Jackson Free Press

In what's being described as a rare joint editorial due to appear in print on Monday, the Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corp Times and Air Force Times will call on President Bush to fire SecDef Donald Rumsfeld, regardless of the outcome of the election. (The Military Times publications are not government newspapers -- they are independent newspapers that are part of the Gannett publishing empire aimed at sales to U.S. servicemen and women. They also have some extraordinarily old-school websites. Yowza.)

Money quote:

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

Previous Comments

ID

108317

Comment

Is this something actual leaders are saying, or Ganett is saying for them?

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-11-05T23:53:43-06:00

ID

108318

Comment

This is Gannett. I'm somewhat disappointed that itodd even gave this the time of day. This is nothing but Goliath throwing its weight around.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-06T00:28:57-06:00

ID

108319

Comment

Kingfish: Whistling past the graveyard? Think about it...yeah, Military Times papers are owned by Gannett. That, to me, makes it all the more interesting that their editors have taken this position. They must figure that this is the CW with the troops or I doubt they'd print it. Hell, Richard Perle lambasted the whole damn administration this weekend over the war...this ain't news?!

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2006-11-06T00:45:40-06:00

ID

108320

Comment

Gannett has taken this position before. Those are not the military papers of 50 years ago where the reporters practically lived with the troops. Its outsourced like everything is and gannett bought the rights to publish them. Everything military wise is going to be released to them through PR sections of military and gannett provides rest of news that is printed. As for Perle, looks like VF pulled a fast one as Frum, Perle, Ledeen, Cohen, and others are furious with VF saying they were lied to by VF. Here is their reply to VF. I've read Frum's and Cohen's recent articles in other publications and to say they turned on Bush is a flat out lie. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzgxYzUzYmRlNjhmNzMyNjI2MDM4YmRjNTFhODA4MGQ=

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-06T00:53:14-06:00

ID

108321

Comment

sorry, 'fish, but I'm not following you. When has "gannett" "taken this position before"? As for Perle, et al, in the piece you linked it sounds like they're biggest complaint is the timing of the piece -- they didn't expect it out until January. So you've got these guys trying the reimagineer their roles in the Iraq run-up, but they thought it would happen in a political lull so their compartriots wouldn't be *too* pissed. Nice. With friends like these...

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2006-11-06T01:40:10-06:00

ID

108322

Comment

No, what they are stating is that they have been having an honest debate about how Iraq is going and it is being framed as though they are turning against Bush when they are not doing so. They all have their specific criticisms about certain aspects of our strategy and tactics in Iraq right now but all agree on the need to go into Iraq and overthrow Saddam. They all think the cause is just and all are committed to staying. They also state Iraq can be lost and that we need to adjust our policy. That is NOT turning on Bush. Its one thing to come out and slam Bush and betraying him to some degree. Its another to have a discussion about what is and is not working in Iraq. I've read their articles in other publications and what they are writing here is consistent with what they have said elsewhere. Gannett has called for Rummie to resign. You knwo that Gannett controls the editorial policy of its papers.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-06T02:03:10-06:00

ID

108323

Comment

Gannett has called for Rummie to resign. You knwo that Gannett controls the editorial policy of its papers. I went to Gannett's home page and didn't see any editorials. :-P As much as I'm loathe to give Goliath much credit, it doesn't work the way you're suggesting. A publisher (by which I mean a person, not a corporate infrastructure) can have some sway in a newspaper's editorial policy (I think we saw that locally in some Bush election endorsements in 2004), but there really isn't a cabal called "Gannett" that is writing editorials for Military Times. The Military Times editorial team would be doing that and they would have their ears to the ground in terms of how their readers would react. Compound that with the fact that Gannett certainly encourages its newspapers to do very little that would affect profitability and you've got an interesting landscape for the editorial.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2006-11-06T12:14:28-06:00

ID

108324

Comment

Todd is right. Gannett-owned newspaper editorials are inconsistent. They allow some degree of "local control" in those decisions—kind of them, eh?—which I suspect has more to do with appeasing advertisers on the ground in various cities with different views, but hey, that's just a guess. This editorial is simply remarkable, though.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-06T12:23:37-06:00

ID

108325

Comment

And Kingfish, you're remarks on this are so unconvincing. Even more so than usual. ;-) The Perle thing is huge. This editorial is huge. And you know it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-06T12:27:03-06:00

ID

108326

Comment

The editor in charge of those papers was writing stories with Peter Arnett back during the Vietnam War about how soldiers were refusing to fight on the battlefield. The Generals wanted to prosecute him for treason. To say that Hodierne doesn't have an agenda is a flat out lie. When he writes that this is not about the election when he publishes it the Sunday before before the election, it is about the election.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-06T12:40:47-06:00

ID

108327

Comment

well, if you didn't have a rule against cutting and pasting whole columns that can't be linked I would put up here recent columns by Ledeen, Cohen, and Frum in the WSJ that would definitely put them at odds with what VF stated that were written before the VF interviews and still recent.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-06T12:42:12-06:00

ID

108328

Comment

Well, who said it shouldn't be about the election??? Of course, it should be, when you've got a pitiful administration of chickenhawks who have made decisions to get our soldiers killed (or perhaps tortured worse in retaliation for our level of torture)—an administration who are surrounded by their own Republican Guard that rubberstamps and defends their decisions (and lies). It's a little hard to think of a *better* reason to vote against a whole group of folks than to break apart this particular cabal.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-06T12:55:23-06:00

ID

108329

Comment

And it's not my rule that you can't past whole articles. It's called copyright law. Keep up.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-06T12:55:50-06:00

ID

108330

Comment

Its absolutely apparent to me that Kingfish definitely gets whats going on here. Gannett is controlled just like all media outlets. Thanks for not drinking the coolaid and getting the big picture Kingfish. I'll have to stand by you on this article. The sole intention of this article is to create the false illusion that Gannett is turning on Bush, but they're not at all. Do these two guys like to beat up on you in here often?

Author

MoreRockin

Date

2006-11-06T12:58:40-06:00

ID

108331

Comment

With due respect, More, I don't think you read everything Kingfish wrote above. And you must be new in these parts because if you think that these "two guys"—ladd and the iTodd—are about defending Gannett, you're cracking me up. Careful about dipping in without knowing what's being said. And, yes, I beat up on Fishy all the time, and he returns the favor. Stay out of it. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-06T13:02:18-06:00

ID

108332

Comment

How about commenting on what I said rather than having a pissing contest?

Author

MoreRockin

Date

2006-11-06T13:08:45-06:00

ID

108333

Comment

How about not telling me what to post on my own site? Besides, I coulda sworn you were trying to start a pissing contest. Regardless, it stops here, as do your attempts to moderate my site. State your opinion and don't try to pick personal fights. You won't win them.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-06T13:20:07-06:00

ID

108334

Comment

Why are you doing this?

Author

MoreRockin

Date

2006-11-06T13:31:17-06:00

ID

108335

Comment

I can't speak for Donna, but I'm doing this because I'm on a mission from God. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-06T13:48:01-06:00

ID

108336

Comment

What—responding to you? Because that's my job. You're free to return to the issue at any point. Your original problem was that you tried to turn this into an issue of choosing sides over Gannett, when that's not what this issue is really about. I think we can stipulate that everyone posting on this thread think they suck. If anything, they should have done this a long time ago, but better late than never.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-06T13:49:40-06:00

ID

108337

Comment

Giggle, Tom. I personally like to think of it as doing the Lord's Work. It's OK to substitute Great Spirit for those of you more comfortable than that. We're a pluralistic bunch. ;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-06T13:50:54-06:00

ID

108338

Comment

'Scuse me. I gotta go see the Penguin. :)

Author

Lady Havoc

Date

2006-11-06T14:07:04-06:00

ID

108339

Comment

Have you guys ever seen this video of Cynthia McKinney GRILLING Rumsfeld: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eootfzAhAoU Rumsfeld "slips up" and says flight 93 shotdown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNuosBnlw5s

Author

MoreRockin

Date

2006-11-06T14:10:38-06:00

ID

108340

Comment

Fun fact: I used to edit Richard Perle back when I was an editor for Pete DuPont's IntellectualCapital.com (now defunct) in Washington. He was a contributing editor. You can imagine the restraint I was required to show. ;-) This is frackin' HUGE for the Repubs—regardless of when it comes out. And it needs to come out now. I never understand the argument that tries to downplay something important because it came out right before an election. If it hasn't come out before someone is up for election, then it is unconscionable if it doesn't then. Of course, this is all assuming it's true. The making-crap-up kind of October/November surprise is disgusting because there is little time to factcheck. But that's not what we're dealing with here.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-06T14:14:29-06:00

ID

108341

Comment

I'm so glad to hear you say the Lord's Work. For a minute there, I thought I was a Cylon! Unfortunately, my mind is so warped with theology-school-dropout humor that all I can think of when I see the topic headline is "What should we do about Rummy of Nazareth? / Miracle wonder man, hero of fools..." But if I'm going to use a musicals metaphor, this is really more like My Fair Lady, with Rummy as 'enry 'iggins and George W. as Eliza Doolittle. Or M. Butterfly, where mainstream Republicans make wild, passionate love to neoconservatism only to find that it's hiding an extra appendage under the kimono. Or The Rocky Horror Picture Show, with Karl Rove as Frank Furter, Bush as his creation Rocky (come on, you know he was born to wear a gold speedo), and Perle and Ackerman as Brad and Janet. Or-- Okay, I'll stop now! Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-06T14:14:41-06:00

ID

108342

Comment

And yeah, Donna, isn't it great to have all these revelations come out BEFORE the election for a change? I'm still mortified (and pissed) about how much the mainstream press knew, and didn't tell us, in the months leading up to November '04. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-06T14:16:08-06:00

ID

108343

Comment

You're losing it, Tom. However it turns out—and I do not and will not call such things, what with voting machines in the mix—I just want it over so we know what we're up against moving forward.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-06T14:16:14-06:00

ID

108344

Comment

yeah, Donna, isn't it great to have all these revelations come out BEFORE the election for a change? I'm still mortified (and pissed) about how much the mainstream press knew, and didn't tell us, in the months leading up to November '04. People can whine all they want about stuff coming out right before the election, but that is the media' job—to tell people who or what they are about to vote for in every way possible. That responsibility has been abdicated way too much in recent years. And you can go back much further than 2004—the mainstream media never bothered to explain the actual definition of "compassionate conservatism" as it was defined by its originator, Marvin Olasky, even as Repubs were going around wink-winking that it meant moderate, centrist policies. It didn't. The media knew it, and they didn't explain it—out of fear of the radical-right machine accusing them of being unfair and unbalanced because they told the damn truth. In other words, they allowed the Bush administration to lie to the public about who they were, and now we've suffered through six years of radical-right B.S. as a result. History will long, long frown on the mass media of this era, as it does on the media that, say, enabled Hitler to gain power. There's a book about that in Eudora Welty library; I forget what it's called, though.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-06T14:20:13-06:00

ID

108345

Comment

MSNBC Poll Should Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld be removed from his position, whether by resignation or dismissal?

Author

MoreRockin

Date

2006-11-06T14:53:46-06:00

ID

108346

Comment

BTW, here's the actual Vanity Fair piece, Neo Culpa with a subhed of "Now They Tell Us." Here's criticism of its packaging.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-06T14:55:23-06:00

ID

108347

Comment

This is my act as moderator for the day: Tom and Donna: You two should get a room. I'm out.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-06T15:12:10-06:00

ID

108348

Comment

Get a room? I have a newspaper, Fishy. I got me lots of rooms. And an iTodd. ;-D I also don't need any new moderators.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-06T15:27:09-06:00

ID

108349

Comment

Rummy will go when his boss says he'll go. It's just a matter of when.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-11-06T16:01:57-06:00

ID

108350

Comment

Rummy is not going anywhere. He's been involved with Bush & Co. since the 1970's. In the unlikely event Bush fires Rummy, you have to admit that Bush will just appoint another puppet that will have the SAME philosophy as Rummy.

Author

MoreRockin

Date

2006-11-06T16:10:16-06:00

ID

108351

Comment

Rummy is bad. Yet I think the mess with the war has to blamed on Bush and Cheney. Cheney is another George Armstrong Custer w/o the balls to ride along for the fight, and Bush wanted to finish his daddy's unfinished business. Now we will have to see carnage, pillage, and lying for decades because of them.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-06T16:19:01-06:00