USAF/USA/USN Times - Rummy Has To Go - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

retmil46 · #1 11-04-2006, 02:36 AM

Came across this on msnbc.com . In an editorial to be published Monday in the Air Force, Army, and Navy Times, they opine that it's time for Rumsfeld to be replaced as SecDef. In their words, because of the botched mess in Iraq, and having lost the trust of not only most of the country but a large part of the military as well, to the point that many high ranking officers on active duty have taken the rare and unusual step of publicly criticizing both the sitting SecDef and his policies.

cmac2012 · #2 11-04-2006, 03:13 AM

Just after Bush saying he wanted to keep him on til Jan. '09. Rummy is a seriously ambitious man.

Somehow I doubt the Dubs will throw him over.

POS · #3 11-04-2006, 08:22 AM

He's not going anywhere. Even if GW said to himself "maybe I should find someone else", removing Rumsfeld would just set the Republican party back big time because the media would go absolutely bonkers for months and months. It would be a PR nightmare at this point to dump Rumsfeld, and it wouldn't shut the Democrats up, they'd just scream louder.

aklim · #4 11-04-2006, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by POS

He's not going anywhere. Even if GW said to himself "maybe I should find someone else", removing Rumsfeld would just set the Republican party back big time because the media would go absolutely bonkers for months and months. It would be a PR nightmare at this point to dump Rumsfeld, and it wouldn't shut the Democrats up, they'd just scream louder.

No, of course the Dems wouldn't. They are the angles of the world, didn't you know. Only the Reps would pull dirty tricks like that.

Unfortunately, you are right. Best thing Bush can do at this time is to keep him on a tight leash and secretly control him via advice from someone else.

retmil46 · #5 11-04-2006, 10:53 AM

Yep, most likely scenario is that he's going to stay - at least until the higher ups decide at some point that it IS politically advantageous to let him go.

I'd say at some point between now and '08 that will happen - after W's recent statement has faded from public memory, and the RNC decides it doesn't want him hanging from their political necks like an albatross.

Most likely near term - after the election next week, I wouldn't be surprised to see some unanticipated job openings on the editorial staff for the USAF/USA/USN Times.

Botnst · #6 11-04-2006, 11:03 AM

When the military runs the government then they will determine who gets into the various appointed offices.

B

WVOtoGO · #7 11-04-2006, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

No, of course the Dems wouldn't. They are the angles of the world, didn't you know. Only the Reps would pull dirty tricks like that.

Unfortunately, you are right. Best thing Bush can do at this time is to keep him on a tight leash and secretly control him via advice from someone else.

The only thing Bush has that’s “tight” is his shrinking group of crony followers.
And most all of the folks that have ever given him any good "advice" in the past, aren’t working for him any more.

FeelTheLove · #8 11-04-2006, 09:41 PM

Maybe he can use the "Kenny Boy" Lay solution.

cmac2012 · #9 11-05-2006, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVOtoGO

The only thing Bush has that’s “tight” is his shrinking group of crony followers.
And most all of the folks that have ever given him any good "advice" in the past, aren’t working for him any more.

I guess that tends to happen when you surround yourself with toadies and yes-men.

Bush: "Dohhhh!!!"

crash9 · #10 11-06-2006, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retmil46

Came across this on msnbc.com . In an editorial to be published Monday in the Air Force, Army, and Navy Times, they opine that it's time for Rumsfeld to be replaced as SecDef. In their words, because of the botched mess in Iraq, and having lost the trust of not only most of the country but a large part of the military as well, to the point that many high ranking officers on active duty have taken the rare and unusual step of publicly criticizing both the sitting SecDef and his policies.

These publications are not official or semi-official periodicals of the military branches. They are actually under the same ownership as USA Today.

Maroon 300D · #11 11-06-2006, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash9

These publications are not official or semi-official periodicals of the military branches. They are actually under the same ownership as USA Today.

That's a good thing. I'm no fan of Rumsfeld, but it would be bad for the country if the armed forces started opining openly about which civilians can lead them and which can't.

retmil46 · #12 11-06-2006, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maroon 300D

That's a good thing. I'm no fan of Rumsfeld, but it would be bad for the country if the armed forces started opining openly about which civilians can lead them and which can't.

Dude, News Flash - they already ARE. At least some elements.

It used to be unheard of to hear ANY such opining coming from the military.

It seems to have started up big time while Slick Willie was in office. I started hearing active duty personnel, both officer and enlisted, openly expressing disrespect and disgust toward the CinC. What really shocked me was when I went into the Navy Exchange on Norfolk Naval Base, and they were openly selling t-shirts that showed two military personnel simulating a homosexual act with the words "Clinton's Military" printed above.

Maroon 300D · #13 11-06-2006, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retmil46

Dude, News Flash - they already ARE. At least some elements.

It used to be unheard of to hear ANY such opining coming from the military.

It seems to have started up big time while Slick Willie was in office. I started hearing active duty personnel, both officer and enlisted, openly expressing disrespect and disgust toward the CinC. What really shocked me was when I went into the Navy Exchange on Norfolk Naval Base, and they were openly selling t-shirts that showed two military personnel simulating a homosexual act with the words "Clinton's Military" printed above.

The t-shirt thing is disturbing and I'm surprised to hear that. Seems to me that it's the sort of thing that could foster a culture that could someday enable military leaders to pick and choose who leads them. Like in Turkey, where if the military doesn't support the government, a new government is ushered in.

#14 11-06-2006, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retmil46

Dude, News Flash - they already ARE. At least some elements.

It used to be unheard of to hear ANY such opining coming from the military.

It seems to have started up big time while Slick Willie was in office. I started hearing active duty personnel, both officer and enlisted, openly expressing disrespect and disgust toward the CinC. What really shocked me was when I went into the Navy Exchange on Norfolk Naval Base, and they were openly selling t-shirts that showed two military personnel simulating a homosexual act with the words "Clinton's Military" printed above.

Exactly, I remember my CO telling us that Clinton is the CinC and disiplinary actions will be taken for trash talk about the Cinc.

I remember that moment in high definition, it really struck me that the Army had me by the balls.

Botnst · #15 11-06-2006, 01:16 PM

Same thing with Nixon when I was in. Everybody knew the mofo was a turkey but saying anything was forbidden fruit. During his re-election I remember my chief saying something like shut-up and make your feelings known on the absentee ballot. I think he may have expressed himself more colorfully.

B