Military publications: ‘Rumsfeld must go’

[Sapphire Blue]

Military publications: ‘Rumsfeld must go’
Editorial comes days after Bush affirms defense secretary’s job security
MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 1 hour, 34 minutes ago

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."

(snip)

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.

(snip)

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."

Continued @ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15552211/from/RSS/

[Eric J in MN]

1. CNN covered this story by writing

"Rumsfeld's Replacement?" on the screen.

This probaby gave many viewers the false impression that Rumsfeld is about to be replaced, when the actual point of the story is that while many want that to happen, Bush said Rumsfeld will stay for two more years.

[Ecumenist]

2. How can these neocon muckeety-mucks say with straight faces

that they had no idea how horribly this group would f&%k up Iraq when anything with an IQ above 3 could see it? Damn, a blind man could see it with his back turned, blindfolded, in the dark underground, for Christ's sake...

[EllenZ]

3. Failed

Generally when someone fails to do the job they were appointed to do, they get fired.

I think the only reason Bush is keeping Rumsfeld right now is that he is worried that firing him before the election would be an admission that Bush was wrong. That might cost him a few votes and votes are more important to some politicians than lives. After the current election, it may be a different story.

[aquart]

4. Welcome to DU, Ellen.

After the election, when votes are not an issue, Bush will keep Rumsfeld simply for spite.

For years, we constantly made the mistake of thinking that Bush would act on some issue as a normal, practical human being. But he consistently acts like a small child having a tantrum. And, if we don't give him the election results he wants, he will hate our guts. All of us.

[Sapphire Blue]

5. Generally they get fired... except in bushworld, where they get medals

Welcome to DU, EllenZ! :hi: :hi: :hi:

[newyawker99]

6. Hi EllenZ!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: