.

In the same interview, Bush said he did not foresee a change in the immediate future in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. He said that U.S. generals have assured him that "they've got what they can live with."

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 hard-line 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."

Bush credited Rumsfeld with overseeing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while overhauling the military. "I'm pleased with the progress we're making," the president said. He replied in the affirmative when asked if he wanted Rumsfeld and Cheney to stay with him until the end.

The military publications' editorial also painted a grim view of the situation in Iraq, saying, "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. … And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand."

War supporters reconsider
Also Friday, several conservatives who pushed for the invasion of Iraq said they would not have supported a war if they knew how poorly the Bush administration would handle it, according to Vanity Fair magazine.

"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 (Hussein) supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists,"' said Richard Perle, who sat on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Advisory Committee until 2004.

Kenneth Adelman, who served on the Defense Policy Board with Perle, said Bush, Defense Rumsfeld and others in the administration "turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."

Violence in Iraq has continued to climb, with dozens of bodies reportedly found around Baghdad on Friday. Shiites and Sunnis alike fear a reprisal in violent crime when Saddam's trial verdict is announced, which could be as soon as Sunday.

In the editorial, the military papers quote Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, as saying to 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 a civil war."

URL: '+url+'

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15552211/

Posted: 04/November/2006 at 10:17 | IP Logged  |

BUSH, not "Military Leaders" is the Decider, and HE has already decided that Rumsfeld will stay.

Why do you want America to lose?

Posted: 09/November/2006 at 23:44 | IP Logged  |

If I had realized that the Bush administration would respond so quickly to my advice to have Rumsfeld step aside, I would have brought it up sooner.

Now, Mr. President, listen carefully, don't kill any Frenchpeople until I finish my search for worthwhile ones.  I don't want any messy misunderstandings now that I'm setting national policy via this chatroom. I'll take care to use precise language in my remarks.

On the topic of dead Frenchpersons, did we ever hear whether some turned up under the fallen overpass in Quebec?  I better Google, or I won't be able to sleep tonight.

Bush's recent "thumping", I believe, will transform him from a well intentioned and otherwise terrible President, to a truly great one. 

I've been extremely impressed with the recent press conferences by the President. Now that he has some political stress on him, he actually sounds like a real president as opposed to the intellectually lazy dipshit off the Ranch we have all come to know and love over the past 6 years. 

Posted: 10/November/2006 at 00:18 | IP Logged  |

EngineerSoldier wrote: Bush's recent "thumping", I believe, will transform him from a well intentioned and otherwise terrible President, to a truly great one.

That is a possibility that I have been thinking on.

Here is someone who agrees.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15626503/site/newsweek/

Election Legacy

Why the GOP's losses may be a blessing in disguise for Bush.

Nov. 8, 2006 - As President Bush admitted in his post-election news conference, he and the GOP took a “thumping” at the polls Nov. 7. And he didn’t look happy about it. His joshing first line to reporters—“Why the glum faces?”—reflected his underlying belief that “liberal” reporters should have been smiling instead of downcast like him.

But after the sting is gone, Bush may begin to understand that the “thumping” was a blessing in disguise—a way for him to yet salvage something of his presidency, both at home and abroad. He began that process by firing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the first step toward regaining the initiative on Iraq. And the dividends for Bush of the Democratic victory may keep paying off for the rest of his term—and in the history books.

In Washington, it’s much easier to block something than to get it through. So if the GOP had maintained control of the House of Representatives, Democrats would have been able to stymie any Bush legislation, just as they did last year on Social Security. Had the Bush policy in Iraq been validated by the election, he would have had no incentive to listen to the Iraq Study Group led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton or otherwise find a way out of the quagmire. Democrats would have just kept firing away at a failed policy for the next two years.

But when you get control, you have to produce. So Democrats will pass bills (with the help of a Republican or two on the Senate side, if necessary) and dare Bush to veto them. And he will, but he will also—as he indicated in his press conference-negotiate with incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the new Democratic leadership to “get something done.”

But after the sting is gone, Bush may begin to understand that the “thumping” was a blessing in disguise—a way for him to yet salvage something of his presidency, both at home and abroad. He began that process by firing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the first step toward regaining the initiative on Iraq. And the dividends for Bush of the Democratic victory may keep paying off for the rest of his term—and in the history books.

In Washington, it’s much easier to block something than to get it through. So if the GOP had maintained control of the House of Representatives, Democrats would have been able to stymie any Bush legislation, just as they did last year on Social Security. Had the Bush policy in Iraq been validated by the election, he would have had no incentive to listen to the Iraq Study Group led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton or otherwise find a way out of the quagmire. Democrats would have just kept firing away at a failed policy for the next two years.

But when you get control, you have to produce. So Democrats will pass bills (with the help of a Republican or two on the Senate side, if necessary) and dare Bush to veto them. And he will, but he will also—as he indicated in his press conference-negotiate with incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the new Democratic leadership to “get something done.”

The best model is Bush’s own father, who pushed through domestic accomplishments like the Americans With Disabilities Act with Democratic votes. In 1990, Bush père hoped to rescue the American economy and reassure the bond market by balancing the budget. So he got together with Democratic Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell on a package of spending cuts and tax increases. The bipartisan budget deal worked, helping to kick off the biggest economic boom in American history. Of course the deal meant repudiating his “Read my lips no new taxes” pledge and it helped cost Bush re-election in 1992. His son took that lesson to heart when he adopted Karl Rove’s “base strategy,” under which any tax increases were verboten.

But this Bush, safely re-elected, doesn’t have to worry about paying the ultimate political price for conservative heresy. He can play now to his legacy. The president has already indicated that he will sign an increase in the minimum wage early next year, and he’ll do the same for several other bills the Democrats pass. In fact, even his precious tax cuts for the wealthy (originally crafted just to respond to Steve Forbes’s flat tax in the 2000 Republican primaries) will be on the table. Next year, when he signs a tax bill that makes the cuts fairer to the middle class, he’ll take credit, just as he will when Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton come up with a withdraw-the-troops-to-Kurdistan plan or some other face-saving policy in Iraq.

So look for the alcoves devoted to “Stabilizing Iraq” and “Helping Working Americans” in the George W. Bush Presidential Library. Five years from now, we’ll find him there, beaming.

Posted: 13/November/2006 at 21:49 | IP Logged  |

Mongo wrote: As President Bush admitted in his post-election news conference, he and the GOP took a “thumping” at the polls Nov. 7. And he didn’t look happy about it. His joshing first line to reporters—“Why the glum faces?”—reflected his underlying belief that “liberal” reporter. s should have been smiling instead of downcast like him.

Dude, I burst out laughing when he asked the one reporter "uh, and who do you work for again?" and made the reporter respond "The New York Times, Sir"  

I'm dead serious, that is litterally the first time in 6 years where I felt like Bush was an intelligent creature, even in the times where I was trying desperately to agree with him, yet was always coping with the sinking fear that he was about to screw it up and embarass me.