Who do the troops support?

November 5, 2006 2:01 PM

US Military Papers open fire on Rummy. Tomorrow, the Army Times -- and all other Military Times papers, including Navy and Air Force Times -- will run an editorial calling for Donald Rumsfeld to tender his resignation or be fired, due to his gross incompetence in handling the Iraq quagmire.
posted by lazaruslong (70 comments total)

Uh oh.
posted by evilcolonel at 2:04 PM on November 5, 2006

I think that deserves a bit more than an "uh oh."


I'm gonna pull out the "RUH ROH..."
posted by stenseng at 2:06 PM on November 5, 2006

Couple of days ago...yesterday.
posted by lee at 2:07 PM on November 5, 2006

Again? COOL!
posted by nevercalm at 2:08 PM on November 5, 2006

Pretty sure evilcolonel meant what lee meant; if not, I know I mean what lee means.
posted by cgc373 at 2:09 PM on November 5, 2006

I think it's "whom do the troops support"
posted by rxrfrx at 2:12 PM on November 5, 2006

Ya know what this post needs? A dailykos link to spice it up a little.
posted by TedW at 2:14 PM on November 5, 2006

One more day, kids, just wait one more day.
posted by fenriq at 2:15 PM on November 5, 2006

THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING. oh wai
posted by keswick at 2:16 PM on November 5, 2006

Why a Truthout link? It's on the Army Times website.
posted by homunculus at 2:18 PM on November 5, 2006

This is the most boring story ever posted.
posted by smackfu at 2:21 PM on November 5, 2006

Before this post gets deleted, does anyone else want to take The Department of Defense Challenge?

We challenge those who say the Secretary has ever painted a “rosy picture” to provide his quotes as well as the full context of those remarks.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 2:22 PM on November 5, 2006

But what about the Coast Guard Times? It's a shame no one seems to take it seriously!

It should be noted that these aren't "military papers" but private newspapers distributed (mostly) to military personnel.
posted by clevershark at 2:22 PM on November 5, 2006

If you think this is a nothing, Mr. Clever, you ain't thinkin'.

This is like the Catholic Times writing an editorial calling for the Pope to hang up his robes, or at least a very senior cardinal.
posted by digaman at 2:27 PM on November 5, 2006

This is like the Catholic Times writing an editorial calling for the Pope to hang up his robes, or at least a very senior cardinal.

That's something I'd like to see.
posted by hal9k at 2:34 PM on November 5, 2006

Wait! The guy who owns the Military Times also owns USA Today!!

This means that not only the military, but the entire United States has decided against Rumsfield!

Next on my to-do list: creating a newspaper called The White House Times so I can put words in the mouth of the executive branch any time I feel like it.
posted by tkolar at 2:36 PM on November 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

buh-bye
posted by BrodieShadeTree at 2:40 PM on November 5, 2006

It's not like this is the first editorial they've ever printed that criticized the military. For instance, this one from May 2004.
posted by smackfu at 2:42 PM on November 5, 2006

Sorry.
posted by lazaruslong at 2:44 PM on November 5, 2006

tkolar : "Next on my to-do list: creating a newspaper called The White House Times so I can put words in the mouth of the executive branch any time I feel like it."

But...but I heard that next Tuesday the Tkolar Times is running an editorial about how doing stuff like that is a bad idea.
posted by Bugbread at 2:45 PM on November 5, 2006

Not to worry, lazarus, I thought it was worth a post too, and I'm not sure why the first one was deleted.
posted by jokeefe at 2:46 PM on November 5, 2006

So, um, when do new episodes of MeFi start? Isn't it sweeps month?
posted by dw at 2:47 PM on November 5, 2006

I thought Matt and Jess might resurrect this thread, but looks like they left it to lazurus.

The thread never should have been deleted; lazarus had no way of knowing it had been; his post makes perfect sense.
posted by ibmcginty at 2:51 PM on November 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

...And we're gonna keep on posting it until Rummy's gone! So there!

I too felt this shoulda stayed - I saw it here first and a day later it was front-page news in the rest of the print media. One of the significant benefits of MeFi is just that sort of early-distant-warning post. Start canning 'em because they're 'newsfilter,' and the site loses significant value and editorial influence.
posted by mwhybark at 2:52 PM on November 5, 2006

One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “mission accomplished,” the insurgency is “in its last throes,” and “back off,” we know what we’re doing, are a few choice examples.

Oi ! Rumsfeld is just the sacrificial scapegoat, whoever wrote this is, imho, after the very top guys.
posted by elpapacito at 2:53 PM on November 5, 2006

The thread never should have been deleted

Posts that are nothing but links to op eds have long been discouraged here. They don't all get deleted, but Matt has been very clear about the lameness of that kind of post.
posted by mediareport at 2:57 PM on November 5, 2006

ibmcginty : "I thought Matt and Jess might resurrect this thread, but looks like they left it to lazurus. "

Lo, tis Lazarus, risen from the dead!!
posted by Bugbread at 2:58 PM on November 5, 2006

mwhybark : "Start canning 'em because they're 'newsfilter,' and the site loses significant value and editorial influence."

I await that day with tingling anticipation.
posted by Bugbread at 2:59 PM on November 5, 2006

Also, the title implies that the Military Times folks (owned by Gannett) speak for the troops, and the post implies they're "US military papers." They're not; they're private papers aimed at active and retired soldiers and their families.
posted by mediareport at 3:02 PM on November 5, 2006

bugbread, do us a favor and start making some posts if you don't like newsfilter.
posted by caddis at 3:05 PM on November 5, 2006

99% of all military folks that I know read the Air Force Times (or their respective version) only for "quality of life" articles that talk about how much the raise is going to be next year, or how your pay stacks up against civilians, or what benefits are being added/cut/changed, etc. Few military folks put any stock in any of the "political" side of the papers. For most, this "story" is a yawner and won't affect their view of Rumsfeld one way or another.
posted by davidmsc at 3:16 PM on November 5, 2006

Pretty sure evilcolonel meant what lee meant; if not, I know I mean what lee means.

Yeah, I could've pulled off the links to the deleted threads, too.

But I'm a lazy, lazy man.
posted by evilcolonel at 3:20 PM on November 5, 2006

Where's Rhomboid so he can claim it's all a Daily Kos plot?
posted by Kickstart70 at 3:27 PM on November 5, 2006

I thought when you used a chainsaw on zombies, they wouldn't rise again. What's this doing back from the grave?
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 3:28 PM on November 5, 2006

Fuzzy Monster writes "Before this post gets deleted, does anyone else want to take The Department of Defense Challenge?"

Here's what that challenge item actually says:

"CHALLENGE THOSE WHO CLAIM ADMINISTRATION OFFERED A ROSY SCENARIO: We challenge those who say the Secretary has ever painted a “rosy picture” to provide his quotes as well as the full context of those remarks."

A tautology. Critics are saying the administration presented a rosy picture, and many members of the administration did ("I honestly thing we'll be greeted as liberators", Dick Cheney). Political hacks (almost certainly civvies) at the Pentagon want people to prove that Rumsfeld presented a rosy picture. "You can't prove something you didn't say" is a pretty fucking piss-poor argument.

It's easy to intellectually masturbate while answering arguments one WISHES the other side had made. A lot tougher to answer the arguments which DO get put forward. That's why the PR hacks opt to play word games instead of formulating a coherent answer.
posted by clevershark at 3:32 PM on November 5, 2006

This is the lamest non-story. An editorial in a paper calling for RUmsfields removal. We have seen those for the past couple of years. The only thing that makes this different is that it is coming from privately owned papers that are marketed to military folks. A set of papers that have already, two years ago, called for his removal. It seems that some labor under the misapprehension that this is coming from the mouths of actual generals in the military, which it isn't. If that was true, then this would be huge, but its not, and this is nice, but not special in any significant way.
posted by Falconetti at 3:33 PM on November 5, 2006

I can't believe this has merited two bad posts, but nobody has covered the fact that High Times has called for the resignation of Tommy Chong.
posted by allen.spaulding at 3:34 PM on November 5, 2006

caddis : "bugbread, do us a favor and start making some posts if you don't like newsfilter."

The choice to make a post should be based on whether you've found something particularly good on the web, not based on whether you want a certain type of post to be more or less common on MeFi. If I find any good sites, don't worry, I'll link them up, but until then, I'm not going to post crap just to push newsfilter out; that's making things worse, not better.
posted by Bugbread at 3:34 PM on November 5, 2006

Little known fact: High Times IS an official military publication.
posted by smackfu at 3:35 PM on November 5, 2006

Actually in the spirit of greater accuracy Cheney's actual words were "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." He said it on Meet the Press on 03/16/2003.
posted by clevershark at 3:37 PM on November 5, 2006

Ah, but anyway, I guess I was pissing in the thread because I knew it would get axed, and that's really no excuse. I apologize.
posted by Bugbread at 3:43 PM on November 5, 2006

Ok.

I wasn't aware this was a double, because the previous one was deleted and did not show up in my search.

I am aware that single link posts are frowned upon, but I felt like this was important enough to merit one.

I have been educated that the "military" papers referenced are not official military papers but rather private enterprises, which I was not aware of. So if nothing else, thank you for that information.

I am sorry to have pissed off so many of you with my careless indiscretion here. I'm going to head back to lurker mode now.

Carry on.
posted by lazaruslong at 3:47 PM on November 5, 2006

Best post ever.
posted by fixedgear at 3:49 PM on November 5, 2006

lazaruslong: And the moral is...You don't have to be on fire around here for folks to piss on you.

Chin up.
posted by leftcoastbob at 3:50 PM on November 5, 2006

These posts should all be deleted to make room for more stuff about macs and ipods.
posted by meehawl at 3:51 PM on November 5, 2006

Matt and Jess and Bush and Snow all agree . . . .
posted by landis at 3:52 PM on November 5, 2006

This year quite a few recently ex-military are running for Congress mainly as Dems, I believe, and if they do well there will be a land rush by both parties to recruit attractive candidates from the ranks of the former ranks to run in '08 against vulnerable incumbents.

It could make for a strange situation for the next president, if he or she lacks solid military credentials, if such a person is now even electable, that is.
posted by jamjam at 3:53 PM on November 5, 2006

lazaruslong, pissing off MeFites is a bad reason to go back to lurking. Getting caught buggering a dead dog in front of a daycare is a good reason (posted on MeCha the other day) and is a much more careless indiscretion. I posted a Meta about deleted threads and searches yesterday, it applies here as well.

Besides, many folks thought the first deletion was lame.
posted by fenriq at 3:57 PM on November 5, 2006

Lazarus, your post was just bad luck. Don't sweat it.
posted by Bugbread at 4:06 PM on November 5, 2006

I am aware that single link posts are frowned upon

lazaruslong, single link posts ARE NOT frowned upon. Single links to *opinion pieces* are, and have been for years.
posted by mediareport at 4:07 PM on November 5, 2006

"... many folks thought the first deletion was lame."

They were wrong, but at least you're not alone.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:07 PM on November 5, 2006

su...
posted by exit at 4:10 PM on November 5, 2006

mediareport: In my defense, shoddy though it may be, I was not intending to link to an op-ed, but rather link to a story telling us that the op-ed was going to be released. Splitting hairs and all that, I know, but I was less interested in the op-ed itself and more in it's being released in what I thought were actual military journals. Which I now am aware is also untrue.

All in all, bad post, my wrist has been slapped, the stinging from the slap mitigated by urine, and I will be more careful in the future.




and i actually remember that MeTa thread. That was right around when I joined MeFi. Ahh, memories.
posted by lazaruslong at 4:15 PM on November 5, 2006

newsfilter, dailykosfilter
posted by LarryC at 4:18 PM on November 5, 2006

Lazaruslong don't take it too personally, snarking is blood sport here. Just don't post political links and you will be fine.
posted by LarryC at 4:20 PM on November 5, 2006

Just don't post political links and you will be fine.

If only that were true...

But definitely keep posting, lazaruslong.
posted by mediareport at 4:23 PM on November 5, 2006

Salon - "Cakewalk"
March 28 2003
Bush administration officials and their hawkish supporters now say they never promised an easy war -- but the record shows otherwise.

A nice list of rosy quotes.
posted by ryanrs at 4:24 PM on November 5, 2006

"Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large."

Because bitching about the post is far easier than discussing that topic.
F'rinstance: "Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on "critical" and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year."

Let's talk about why leaks are bad m'kay. That could be classified material. The reporters should get in trouble. Maybe it was just a theoretical exploration. They ran out of gas. Uh, had a flat tire. Didn't have enough money for cab fare. The tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts.
Anything except the 800 lb gorilla in the room.

There is a reasonable discussion to be had here. Is this going to have any impact? What's the response from the guys in the field? Anyone buy the Army times take? And even if they do, WTF can anyone do about it?
There is, and has been, a great deal of resistance to the attempt to distort the reality in Iraq - what exactly is going to happen if it continues? Particularly if Rummy doesn't resign. One can't merely laud the implications here because they're anti-administration or deny the reality to this problem. We're losing good officers, we're pissing a lot of high powered people off, bleeding money and losing men with no real goal in sight.
That displeasure is being express in a publication that EVERYONE in the miltary reads, whether they subscribe or not, it's sitting on someone's coffee table, it's sitting out in the mail room, it's in the O clubs and the lounges. Whether they're on board or not, the subject has been broached and some kind of response is warrented - you can't just say "fuck you" to the people under you.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:00 PM on November 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

SHUT UP, MAGGOT!
posted by ryanrs at 5:19 PM on November 5, 2006

This is important news, whether the mods think so or not. It certainly has engendered discussion, which is what I thought MeFi was for.

(And, no, I'm not happy that I posted the first one that was deleted.)
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:43 PM on November 5, 2006

This is important news, whether the mods think so or not. It certainly has engendered discussion, which is what I thought MeFi was for.

Where does this misconception come from?

MeFi Guidelines:

"A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might [emphasis mine -kes] warrant discussion from others."
posted by keswick at 5:51 PM on November 5, 2006

In case anyone needs a further rebuttal on davidmsc's and Snow's lies about the irrelavance of this to regular military folks.
posted by dopeypanda at 7:36 PM on November 5, 2006

tkolar - "Next on my to-do list: creating a newspaper called The White House Times so I can put words in the mouth of the executive branch any time I feel like it."

Some people already beat you to it.

Whitehouse.org
posted by porpoise at 7:37 PM on November 5, 2006

porpoise wrote...
Some people already beat you to it: Whitehouse.org


Oh, I thought you meant these folks. But then I realized those weren't words they were putting in their mouths...
posted by tkolar at 8:21 PM on November 5, 2006

I am aware that single link posts are frowned upon, but I felt like this was important enough to merit one.

I agree with you. Thank you for reposting this. Don't ever let the MeFi Snark Patrol get you down.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:27 PM on November 5, 2006

Where's Rhomboid so he can claim it's all a Daily Kos plot?

That's not what I claimed. I claimed that it was poor style to link to speculation about future events as if it was something that had already happened. Mefi is about the links, not the discussion, and that's a direct quote from #1. The last one was deleted for good reason.
posted by Rhomboid at 11:59 PM on November 5, 2006

Metafilter: About the links, not the discussion.



Hey wait, that actually *would* be a pretty good slogan.
posted by tkolar at 12:12 AM on November 6, 2006

This is my second post in years
posted by yertledaturtle at 2:56 AM on November 6, 2006

I think it's a topic worth discussion. It's too bad both FPPs had lousy links; but, at least this one wasn't worded to make it sound like our armed forces were going to mutiny or something.

In my experience, the Army Times has always been pretty ubiquitous on any post. Some folks don't read it at all, some read a lot of it...

My ring-knocker father wouldn't have it in the house until he retired. He said it was low-brow.

But, he read it at work pretty much every day on the premise he needed to see what kind of shit they were dishing to his troops. He ate at least one meal a day in his mess halls on the same premise.

I talked to my mom yesterday and she thinks it's a pretty big deal. I agree.

Perhaps it's changed; but, when I last read the Army Times, it presented a pretty conservative slant in both news and op-eds. So, it's along the lines of Pat Buchanan ragging on Bush, only cooler.

It's not as cool as if they had printed more stuff like this when so many of our troops were considering their absentee ballots; but, it's still cool enough to get DOD to post a response. I like that.

This is my son's busy time; but, when I get him on the phone I shall certainly ask him what he thinks of this. He's the only currently serving member of the family.
posted by taosbat at 11:11 AM on November 6, 2006

Military city forum

Seems to lean towards anti-editorial.


This jibes with my experiance of late:

“As a 1stSgt, I talked with most of the SNCOs and officers in my Battalion. Almost to a man, we thought Rumsfelt an arrogant idiot. I'd say the feeling on the President more like 50-50. Granted, we were at about 98 percent Republican and rabidly anti-Democrat.

I got out last December. Before I did, I was starting to see some of the rot I had heard about from the Vietnam vets when I came in. Other senior SNCO's and I discussed it. This goat fuck is also going to set our services back several years.

You want a taste of the morale? my entire career (1984-2006), thwe Corps has selected an average of 25-35 Marines for promotion to Sergeant Major every year. Since 2003, the average has been 90-95. Why? people are saying to hell with it and getting out. Not the young kids on their first term, but the senior lifers. I know men with more than 4 tours in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. These people leaving are the heart and soul of the Corps.”
posted by Smedleyman at 3:21 PM on November 6, 2006