Somethin's Happenin' Here

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Lonestar
I think Rummy should be removed too, but I would never let my signature be associated with most of the anti-war groups out there anyway, which may account for the lack of signatures.

Agreed.

[Wycoff]

Re: Somethin's Happenin' Here

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

On Monday morning, one day before Election Day, an editorial in the Army Times, the Navy Times, the Marine Corps Times and the Air Force Times will call for the removal of Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/04/RUMSFELD.TMP

Though everyone is focusing on the second link, I find this one to be much more interesting and relevant. It's basically a condemnation of the entire Bush strategy and military perspective, coming straight from the mouths of the military. The Bush Administration runs on how it supports the troops and how the Republicans are the pro-military party. If non-partisan insiders vocally denounce the Bush Administration for bungling Iraq (which is exactly what a call for Rummy's resignation represents), then making that argument becomes much tougher.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

The top brass has taken notice. Organizers say they got a call last week from staff on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who asked for details on the number and kind of troops signing on to the protest.

It's likely this was less an expression of interest than preparation for reprimands if not court-martials. (See DoD Directive 1344.10, Titles 10, 2, and 18 of the United States Code, UCMJ Article 88, etc.) Technically this petition can be squeezed into a permissible gray area so the DoD's 'official' line will let this slide, but I wouldn't be surprised if individual colonels with axes to grind grill a few organizers. In general it's not smart for active-duty personnel to get this publicly political.

[chequita guevara]

They've been very, very careful not to express any disrespect up the chain of command and simply keeping it to strongly disagreeing with the war in Iraq and wanting the war to end. This ain't 1969. There aren't any mutinies . . . yet.

[Pekka]

Victory is stabilized ME with return of great admiration and sense of gratitude.

This ain't going to happen. Victory is out of the window. A draw might be the best possible result, but it's worth going for. ME won't be stabilized no matter what happens in Iraq, gratitude might come IF and ONLY IF democracy prevails in Iraq, which is very unlikely. So a draw would be to get out when things have temporarily calmed and there won't be a civil war and massive 'cleaning operations' aftewrads by who ever gets in power.

[Chemical Ollie]

Hey, Hali-burton got a 5 year contract! You should fulfil your obligation!

[Drake Tungsten]

It's basically a condemnation of the entire Bush strategy and military perspective, coming straight from the mouths of the military.

The Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force Times aren't officially connected with the military. They're owned by the same company that owns USA Today.

[chequita guevara]

That would be Murdoch, I'm led to understand.

[Kuciwalker]

this is Oerdin-style pwnage

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That would be Murdoch, I'm led to understand.

Wikipedia doesn't mention any links between Murdoch and the Gannett Company.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


True. If you define victory as destroying Iraq and inflaming the ME against us for the next three generations, we've had a smashing victory. In that case, however, the mission is accomplished and the troops should come home.

That response is soooooooooo typical. Avoid the question and throw out the same old talking points.

I didn't define victory, I just questioned your assertion to say that "victory" was impossible. I assumed that someone as intelligent as yourself would have their own definition of victory before they said it wasn't an option. Obviously, you would just prefer to say what victory isn't.

I guess I was just tryng to point out that:

a) not everyone is as pessimistic as you.

b) not everyone shares your definition of victory (if you even have one).

c) not everyone seems to delight in the chance to put down the US every chance they get.

If you want to have a rational discussion of what "victory" in this conflict would entail, start another thread. This thread about your 65 signatures is much too important to be threadjacked.
:

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
this is Oerdin-style pwnage

Really? Where?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


Wikipedia doesn't mention any links between Murdoch and the Gannett Company.

I guess the person who told me that was wrong.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

It's basically a condemnation of the entire Bush strategy and military perspective, coming straight from the mouths of the military.

The Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force Times aren't officially connected with the military. They're owned by the same company that owns USA Today.

Ah ha! Someone has finally injected facts into this discussion!!

[Zkribbler]

I have to admit, I am surprised at this.
These newspapers are very pro-military and very conservative. Slamming a high-ranking member of the Administration right before the election gives more ammo to the Dems. The same point could have been made next week, without the political fall out.