Military Times Throws Down the Gauntlet: Rumsfeld Must Go
[Note from Larry Johnson: My friend and colleague, Brent Budowsky, a contributing editor to the Fighting Dems, was first out of the gate reacting to the news that the Military Times newspapers are calling for Rumsfeld to go. Here is his piece.]
The Military Times speaks truth to power and to America with its call for Rumsfeld to go. This is the beginning of the end for the Republican policy of failure, arrogance, corruption, dishonesty and war partisanship.
On Monday Marine Corps Times, Army Times, Navy Times, and Air Force Times are taking the extraordinary and courageous step of calling for Rumsfeld to go.
The voice of commanders, the troops and their families will speak. This madness must end. This policy must change. Rumsfeld must go. Enough is enough.
To save any semblance of rationality for American policy in Iraq new leaders, a Democratic Congress and the resignation of Secretary Rumsfeld are urgently needed.
This past week something extraordinariny and ominous happened. An American soldier was kidnapped. Going all out to leave no one behind, our mlitary established checkpoints.
What happened next? The government in Iraq under the control of pro-Iranian Shi'ite leaders, surrending to the will of murderous Shi'ite militia, ordered the checkpoint closed.
This is the government that more than 2800 Americans have given their lives for. This is the government of rampant corruption. This is the government that has virtually no police force to speak in the fourth year of this war and whatever police force does exist is heavily infiltrated by even more of these murderous military.
Meanwhile sectarian violence and bloodshed continue to rise in November and every day brings news of more carnage and corruption. And the Republican Congress now wants to cashier even the Republican Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, to protect those who have been stealing, pillaging, misusing, losing and corrupting more than $10 billion of our money.
Now, in one of the most extraordinary and important moments in the history of this war, the Military Times newspapers are calling for the removal of Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld.
Marine Corps Times, Army Times, Air Force Times and Navy Times are taking a principled and courageous stand sending a powerful pre-election message about what must be done.
In fact, what I and others have been arguing for some time is that what the Military Times now publicly calls for, is what the commanders and most troops have believed for some time.
Lack of armor.
Lack of protected vehicles.
Lack of bandages and helmets.
Lack of adequate pay for troops.
Lack of respect for commanders from the President and his neo-conservatives, who are now cutting and running themselves by blaming each other for their shared value, is their modus operandi. The hallmarks of Republican leaders in Washington are arrogance, dishonesty and delusion.
Corrupted Iraq Reconstruction.
Crony deals, stolen money, wasted programs in which American troops give their lives and limbs for a government dominated by Iranian supported militia. While the blood of our troops is spilled multi-millionaire crooks, with ties to one party Republican government lard their bank accounts, and use our money to pay for their super bowl parties.
As the Miltary Times editorial says, for years the sergeants and captains have reported back that their urgent efforts to train Iraqi troops were not succeeding, because those they trained were not loyal to the cause, and were in it for the money.
As the Military Times editorial says, the Secretary of Defense is a disaster and it is time for him to go.
As Vanity Fair reports, the pathetic theorists of neo-conservativism who helped build the public case to invade Iraq are now turning against the President, saying they would have opposed the war if they knew how he would mismanage it.
Meanwhile the President parades around the country name calling Democrats, and the pro-Iranian government of Iraq stiffs American troops, while the Republican power barons in Washington stiff the Inspector General to protect the crooks who pay for their campaigns.
This is like the end of one of those old Fred Astaire movies where everyone is on the stage as the curtain closes: Iraq mismanagement. The culture of corruption. The partisan president dishing his dirt. The Republican Congress trying to gut the Inspector General. The Republican candidates drenching the aiwaves with lying and smearing ads.
It gets worse: the neoconservatives running for cover. The intelligence community saying the war creates more terrorists. Commanders warning of the descent to chaos. And while the carnage and corruption continue, the Vice President acts like Captain Queeg, claiming preposterously that he was always right, demanding that we stay the course with this catastrophic policy.
Military Times, Marines Corps Times, Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times: they speak for the troops, they speak for the families, they speak for the commanders.
It is the beginning of the end.
It is time for this madness to end.
With all respect,the problem is not Rumsfeld. It is Bush-Cheney. If we go after the instrument of their policy, we should not forget in whose service (NOT OURS) he is acting. I think sometimes, the Dems instead of opposing the Iraq occupation want simply to change the face of the occupier. A kinder, gentler occupation?
November 4, 2006 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Bush steals the election, The Homeland War begins.
It'll become impossible to deny that the Bush administration is a rogue regime.
11-7 will not be the beginning of the Bush administration's war on the Constitution.
11-7 will be the day the Bush administration's war on the Constitution becomes an inescapable reality.
What George W. Bush likes to call "a clarifying moment."
With all the scandals still fresh in the nation's mind, the media will be unable to spin it as a result of "values voters."
On 11-7, the war comes home.
It will be time to choose sides.
Either you are with the regime that stole the election. Or you are against it.
Which side will the Democratic Party be on?
Will the Democratic Party be the vehicle for fighting the illegitimate regime?
Or will it collaborate in the regime's crimes?
What is the meaning of a "loyal opposition" when the party in power is recognized as a criminal organization? What is a loyal opposition supposed to be loyal to? Power? Or the Constitution?
Will the leaders of the Democratic Party be "good sports" once again - or will a leader emerge with the gravitas to deal with the gravity of the situation?
We are much more likely to need a Martin Luther King - a leader willing to risk spending time in a jail cell - than another career politician. Will Hillary be willing to do time? Will John Kerry report for duty - at a sit-in at the White House? Does Al Gore care enough about the earth to march in the street?
On 11-7, the gloves come off. If they steal this thing now, with the polls so overwhelmingly against them, the reaction is going to be furious.
Of course the polls are looking great. But get real: There is no way George Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are about to allow themselves to be investigated by the likes of Henry Waxman and John Conyers.
As Bush Sr. might say: Not. Gonna. Happen.
Especially when the penalty for stealing elections is so inconsequential. Some liberal huffing and puffing. A few bashed skulls. A stern lecture from Keith Olbermann. But there won't be any actual proof that they stole it - computer hacking leaves no fingerprints - and election law is notoriously weak when it comes to enforcement.
11-7 is the day the consequences of losing the right of habeus corpus starts to sink in.
November 4, 2006 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whither the night of the long knives.......
Will the Chump-in-Chief demand resignations? Or will the officers with the courage of their convictions offer them? Will they recognize the higher duty to the Constitution, or go quietly so that newly appointed Secretary of Defense Leiberman can assemble a "new team" for a "new direction"?
Do we now face what so many other countries across the globe have faced:
A military dictatorship, with soldiers bound by their "oath of allegiance", or a field of conscientous objectors, throwing down their arms and refusing the order?
Interesting and defining days ahead.....
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
November 4, 2006 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that it is important to keep our focus on the top of the pyramid. Let's not allow ourselves to be set up by this orchestrated dispatch of a scapegoat. Bush will continue to profess loyalty to Rumsfeld, but will eventually be forced by political pressure to throw him overboard - perhaps as early as Monday after the Army Times article is discussed at length on the Sunday talk shows. When the firing happens, many will attempt to paint the decision as a bold "change of course" and evidence that the ship of state is now pointed in a new direction. Let's be ready to point out that until Bush and Cheney fire themselves, the underlying source of our troubles remains in place.
November 4, 2006 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is my point too. It is fine to focus on the execrable Rummy and to demand he be fired (or purged since we are talking of a one-party governmenet) but we should be clear we want the occupation to end as soon as possible (if not sooner), that there should be no remaining American bases or troops left in Iraq, and the imbecilic foreign policy must be changed by the top imbeciles.
November 4, 2006 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
A resignation, in fact two resignations are in order now. Never before in our history have both the President and the Vice President resigned simultaneously, but that needs to happen now. Of course the acting president would then be Dennis Hastert, but he needs to resign for other reasons, leaving who in charge? It really doesn't matter, it will be a massive improvement. In a perfect world, and this is a far from perfect one, the Democrats will take both houses of Congress, then the vice president and president will resign, and we will have our first woman president, and her name will not be Clinton.
Hoppy in Sacramento
November 4, 2006 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all respect,the problem is not Rumsfeld. It is Bush-Cheney.
So, if Bush gets rid of Rumsfeld and Cheney, who is left to take all the blame? Let's see............................
I guess George has an IQ of around 90 after all; I never thought it was above 75 before now.
Jan Knaus
November 4, 2006 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, Hoppy, I volunteer. I would be at LEAST as good as any of the others: I am willing to spend big bucks on things that really matter, and am a miser with things that don't matter. I have a radar for narcissists and discount whatever they say and do; I can see through a hypocrite because I never had to pretend not to. I believe in the common good. I respect the Earth we live on. I have travelled more widely than the current president, and speak more languages than he does. I have, if anything -- too many interests, (as opposed to NO interests) -- ceramics, carpentry, movies, peoples' foibles, etc. AT age 58 (after 15 years at home with my children) I went back to work and learned an entirely new specialy in nursing (invitro fertilization), which was a huge challenge and a sharp learning curve, but I did it.
My major qualification: I have a great relationship with my children, and even with my ex-husband. Yes, I accept the nomination -- so bring on the perks! OOOOOOPS!
Jan Knaus
November 4, 2006 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The provision that will close the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, effective October 1, 2007, was added to the conference version of a military appropriations bill as a "midnight rider" by Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, a recently announced presidential candidate. Before the conference modification, neither the House nor the Senate version contained the clause that terminates the IGIR Office, which has embarassed the administration by reporting fraud and mismanagement of the 100's of billions of dollars we've spent in Iraq, much of which ended up in the pockets of Republican Party backers. Following the money just got a little harder.
I'm sure the MSM will remind us of this often as they report on Duncan Hunter's campaign.
November 4, 2006 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Next in line after the Speaker of the House is the President Pro Temp of the Senate, who right now is the Honorable Ted Stevens from Alaska. President Tubes. His counterpart should the Democrats retake the Senate is Robert Byrd from West Virginia, but of course we'd have President Nancy Pelosi instead.
I live in San Francisco, so I'm all for San Francisco values. :-)
November 4, 2006 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Poor Richard's Almanac
If only Richard Perle had known....[Vanity Fair]
1999 war games foresaw problems in Iraq
November 4, 2006 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anybody has to go, I'd vote for dumping the top 25 scrambled eggs wearing bootlickers presently patroling the halls of Versailles on the Potomac.
November 4, 2006 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the general gist of what you're saying, but I do have a comment to a part of what you said.
I think it's more than a bit hypocritical for you and others to complain about the US military backing down in getting our soldier when you were complaining about Israel "[g]oing all out" in getting back its soldier from Hezbollah. Now perhaps you were simply complaining about the fact that Israel decided to go for all out war against Lebanon instead of giving a more restrained military response, but you and others were even complaining about the naval blockade of Lebanon by Israel and the naval blockade is similar to the checkpoints by the US.
My own opinion is if you are willing to tell Israel to engage in a prisoner exchanger for its captured soldier, you should also be willing to tell the American government to engage in a prisoner exchanger for our captured soldier. Say, give Sadr several hundred prisoners in exchange for our American soldier. It doesn't seem like a fair exchange, but that's what Israel does all the time.
November 4, 2006 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
LJ- I respect you and the posters and, especially, the everyday commenters here at the Café and out in blogland for speaking truth to power. I also thank the Murthas, Feingolds, Deans and countless other politicians for following their conscience as best they could. But, while I applaud these conservative military newspapers for boarding the bandwagon (and I know how hard it is for them to really “speak truth to power”), I do not think anyone should hail this as some vanguard movement or tipping point. What truth have they spoken to this corrupt power in the last four years? Are they calling for Casey’s resignation? For an investigation of Rumsfeld and General Miller’s torture program? Haven't they perpetuated this BIG TERROR THREAT meme as nuch as anyone? It's little and it's late.
Even though I think soldiers and their families should be heard, especially, in this age of “preventive war” and some vague GWOT, the military should always beheard last on foreign policy (only in military states does the military call the shots). I suspect that the various Military Times (all Gannet) are, as you say, speaking for the troops on this. But did the troops suddenly realize the futility of this war just yesterday? Except for the retired Generals (whom, I doubt, were supported by the Military Times) why conclude that Rummy has screwed the pooch now? Why not last week or two years ago- because a soldier was kidnapped?
The military has prosecuted this war under Rumsfeld. They have acquiesced in all of his decisions and covered up the reality in Iraq for three years. While I am sure there have been many troops opposed to our actions in Iraq and elsewhere (especially the propaganda and torture), the military Brass and institutions, the public interface like these newspapers, have been silent until now, when the tide has irrevocably turned on the war. How many Americans were even aware of these papers before today?
November 4, 2006 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do agree with you sentiments Don, but speaking for myself I feel your critique of the active military's not being more critical of Rummy is a bit unfair. In that profession there is a chain of command that must be followed to ensure discipline and they won't criticize superiors. I think it is highly unusual (and telling) for a publication like the Military Times to openly criticize a active Sec'y of Defense like Rummy...
Even so, I have my doubts that he is leaving soon...as much as I wish he would. I think Bush is going to keep him on, on principles. He doesn't care about the troops or give a rat's ass about how they feel...if he did they would have gone in with good body armor plus those hummers and other vehicles would have been up-armoured much quicker. And look how the vets have to fight for every scrap as they are pushed through the system when they have problems (mental and physical) when their tours are finally up for good. Like Bush gives a crap about the troops...
November 5, 2006 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is another way of saying that the Commander-in-Chief is unfit for command.
November 5, 2006 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why was that soldier abandoned? My bet is that what happened was that the Iraqi government used the leverage of the timing of the Saddam death sentence to get U.S. troops out of Sadr City. We'll never know for sure, but what other leverage did they have?
global citizen
November 5, 2006 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely, and I understand the chain-of-command and keep-quiet-and-do-your-job mindset that is necessary in a military action (and Rummy showed with Shinsheki what happens to honest critics). I would add other safeguards that we lacked like adequate troop strength and following military laws against arresting or killing civilians on tenuous suspicions and torture/inhumane treatment of detainees, all of which are detrimental to the front-line soldier in the long run. If the commanders in charge of operations did not stand up and demand these things for the troops and, in fact, gave Rumsfeld cover by claiming all was hunky-dory, aren’t they responsible, too?
The military has been politicized throughout the war. Take the decision to forbid photos of returning coffins or counting of “enemy” dead or suicides or even covering up the causes of death of many soldiers as examples of complicity. An article in E & P a couple of days ago begins, “The true stories of how American troops, killed in Iraq, actually died keep spilling out this week.” One such cover-up was of Army specialist Alyssa Peterson who shot herself rather than participate in the torture of Iraqis. For two years, it was framed as an accidental shooting. The cover-ups, denial of need formore armor or troops, etc. are all policy decisions but they have to be strictly maintained by a collusive military or the public will demand change.
November 5, 2006 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only Rumsfeld can be removed from office before January 20, 2006 12 Noon. There is no real benefit for alling for Bush or Cheney to leave from office.
Whatever roll Cheney played in the war plans it was Rumsfeld who shrank the numbers of troops called for in the original plan. Zinni's plan had 500,000 troops and the plan presented to Rumsfeld in December 2001 called for 350,000 troops. Rumsfeld choose at top number of !25,000 troop out of the blue. He also had really no intention of governing Iraq after the fall of Iraq.
General McKiernan many of the other U.S. Generals and the British all realized they would need either Iraq soldiers and police or more forces from somewhere. Rumsfeld, with Bush's and Frank's acquiescence, "off-ramped" troops and left our forces woefully short of numbers.
A study done for Bremer by Rand showed that the smaller the force the greater the casualties. No one paid attention.
More generals perhaps should have resigned and spoke up publically sooner. However, deserting their troops would not have been the best solution either. Rusmsfeld had religious belief in his military doctrine and everyone has suffered as a result.
November 5, 2006 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
More generals perhaps should have resigned and spoke up publically sooner. However, deserting their troops would not have been the best solution either.
Oh, my goodness! Did you hear? Gen. Abizaid resigned. Oh, woe is me; how shall I ever carry on.
November 5, 2006 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen
You are only focusing on one or two generals. There maybe as many as a dozen, plus colnels and majors who knew the U.S. was using to few troops, who sent reports up the line of command about he fedayeen and were worried about the caches of weapons, the lack of security and all the other problems that have come back to haunt the U.S. in Iraq.
Franks in particular but also Abizaid seemsed to be particularly under Rumsfeld's thumb. One of the things that alienated many of hte Generals from Franks is that rather listen to them he seems to be carring Rumsfelds ideas and messages to them.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
November 5, 2006 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful!Thank you!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v update, iscsi target software windows
April 12, 2011 5:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of cluster high availability
May 5, 2011 4:48 AM | Reply | Permalink