posted November 06, 2006 12:49 AM            

The Military Times Media has nothing whatsoever to do with the military, official military positions or the US government.

The Military Times Media is one of several organs of the very far left privately owned Gannett publishing company which includes the Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, the Air Force Times, Defense News, Federal Times, and Armed Forces Journal...not to mention the very far left USA Today.

Of course, the editorial never got around to mentioning any of that...the purpose of which is to deceive readers into believing US military leaders want Bush to dump Donald Rumsfeld as Sec Defense.

'Dump Rumsfeld' Editorial a Leftist Hit Job
Dan Frisa
Sunday, Nov. 5, 2006

The drive-by media are making hay today over the highly-touted editorial by Robert Hodierne, which calls for the removal of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The editorial appears in Military Times Media, which includes the Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, the Air Force Times, Defense News, Federal Times, and Armed Forces Journal.

What the editorial doesn't mention is that the author has a long history of leftist tendencies, and the Rumsfeld piece is no exception. This entire episode is a slick "November surprise."

But what is most disturbing is the notion, propagated by the drive-by media, that the Army Times – and its companion publications – are somehow militarily sanctioned, which is NOT the case.

Some in the media have even included among these papers the popular Stars and Stripes, which is wholly untrue.

The fact is that these newspapers are privately owned by the Gannett Co., best known for USA TODAY, and one of the most liberal chains in print media.

Hodierne has, over the years, written highly critical articles disparaging the U.S. military, and he proudly states that the chief spokesman for the U.S. Army in Vietnam said his "story about troops refusing to fight gave aid and comfort to the enemy was characterized by a Pentagon spokesman as treason."

posted November 06, 2006 05:50 PM            

Bear.... (I love you honey....)

posted November 06, 2006 05:55 PM              

*******************

Editorial
Time for Rumsfeld to go

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld —

“So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth.”

That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the “hard bruising” truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington.

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.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

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.”

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. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.

But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don’t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake. 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.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

posted November 06, 2006 07:11 PM              

By John Catalinotto

Nov. 6, 2006

A simple petition initiated by rank-and-file U.S. service members has caught on and begun to attract a mass sentiment of GI opposition to the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq.

Starting around Oct. 24, an announcement that 65 GIs had signed the petition—promoted by the group Appeal for Redress—was picked up by the corporate media.

By Oct. 30, the number of signers, “including active-duty and inactive-duty troops,” had grown to “over 1,000,” according to an Appeal for Redress volunteer who preferred anonymity.

The organization was working on a way to validate all the signatures. David Cortright, a veteran organizer and author of the book “Soldiers in Revolt,” told the Biloxi Sun Herald when the count had gone over 700 that they were being validated by hand, and that less than 10 percent “looked fishy” (Oct. 28).

Cortright’s book had inspired one of the GIs who started the petition.

The appeal itself is moderate, even patriotic in tone, but the top Pentagon officers who depend on unthinking obedience from their privates and sailors are sure to see it as a challenge to their chain of command.

It reads:
“As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home.”

The statement stops short of exposing U.S. aggressive aims or the war crimes committed in Iraq, as did the statements made by active-duty military resisters like Stephen Funk, Abdullah Webster, Camilo Mejía, Pablo Paredes, Jeremy
Hinzman and Kevin Benderman.

But for the many GIs who are not ready to take such a heroic position, the statement offers an opportunity to take the first active step in opposing the occupation and protecting their own lives.

In addition, it is legal for active duty troops to take such a stand.

The Military Whistleblower Protection Act (Department of Defense directive 7050.6) guarantees the right of active-duty military, National Guard and reservists to send a protected communication to a member of Congress regarding any subject without reprisal.

Of course, people in the U.S. armed services can be subject to extralegal punishment.

But knowledge that an act is legal on paper provides support and encouragement for those who wish to take their first stand.

That the appeal made shivers run up the spine of Pentagon officers and die-hard right-wingers could be seen when Fox News attacked it as being maneuvered by activist groups.

Their real fear is that such an appeal will spread quickly through the armed forces and create a climate in which more decisive action can receive support.

According to a report in online alternative news The Raw
Story, three active-duty servicemen (one speaking anonymously) held a press conference Oct. 25 to discuss this appeal.

A retired military lawyer accompanied them.

“Many of us—who have to follow orders and took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic—[also] have reservations about the orders. And,” concluded Jonathan Hutto, a Navy seaman based in Norfolk, Virginia, “at this point some of us feel compelled to let our reservations be known and that the occupation should come to an end right now.”

(www.rawstory.com,

Oct. 25)
The current plan is to present the signatures collected to Congress on Martin Luther King Day in mid-January

Catalinotto was a civilian organizer with the American Servicemen’s Union, an anti-war GI group, from 1967 to 1971.

posted November 06, 2006 11:00 PM            

"More than 1000 GI's sign anti war petition"

That's .002% and it's sooooo impressive...if this is not another con job by brain dead moron leftists...or phantom military types like John Kerry's Winter Soldiers.

Ummm Petron, why do you suppose no high Pentagon types wanted their names associated with this jerk writers hit piece? That is...if there are any names to be associated with this story at all. Anonymous sources leave us all a little cold because Anonymous sources have been found in the past to not exist at all, the writer having made the story up out of thin air.

posted November 06, 2006 11:10 PM            

But on Tuesday we can indirectly cast our ballots against the mainstream media's unchecked power by voting against its liberal politicians.

The media's dishonesty is now undeniable. As scholar Thomas Sowell wrote, in this year's elections "the mainstream media are not simply observers and reporters but active partisans."

A new study by the non-partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington, D.C., analyzed midterm election coverage on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts between September 5 and October 22. The study found during these seven key weeks following Labor Day, 167 such stories were broadcast. These big three network gave Democratic candidates coverage that was 77 percent positive. Republican candidates got the opposite – coverage that was 88 percent negative.

This year it has become difficult to tell where partisan Democratic press releases end and news coverage by mainstream journalists begins. They sound identical, as if fabricated in the same Left wing propaganda factory.

A 2005 University of California Los Angeles-led study found that 18 of the nation's top 20 media outlets skewed their news coverage significantly to the Left.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said UCLA political scientist Tim Groseclose, the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

Of the two media outlets that did not tilt Left, the UCLA-led study found, the Fox News Channel program "Special Report with Brit Hume" indeed "proved to be right of center," and Fox News is "often cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet."

However, the study continued, ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" – which present themselves as unbiased newscasts - are about as far left of center as the Fox is right of center.

News consumers are being deceived, fed tainted information, and manipulated to advance the ideological agendas of the Left. Like "The Matrix," Left wing media concocts an Orwellian false reality of lies and half-truths designed to elect Democrats. In 2004 editor Evan Thomas (grandson of longtime Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas) of liberal Newsweek Magazine estimated that the mainstream media tilt in favor of Democratic presidential standard bearer John F. Kerry would "be worth maybe 15 points" on election day.

Media's brainwashing hypnotic spell can be broken. Experts, e.g., have exposed how the Los Angeles Times, New York Times and other media concoct polls that deliberately "oversample" Democrats to produce results unfavorable to Republicans.

But the Left wing media controls most channels of communication reaching the public – and it can throw up distorting mirrors and lies faster than truth tellers can discredit these falsehoods. For example:

The liberal media beginning last Friday has been touting an editorial in the military careerist-oriented Army Times, sister publication of the Military Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Times, calling for the resignation of President George W. Bush's Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The news stories about this seem orchestrated to persuade voters that America's military is turning against the Bush Iraq policy. Unreported, however, is that these are not military-edited publications. They are owned, edited and written by Gannett, the same liberal company that publishes USA Today, a left-of-center newspaper according to the UCLA-led study.

Last Friday Vanity Fair Magazine made news with a press release quoting several neo-conservative Bush advisors. Their quotes, from its forthcoming January issue, suggest that Bush Iraq policy was mistaken and has failed.

Several of those quoted – Richard Pearle, David Frum, Eliot A. Cohen and Michael Rubin – wrote over the weekend in National Review that their words were deceptively edited and distorted. ""Vanity Fair…set my words in its own context in its press release," wrote Frum. "They added words outside the quote marks to change the plain meaning of quotations."

In any event, wrote these neocons, Vanity Fair told them that nothing they said would be made public prior to the November election. "Vanity Fair's agenda was a pre-election hit job," wrote Rubin, "and I guess some of us quoted are at fault for believing too much in integrity."

Integrity? The Editor-in-Chief of Vanity Fair is Graydon Carter, who in February 2001 was in Havana with CBS chieftain Les Moonves, CEO of MTV Tom Freston and head of the William Morris talent agency Jim Wiatt for an intimate party with Fidel Castro. One of the attendees described this tropical prison with 11 million inmate slaves as "the most romantic, soulful and sexy country I've ever been to in my life."

Vanity Fair's sister Conde Nast magazine is The New Yorker, whose investigative reporter Seymour Hersh made news days ago by hyperbolically telling students at McGill University in Montreal that "There has never been an American army as violent and murderous as the one in Iraq."

Hersh was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for his expose of the Vietnam War's My Lai massacre. But Hersh during the 1960s got his start with the Left wing Dispatch News Service. Hersh's politics have remained so leftward and critical of the United States that when he worked for the New York Times, its then-Executive Editor A.M. Rosenthal routinely referred to Hersh as "my little commie." Such are the people manipulating our news and public opinion.

NBC's cable network MSNBC now permits Keith Olbermann, a third-rate sportscaster with delusions of being the reincarnation of Edward R. Murrow, to broadcast an entirely unbalanced hour-long ad for the Democratic Party five nights each week – an NBC campaign contribution worth millions of dollars. And ABC's Political Director Mark Halperin (about whom more in a future column) acknowledges that 70 percent of his ABC colleagues have a pro-Democratic liberal bias.

posted November 06, 2006 11:39 PM              

*********

Bob Woodward: Bush Misleads On Iraq

Woodward spent more than two years, interviewed more than 200 people including most of the top officials in the administration and came to a damning conclusion. He tells Mike Wallace that for the last three years the White house has not been honest with the American public.

"It is the oldest story in the coverage of government: the failure to tell the truth," Woodward charges.

Asked to explain what he means that the Bush administration has not told the truth about Iraq, Woodward says, "I think probably the prominent, most prominent example is the level of violence."

Not just the growing sectarian violence — Sunnis against Shias that gets reported every day — but attacks on U.S., Iraqi and allied forces. Woodward says that’s the most important measure of violence in Iraq, and he unearthed a graph, classified secret, that shows those attacks have increased dramatically over the last three years.

"Getting to the point now where there are eight, 900 attacks a week," he says. "That’s more than 100 a day—that is four an hour. Attacking our forces."

Woodward says the government had kept this trend secret for years before finally declassifying the graph just three weeks ago. And Woodward accuses President Bush and the Pentagon of making false claims of progress in Iraq – claims, contradicted by facts that are being kept secret.

For example, Woodward says an intelligence report classified secret from the Joint Chiefs of Staff concluded in large print that "THE SUNNI ARAB INSURGENCY IS GAINING STRENGTH AND INCREASING CAPACITY, DESPITE POLITICAL PROGRESS."

And “INSURGENTS RETAIN THE CAPABILITIES TO…INCREASE THE LEVEL OF VIOLENCE THROUGH NEXT YEAR.”

But just two days later a public defense department report said just the opposite. “Violent action, will begin to wane in early 2007,” the report said.

************

John Negorponte knows it’s worse. He’s the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, and according to Woodward, Negroponte thinks the U.S. policy in Iraq is in trouble – that violence is now so widespread that the U.S. doesn’t even know about much of it; and that the killings will continue to escalate.

"He was the ambassador there in Iraq and now he sees all the intelligence," Woodward says. "I report he believes that we’ve always going almost back to the beginning, miscalculated and underestimated the nature of the insurgency."

**********

Woodward reports that a top general says Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has so emasculated the joint chiefs that the chairman of the chiefs has become “the parrot on Rumsfeld’s shoulder.”

And, according to Woodward, another key general, John Abizaid, who’s in charge of the whole Gulf region, told friends that on Iraq, Rumsfeld has lost all credibility.

"What does that mean, he doesn’t have any credibility anymore?" Wallace asks.

"That means that he cannot go public and articulate what the strategy is. Now, this is so important they decide," Woodward explains. "The Secretary of State Rice will announce what the strategy is. This is October of last year." She told Congress the U.S. strategy in Iraq is "clear, hold and build."

"Rumsfeld sees this and goes ballistic and says, 'Now wait a minute. That’s not our strategy. We want to get the Iraqis to do these things.' Well it turns out George Bush and the White House liked this definition of the strategy so it’s in a presidential speech he’s gonna give the next month," Woodward tells Wallace. "Rumsfeld sees it. He calls Andy Card, the White House chief of staff and says 'Take it out. Take it out. That’s not our strategy. We can’t do that.' Card says it’s the core of what we’re doing. That’s two and a half years after the invasion of Iraq. They cannot agree on the definition of the strategy. They cannot agree on the bumper sticker."

"General John Abizaid, commander of all U.S. forces in the Middle East, you quote him as saying privately a year ago that the U.S. should start cutting its troops in Iraq. You report that he told some close Army friends, quote, 'We’ve gotta get the f out.' And then this past March, General Abizaid visited Congressman John Murtha on Capitol Hill," Wallace says.

"John Murtha is in many ways the soul and the conscience of the military," Woodward replies. "And he came out and said, 'We need to get out of Iraq as soon as it’s practical' and that sent a 10,000 volt jolt through the White House."

"Here’s Mr. Military saying, 'We need to get out,'" Woodward continues. "And John Abizaid went to see him privately. This is Bush’s and Rumsfeld’s commander in Iraq," Woodward says.

"And John Abizaid held up his fingers, according to Murtha, and said, 'We’re about a quarter of an inch apart, said, 'We’re that far apart,'" Woodward says.

"You report that after George W. Bush was reelected, his chief of staff, Andy Card, tried for months to convince the president to fire Don Rumsfeld. Why?" Wallace asks.

"To replace him. Because it wasn’t working. Card felt very strongly that the president needed a whole new national security team," Woodward says.

http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/001804.html

posted November 07, 2006 01:59 AM            

Thats why it is called an editorial and if you look at the piece it doesnt even state who wrote it.

"Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops."-Army Times editorial
"U.S. commanders had hoped to draw down U.S. troops in Iraq, but were forced to increase U.S. troop strength amid growing sectarian violence in the country."- Stars and Stripes http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=40084&archive=true

"Service chiefs have asked for more money."-Army Times editorial
Anybody who has ever served in the Military knows this is totally incorrect. The folks down range have first dibs on everything. To quote a Soldier of mine that has deployed to Iraq. "We are treated like kings, compared to when I was here two years ago."

"For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don’t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves."- Army Times Editorial
Officers, i.e. Captains and Majors dont train anything. That is the Sergeants job.

"Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success." - Army Times Editorial
This is kinda funny since it is suggesting that Active-duty Military Leaders are not planning or executing the missions given to them, basically saying they are admitting of failure. I havent heard this from any commander in the Army.

This is the type of stuff you never get to hear about. http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=41257

Department of Defense just wants the stuff put out to be accurate unlike the lefties. http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=40196&archive=true

Mirandee,
"Currently about 144,000 troops are serving in Iraq. More than 700,000 active and retired servicemembers have been deployed there since the start of military operations in 2003."-Stars & Stripes

Wow according to your article less than one percent (1440) of troops serving in Iraq have signed this little petition. The Army is just a little bigger than that so I guess we can call it about .05% or less of the military actually feels this way. That number is quite generous too.
"By Oct. 30, the number of signers, “including active-duty and inactive-duty troops,” had grown to “over 1,000,” according to an Appeal for Redress volunteer who preferred anonymity."- By John Catalinotto
I wonder how many of these are actually deployed? I doubt if many of them are.

“Readers take exception to editorial opinions all the time and our reaction is, as always, to publish the opposing opinion,” said Charles E. Richardson, editorial page editor for the Macon Telegraph
Sounds about par for the left.

posted November 07, 2006 06:18 PM              

This also includes searching for insurgents in Iraqi villages, and protecting themselves from snipers hidden in fields. The soldiers also learn how to maintain checkpoints, and handle hostile villagers, which in one training exercise ends with smoke, representing tear gas, which is used to disperse the crowd.

Major Art Sharpe

posted November 07, 2006 06:25 PM              

Captain Kevin O'Connell

posted November 08, 2006 12:21 AM              

By Jackie Spinner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 1, 2005; Page A19

FORWARD OPERATING BASE HONOR, Iraq -- U.S. Army Capt. Brian Dugan was already smoking mad. When he first arrived at this Iraqi army post in central Baghdad on a crisp October morning, he discovered that the gunner at the main entrance was missing from his truck-mounted weapon. Another 50 feet in, an Iraqi army guard, his helmet off, was sacked out on a pile of sandbags. A second guard was chatting with three buddies who were just hanging out at the checkpoint.

And now this.

"That latrine is locked," Dugan said, glancing over at a bank of portable toilets. "I know exactly what this is. This is for the officers."

Dugan was angry that the Iraqi commanders had staked out a private latrine for themselves instead of making their soldiers keep all the portable toilets clean. It was just another privilege they demanded, without accepting responsibility for their troops, he said.

"Take the lock off, or I'll cut it off," Dugan told an Iraqi officer walking by.

For the past three months, Dugan, a slight, clean-cut officer with Task Force 4-64 of the 4th Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, has been responsible for helping train one of the 86 battalions in the new Iraqi army. The work of Dugan and American officers like him is a key element of the U.S. military strategy that entails Iraqi forces progressively taking over security duties here and enabling American troops to go home.

In testimony in September before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gen. John P. Abizaid, who leads the U.S. Central Command, said that a single Iraqi battalion was at "Level 1" combat readiness, meaning it was capable of taking the lead in combat without support from coalition forces. Gen. George W. Casey Jr., who oversees U.S. forces in Iraq said the number of Level 1 battalions had dropped from three to one since June.

Americans troops in Iraq say the reason is simple: The Iraqi forces are only as good as their commanders, and when those commanders are inadequate, transfer, quit or get killed in action, their units often fall apart.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103101611.html

posted November 08, 2006 11:58 PM              

By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 2:17am GMT 09/11/2006

A chastened President George W Bush last night took responsibility for his Republican Party's "thumping" election defeat and announced that he was replacing Donald Rumsfeld, the Pentagon chief, because of the need for a "fresh perspective" on Iraq.