You're Doing a Great Job, Rummy
November 3, 2006 9:13 PM   Subscribe

NEWSFILTER: Military Wants Rummy Gone. On Monday, the Army, Navy, and Air Force Times will publish a joint editorial calling for Donald Rumsfeld's ouster. Keith Olbermann announced this tonight according to DailyKos. Further details here and here. It seems that G.W.'s profession of love for Rummy and the job he's doing this week was the last straw. This will surely put Bush in a tight spot. How can he reply and not lose face?
posted by Benny Andajetz (80 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: newsfilter, dailykosfilter.



 
*takes out ceiling cat's eye*
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:16 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
posted by mijuta at 9:19 PM on November 3, 2006


Marine Corps Times too. Mutiny!!!
posted by Marla Singer at 9:20 PM on November 3, 2006


Note that the those are all independent newspapers run by the Army Times Publishing Company, a division of Gannett. Publisher of USA Today.

The military's official newspaper is Stars & Stripes.
posted by smackfu at 9:21 PM on November 3, 2006


How can he reply and not lose face?

He could fire him.
posted by hackly_fracture at 9:22 PM on November 3, 2006


If we get a Democratic House and Senate, they should vote a sense of the Senate or a House non-binding resolution calling for his resignation. Its a no brainer. Rummy's approval rating is 12%. For real for real.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:22 PM on November 3, 2006


These papers are well read in the military. Its a big deal.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:23 PM on November 3, 2006


Did Rummy miss one prayer meeting too many at the Pentagon?
posted by Brian B. at 9:23 PM on November 3, 2006


It won't have any teeth unless it comes with high-level signatures and offers of resignation.
posted by b1tr0t at 9:25 PM on November 3, 2006


He saves face by Rummy falling on his sword and resigning tomorrow.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 9:29 PM on November 3, 2006


I know Bush can Fire Rumsfeld (or have him "resign"), but then doesn't he become the impotent Commander-in-Chief - bossed around by his charges?
posted by Benny Andajetz at 9:31 PM on November 3, 2006


If this is true, this is HUGE. For all the military branches to unite and announce a political message immediately before an election... that's extraordinary. Absolutely unprecedented in our history.

I'm just gonna wait for Monday and see if it really happens. This is SO big that I don't want to spend much time thinking about it until after I know it's true. Until then, I'll just assume it's a false rumor.
posted by Malor at 9:32 PM on November 3, 2006


So when is Bush going to declare martial law and cancel the elections? I've got a busy day on Tuesday and would like to know when I can quit having to remember to vote.
posted by fenriq at 9:32 PM on November 3, 2006


Thanks, smackfu, that's an essential bit of information. My first reaction was that it's not cool for the military to go doing this sort of thing. But if there's no connection to the military for these papers, then, this is awesome. The day before the election!

As a Democrat and a Red Sox fan, the Kerry gaffe is now looking like Pedro's appearance in Game 7 of the 2004 ALCS.

The thing is, Bush is constitutionally incapable of admitting error. Does he invade Iran to distract? How does he handle this?
posted by ibmcginty at 9:34 PM on November 3, 2006


Whoa.

I never considered this kind of action.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:37 PM on November 3, 2006


If this is true, this is HUGE. For all the military branches to unite and announce a political message immediately before an election... that's extraordinary. Absolutely unprecedented in our history.

These are not official publications of the military, they're independent of it. They've been criticizing Rumsfeld for awhile. This is news, but it's not "unprecedented."
posted by gsteff at 9:37 PM on November 3, 2006


Oh shit, did I wander into DailyKosRumorFilter? I was looking for MetaFilter. Sorry, don't mind me, I'll see myself out.
posted by Rhomboid at 9:39 PM on November 3, 2006


Oh shit, did I wander into DailyKosRumorFilter? I was looking for MetaFilter.

If something in the FPP is unsubstantiated rumor, we'd appreciate it if you pointed it out.
posted by gsteff at 9:40 PM on November 3, 2006


The thing is, Bush is constitutionally incapable of admitting error. Does he invade Iran to distract? How does he handle this?

Call up Olmert to tell him that the Israeli bombing of Iran can start?
posted by clevershark at 9:41 PM on November 3, 2006


Rhomboid, read the links off of dkos: MSNBC and the San Francisco Chronicle are both providing corroborating stories.
posted by aberrant at 9:41 PM on November 3, 2006


Oh shit, did I wander into DailyKosRumorFilter?

I don't know the rules to replying to my own post, but this is not a rumor. If you check out the MSNBC link, you'll see that the editorial was released to them already, ahead of Monday's publishing.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 9:41 PM on November 3, 2006


No, no, no, everybody knows it was Clinton who destroyed the military. Why, when Clinton was in charge our soldiers wore rags, were barracked in refrigerator boxes and had to boil their boots to make soup!
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:47 PM on November 3, 2006


This is gonna be fun to watch -has anything like this happened before?
posted by squidfartz at 9:53 PM on November 3, 2006


Bit by bit and brick by brick....
posted by Skygazer at 9:56 PM on November 3, 2006


Grats2America on being five years late.
posted by The God Complex at 10:01 PM on November 3, 2006


This will change nothing substantial. Nice gesture, though.
posted by IronLizard at 10:02 PM on November 3, 2006


Who still supports these buffoons? Isn't it getting close to torches and pitchforks time?
posted by JWright at 10:04 PM on November 3, 2006


If something in the FPP is unsubstantiated rumor, we'd appreciate it if you pointed it out.

How about the part where it's Friday right now, and unless you're also telling me that time travel has been invented, this publication hasn't actually happened yet... don't tell me you don't believe that somebody couldn't make a few phone calls and have something that's highly embarrassing to the president and his staff pulled from publication.
posted by Rhomboid at 10:06 PM on November 3, 2006


Robert McNamara 2:
The Middle East Fiasco


In theatre wars 2001-2009
posted by milarepa at 10:07 PM on November 3, 2006


Rhomboid...the editorial has already been released. It's just not published in those papers yet. It's out in the public eye already, basically.
posted by Kickstart70 at 10:08 PM on November 3, 2006


Well if Rummy goes, *I* go...
on to gloat
posted by ernie at 10:12 PM on November 3, 2006


"Rummy, you're doing a heck of a job!"
posted by SisterHavana at 10:12 PM on November 3, 2006


You're Doing a Great Job, Rummy

And quite frankly, its crossed over from "Great" to "Heckuva".
posted by ernie at 10:13 PM on November 3, 2006


DANGIT sis!
posted by ernie at 10:14 PM on November 3, 2006


How about the part where it's Friday right now, and unless you're also telling me that time travel has been invented, this publication hasn't actually happened yet... don't tell me you don't believe that somebody couldn't make a few phone calls and have something that's highly embarrassing to the president and his staff pulled from publication.

So, it's not a rumour, now?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:19 PM on November 3, 2006


S . . .
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:20 PM on November 3, 2006


How about the part where it's Friday right now, and unless you're also telling me that time travel has been invented, this publication hasn't actually happened yet

That's true. Fortunately, the post says that the editorial is being published in the future (specifically: Monday), not was published in the past. Are you trying to argue that no one knows for sure if this editorial is going to be published?

don't tell me you don't believe that somebody couldn't make a few phone calls and have something that's highly embarrassing to the president and his staff pulled from publication.

I don't believe that, since, as I said above, these are independent publications not overseen by the military. So again, is there something that you think is a rumor in the post?
posted by gsteff at 10:27 PM on November 3, 2006


Why does Bush even need to respond?

In the past, he's given a big "oh fuck off" to those calling for his resignation. What's to stop him from doing it again?

Sure, this is mutiny on the Rummy, but what are they gonna do, quit?

On preview, many already have, huh...
posted by blastrid at 10:33 PM on November 3, 2006


God, I'll miss him. He was so freakin' virile an' commanding an' manly... *faints* into a pile of her own soiled panties

/Peggy Noonan's pudenda
posted by maryh at 10:34 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]




So again, is there something that you think is a rumor in the post?

Okay, I'll bite. The post starts with "NEWSFILTER: Military Wants Rummy Gone." and then goes on to say that a non-military publication is going to publish an editorial.

The editorial itself contains a single actual quote from a military leader
"Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war."
You might note that this, the single peice of evidence produced in the editorial, say absolutely nothing about Rumsfield.

Otherwise the entire editorial relies on indirect statements about third parties, and hearsay about what the troups in the field may or may not be saying.

So yes, I would say that "Military Wants Rummy Gone" qualifies as a rumor. It is certainly unsubstantiated by anything in your post.
posted by tkolar at 10:39 PM on November 3, 2006


peice-->piece
say-->says
grammar and spelling-->going downhill fast
posted by tkolar at 10:42 PM on November 3, 2006


Rumsfeld won' resign, but the next six months look like they're going to be very unpleasant for Bush. First, the embarassment of the election, then the Iraq Study Group report, then sometime in January U.S. casualties cross the 3,000 mark, then he's forced to either sign or veto a minimum wage increase, forced to veto a loosening of stem cell restrictions, then in either the first or second quarters of 2007 we likely enter a recession. And sometime in there we'll probably have to pass another $80-100 billion supplemental for the war. Meanwhile, many of the GOP primary candidates will competing to distance themselves the most from him. His presidency is over.
posted by gsteff at 10:43 PM on November 3, 2006




but the next six months look like they're going to be very unpleasant for Bush.

Bring it on.
posted by homunculus at 10:47 PM on November 3, 2006


DailyKosRumourCNNFilter

An editorial to be published Monday in independent publications that serve the four main branches of the U.S. military will call for President Bush to replace Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld...

"[I]t's clear now, from some of the public statements that military leaders are making, that he's lost the support and respect of the military leadership," said Robert Hodierne, senior managing editor for the publications' parent company Army Times Publications.


While these publications do not speak for military personnel, circulation numbers would probably indicate that some significant degree of editorial bias is shared with its military readership.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:47 PM on November 3, 2006


tkolar: Fair enough. People are piling on rhomboid for suggesting that the post is "DailyKosRumorFilter", not the editorial itself, but it's true that the editorial doesn't cite many specifics. Not that it's supposed to; it's an editorial, not an article. It's newsworthy because it indicates that the editorial board of Army Times et al. want Rummy gone, not because it contains new reporting.

Also, I didn't submit this post.
posted by gsteff at 10:56 PM on November 3, 2006



"[I]t's clear now, from some of the public statements that military leaders are making, that he's lost the support and respect of the military leadership," said Robert Hodierne, senior managing editor for the publications' parent company Army Times Publications.


He's got public statements from military leaders indicating that Rumsfield has lost their support and respect, and the only quote they into the editorial is a completely off-target one about Iraq sliding towards civil war?

"Army Times Publications Publishes Really Poorly Argued Op-Ed" would have been a better title for this post.
posted by tkolar at 10:56 PM on November 3, 2006


gsteff wrote...
Also, I didn't submit this post.

Sorry 'bout that. My bad.
posted by tkolar at 10:57 PM on November 3, 2006


Extremely loud whoop of joy/righteous anger/approval.
posted by Football Bat at 10:59 PM on November 3, 2006


Halp us Keith Olbermann!
posted by wfrgms at 11:08 PM on November 3, 2006




Let's hope Bush loses face. Let's hope for faceless.
posted by luckypozzo at 11:46 PM on November 3, 2006


It's not a military coup...but it's pretty damn clear that there is unrest in uniform. The military (pick a branch) Times are spooky pro-military. They're like the Marines of journalists. Seriously, I'm not sure you could get more gungho than those publications.

For them to feel like this is an advisable move, means that the groundswell of support behind them is massive. By support, I mean their target demographic...Military personnel and their families.

On one hand, I'm thrilled that there might be something that could unseat Rummy, short of a small tactical nuke...but on the other hand, it makes me a little nervous. We'll see how it plays out.
posted by dejah420 at 12:41 AM on November 4, 2006


Oh, man. October fucking surprise.

This may make my weekend a lot better.
posted by blacklite at 12:50 AM on November 4, 2006


well, at least he never said the troops are dumb and uneducated
posted by matteo at 1:11 AM on November 4, 2006


It takes some time to print up and distribute a bunch of newspapers and magazines. These are national publications, right? So even if they're printed up in more than one location copies could easily travel five hundred, a thousand miles before reaching the news stand at which they will be sold. So if the thing is actually hitting news stands Monday, then I wouldn't be at all surprised if the presses are rolling as we speak. Hell, given that there's an intervening Sunday, the things may already be on the trucks.

Now, it is within the realm of possibility that the issues - printed, boxed, and ready to roll out the door - could be yanked and pulped at the last minute, but it's hard to imagine that happening. In fact, if I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet money that one of the reasons the story was leaked in advance was so that such a thing could not occur. After all, if the story has already hit the airwaves, there's no point in trying to kill it, is there? Especially when said killing will just attract that much more attention and make you look that much more desperate.
posted by Clay201 at 3:28 AM on November 4, 2006


America's insanely bloated military - whose ridiculous size is corrupting the entire world - and yet which is incapable of doing the job assigned it in Iraq, wish to fire the only person currently challenging them.

Yeah. We should do exactly what they say. As usual.
posted by grahamwell at 3:33 AM on November 4, 2006


> For all the military branches to unite and announce a political message immediately before an election...

Ghod, you people see what you want to see and nothing else. As was pointed out in the fourth post in the thread, this is not "the military." This is the editorial opinion of the owner of all these newspapers, the Gannett Company, who also bring you Mcpaper.

Everything else you believe is equally ill-founded. (I mention in passing that I too can't wait until Rumsfeld is gone, and replaced by George C. Scott.)
posted by jfuller at 3:48 AM on November 4, 2006


P.S. if it was "the military" that united and announced a political message immediately before an election, then the ones of you who expect a democracy-ending coup in the near future would actually have a point. You'd better hope to Hell such electioneering by the military doesn't happen.
posted by jfuller at 3:55 AM on November 4, 2006


America's insanely bloated military - whose ridiculous size is corrupting the entire world - and yet which is incapable of doing the job assigned it in Iraq, wish to fire the only person currently challenging them.

Well, you could just let them keep on trying...
posted by anthill at 4:19 AM on November 4, 2006


I don't see how you can blame Rumsfeld for the Iraq situation. He isn't there. It's the dead soldiers who are to blame.
posted by srboisvert at 4:30 AM on November 4, 2006


Doesn't really matter who writes it, the mass public perception is affected when major newsmedia's (like CNN online at this moment) main headlines read, "Military newspapers say it's time for Rumsfeld to go." If this is the front page news the weekend before the election, it doesn't fare well for Bush & Co. Add Perle's hindsight "wisdom" (Neocons: Iraq war now a disaster.) as the second headline and, well, the water is flowing in at a pretty good pace. And the sharks smell the panic. It's pungent like stale piss.
posted by Sir BoBoMonkey Pooflinger Esquire III at 5:03 AM on November 4, 2006


They do want him gone. My best friend from high school is a Major in the Special Forces who works in the Pentagon. He hated Kerry, and felt that the only problem with Iraq was that we did it too soon. But he hated Rumsfeld just as much. The Army despises him.
posted by Ironmouth at 5:30 AM on November 4, 2006


So any suggestions on Rummy's replacement?

I can imagine Bush giving the job to Cheney is a temporary measure until a proper replacement can be found.
posted by furtive at 6:42 AM on November 4, 2006


As an aside, I keep hearing the quotes of Bush saying "The Democrats don't have a plan for victory in Iraq." Well, Bush doesn't have a working plan for victory in Iraq, QED.
posted by drezdn at 7:08 AM on November 4, 2006


As noted above, the editorials do not reflect an official view from anyone with official standing. Yet, FWIW my Dad had a 32-year career in the Army Air Corps and then the Air Force (after it was founded). He was a faithful reader of the Air Force Times, and I used to see it all the time when I was growing up. My impression then (1960s and 1970s) was that it did provide a good reflection what military folk were concerned about.

Historically, it's not that rare to have had grumbling in the ranks. You should have heard my Dad and his friends talk about McNamara... I have no doubt that many in the military are unhappy with Rumsfeld.
posted by Robert Angelo at 7:23 AM on November 4, 2006


So any suggestions on Rummy's replacement?

Joe Lieberman's name has been thrown around a lot. The plan is to appoint him and put one more republican in the senate (since the governor will appoint a republican to replace him)
posted by delmoi at 7:24 AM on November 4, 2006


there they go again, that liberal military media!
posted by troybob at 7:43 AM on November 4, 2006


America's insanely bloated military - whose ridiculous size is corrupting the entire world - and yet which is incapable of doing the job assigned it in Iraq, wish to fire the only person currently challenging them.

That person is one of the reasons why the military hasn't been able to do its job in Iraq. He's too busy worried about transforming the military to a smaller, lighter force that can intervene in more future conflicts. So, yes, they wish to have him fired, and I wish them the best in their attempt.
posted by me & my monkey at 7:47 AM on November 4, 2006


drezdn, what I don't get is why the Democrats don't offer the obvious reply - that the administration DOES in fact have a plan for winning Iraq - except it is a miserable FAILURE of a plan. Just having a plan isn't a sign of effectiveness. Democrats need to do a better job of hammering home on the utter ineptidue of the administration's record.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 8:01 AM on November 4, 2006


Fingers of fire, They do point it out, but they seem to get no play in the media. The past week, NPR would repeatedly mention that Bush was in state X to promote candidate Y and then play a soundbite from Bush, but they rarely mentioned the big politicans (Clinton, Obama) touring to support the Dems.

Just as I hear it repeated over and over again that the Dems don't have their own ideas or programs, when I've heard with my own ears politicians like Obama present brilliant ideas for what they think the future of America should be, and how to go about achieving it.
posted by drezdn at 8:13 AM on November 4, 2006


but then doesn't he become the impotent Commander-in-Chief - bossed around by his charges?

I'm pretty sure this is how it's always been.
posted by moonshine at 8:25 AM on November 4, 2006


So any suggestions on Rummy's replacement?

Bring back McNamara!

Why settle for a second-rate fuck-up like Rumsfeld when you can have the real deal?
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 8:36 AM on November 4, 2006


Fuzzy - I personally think Rummy gives McNamara a run for his money in the fuck-up race. Remember, McNamara had a LOT longer than Rumsfeld. You give Diamond Don 6 or 7 years, he'll see to it that the body bags start piling up even worse than they are now.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 9:34 AM on November 4, 2006


Here's a link to Navy Times, and just as Robert Angelo said, the various military times publications are widely read in the military, much more so than Stars and Stripes and from my life as a military brat growing up in the military, much more relevant.
posted by mk1gti at 9:53 AM on November 4, 2006


I've been fascinated by the segue that the right has made from claiming that Clinton was emasculating the military (chiefly argued from "peace dividend" reductions begun under Bush 41), to claiming that Rumsfeld has struggled to get "civilian control" over the military. And still claim they speak for the troops. My guess is that this move simply makes them dig in their heels and defend him all the more.

In many ways, Billmon is right -- the last thing they want is a precedent that they actually listen to the military.
posted by dhartung at 9:59 AM on November 4, 2006


$100.00 says this won't happen. Takers?
posted by wallstreet1929 at 10:15 AM on November 4, 2006


As I see it, Rumsfeld won't leave until Cheney surrenders him. He's too valuable an ally, if useless as an administrator.
posted by kid ichorous at 11:11 AM on November 4, 2006


He hated Kerry, and felt that the only problem with Iraq was that we did it too soon. But he hated Rumsfeld just as much.

He hated Kerry, a decorated soldier, just as much as he hates Rumsfeld?

Wow. There's this concept military folks should be familiar with: it's called target aquisition. They should bone up on it, because right now their execution sucks balls.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:16 AM on November 4, 2006


« Older Doogie Howzaboutdat?   |   So, so sorry. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments