Posted by: Brian on November 4, 2006 at 3:18 pm
The left is jumping all over this story, which is pretty bogus (which I’ll explain why in a moment):
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.”
The editorial will appear just one day before the midterm election, in which GOP candidates have been losing ground, according to recent polls.
“This is not about the midterm elections,” continued the editorial, which will appear in the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times, and Marine Corps Times on Monday. “Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go.”
“Not about the midterms”? Of COURSE it is. Who do they think they’re kidding?
First, let’s take a moment at see this for what it is: it’s an editorial written in what is basically a regular paper, or group of papers. Just because it’s sold primarily to the troops, doesn’t mean a thing.
Second, the military has nothing to do with these groups of publications, so the fact that the editorial appears in them rather than, say, the New York Times means nothing. The way the left is huffing about it, you’d swear the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force Generals got together and said “he has to go”.
Finally, these groups of publications are hardly what you would call “fair and balanced”. For example, I read the Navy Times almost everyday online. A large proportion of their articles is provided by the AP, and we KNOW how even-handed THEY are. But even articles written especially for it are more often than not slanted towards the left, or pushing a liberal agenda.
So, point blank…this op-ed could just as easily have ran in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the L.A. Times, and it would have meant the exact same thing: nothing.
**Update**: As everyone should be aware, I’m on Karl Rove’s first responder’s list (joking!) and I get emails from the White House (that’s serious). Tony Snow had these comments in regards to this op-eds:
“A lot of people are thinking, aha, what you have are a lot of military people in open revolt against the President, when, in fact, you’ve got a lot of Gannett editorial writers, which would be thoroughly consistent with USA Today and the rest of the Gannett chain, which I think, if memory serves, does not have a single strong conservative editorial page in the entire chain.”
“But maybe the worst is this, it says, ‘A new course of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning.’ It then goes on to cite General John Abizaid completely out of context, when he said before Congress – he said, ‘I believe the sectarian violence probably is as bad as I’ve seen it. It’s possible that Iraq could move toward civil war.’ The following month General Casey said – let’s see, a couple of things. First, he said that, ‘A, I think we can prevent a civil war. Secondly, things in a counter-insurgency environment, as you well know, take time to mature militarily and politically, and we’re confident that with the measures we’re taking now we can be successful.’”
“First, you’ve already had David Frum coming out and saying that Vanity Fair completely took out of context what he said and twisted a discussion of what he described as looking for the best way to win the war, into something far more fatalistic. We’ll have to let Richard Perle and Ken Adelman make whatever comments. But if the quotes are accurate, it means that they’re at war with the advice that they gave some time ago.”
Brian runs the website Iowa Voice, and is filling in for ST for a few days.
Of course it’s about the election. And don’t think the Editorial Boards aren’t reflecting their readership. No oversight has been an unmitigated disaster that the military has had to bear the brunt of. Putting 20-something GOP political idealogues in charge of the Iraq reconstruction doomed it from the start and Congress abdicated all responsibility. Rumsfeld championed this misguided effort and needs to go now.
Yep the Left will stoop to any means to Lie and Cheat and Steal. The hypocrasie of the Left knows no bounds.
This is just more of the same … yawn.
While many may honorably disagree with the conduct of the war in Iraq, as led by Rumsfeld, from a constructive, political and military point of view; but I cannot find one credible accusation against Rumsfeld which amounts to malfeasance, misfeasance or non feasance of his office. Rumsfeld has served his country with honor in the navy as a pilot, Chief of Staff to President Ford, as a United States Congressman and twice as Secretary of Defense (13th and 21st) and Ambassador to NATO.
I have heard of zero scandals involving Rumsfeld! Has any other Secretary of Defense been appointed to that office with the breadth of experience and intellect (Princeton graduate) as Rumsfeld could boast?
There are some in the military that hate Rumsfeld. Do you know why? Because, even while leading our military during a time of war he has been in charge of a wide sweeping reorganization of the Military and some old generals have had their toes stepped on because they wanted to defend the old guard and were unable and/or unwilling to adapt.
Should he resign? Hell no! He deserves our respect and should be honored by every American for his selfless and valiant service to the United States of America!
Well said, I. M. Neiman.
Another thing we don’t hear is exactly how any of our efforts have been a disaster. It must be due to the deaths. Golly, deaths in a war? Whoever heard of such a thing?
I’m so glad you did this post. I heard about this today and I was discouraged because like you said I got the impression that this was the military asking for his resignation.
I am so sick of the Rumsfeld bashing. I love Rummy almost as much as W and I think it is disgraceful how he has been maligned.
Little Miss:
I’m glad you brought that up. What I do whenever I hear a report like this from the media, is I automatically assume it’s spin and/or outright lies. I look up the “story behind the story”, because with the media’s record of bias towards the left, I simply don’t believe what they’d have us believe. I do a little research to see what was really said, what’s behind the claims, etc.
Now we know why media outlets like the NYTs and MSNBC aren’t doing very well, because they can no longer get away with the lies and the spin they used to. Twenty years ago, if they said something, we had to accept that it was true, because we didn’t have Rush, we didn’t have the internet, and we certainly didn’t have FOX…we didn’t have any way to verify that what we were being told was true.
It’s a whole new world, and I don’t think it’s an accident that Democrats have been on the run since 1994, when all of this stuff started to take off.
“First, let’s take a moment at see this for what it is: it’s an editorial written in what is basically a regular paper, or group of papers. Just because it’s sold primarily to the troops, doesn’t mean a thing.”
Absolutely correct. They are published by the Gannett group. For an extra point, who publishes USAToday??
Skul: Did you mean this guy? Brian (puter tard here), this is where ST waves her magic wand and makes my link appear in blue.
LINK
A sample of what’s written (last paragraph) in the link above:
“Boccardi, who has taken a leading role in the news industry on critical First Amendment and freedom of the press issues as well as challenges involving readership and media credibility, is a member and former chairman of the Pulitzer Prize board. He is a graduate of the Columbia University School of Journalism and Fordham College.”
I think you already did it. =D
If not, let me know what it is you’re linking, and I’ll edit it in for you.
I read something about this (it may have been here), and a commenter – a Navy man – made the point that the Gannett papers are not sold onboard ship. He related that he reads the Stars and Stripes, but not the Navy Times. And he couldn’t say that anyone else onboard ship read the Gannett product either.
So who are these papers being printed for? Seemingly only for reporters to quote. I wonder what the sales figures for these military newspapers are?