Navy Times Publishers To Call For SecDef Resignation
Breaking on CNN.com, it's being reported that Army Times Publishing, which publishes Navy Times along with independent newspapers for the other three services, will call for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's resignation:
"Basically, the editorial says, it'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.Not that it'll do any good, but it's a start.
"That they're starting to go public with that now, with their disagreements, added up with all of the other missteps we believe he's made, that it's time for him to be replaced,"...
Update 1755 04 Nov: Rumsfeld (actually, the ASD for Public Affairs, but I'm sure the Secretary had some input) responds here (currently on top, but no permalink to the individual story).
posted by Bubblehead at 10:53 PM
8 Comments:
Minor nit BH - it's not "Army Times Publishing". The Army Times and the Navy Times are published by Ganett Press.
Ganett is a very large media company that specializes in keeping a low profile by buying smaller newpapers and TV stations. Although they do own USA Today and the Detroit Free Press their main holdings are small town papers. If they were not a media company they woul dbe considered a big bad member of corporate America http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/gannett.asp
11/04/2006 5:44 AM
ew-3: Actually, Army Times Publishing is correct (check out the "About Us" page at Navy Times), but you're correct that Army Times Publishing is owned by Gannett. So we're both right!
11/04/2006 7:20 AM
Yes, it is one of those rare occassions when both parties are right ;)
Sadly where I live the local TV stations are leaving out the Ganett part, and talking about how the even the Army Times want Rumsfeld out. This has been a horrific election for last minute surprises. So many surprises, so little truth. I sure hope people wake up to the way we are getting fed information. It's 1984 again this year.
11/04/2006 2:22 PM
Hi BH, came across this in the NYTs. This is exactly what I was concerned about. Sems the NYTs didn't bother to correct the representative.
"Representative John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has become the face of his party’s opposition to the war in Iraq, said the verdict was the right one but predicted it would not make a difference in this campaign. What would matter more, Mr. Murtha said, were editorials in military papers being published Monday calling for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
When The Army Times, The Navy Times, The Marine Corps Times, they have all said that we’re not supporting the troops, that they’re losing confidence with the administration, that’s what’s important,” Mr. Murtha said, campaigning in Croydon, Pa., outside Philadelphia, for Patrick Murphy, a Democrat seeking to unseat Representative Michael G. Fitzpatrick.
11/05/2006 11:51 PM
ew-3: thanks for the Free Press reminder. I am sure others here in SE Michigan rejoiced when the News and Free Press finally decided to go their separate ways.
ANYway, I think the key to this editorial about "military leadership" wanting the SECDEF gone is really just Gannett stating their (carefully timed) opinion. The major "character flaw" that SECDEF has is that he refuses to accept the status quo. One of his primary tasks, before 9/11 and remaining until today, is the transformation of the US Military from a Cold War force to the right force to fight today's and tomorrow's battles. That means that the SECDEF is asking questions, hard questions, of the military leadership. And he wants answers. And he does not appear to suffer fools. If the active duty military leadership has a problem with the SECDEF (and by association, the President) then they MUST resign. Otherwise, STFU and JFDI...
11/06/2006 5:24 AM
bullnav - while I have to admit I think Rumsfeld has done a pretty good job, the thing that gets me fried about this is the lies that are being broadcast and printed. Most media outlets are reporting these publications as military newspapers. It's a total misrepresentation of the truth. While most of us here who are vets know it's not true, the average voter probably does not know.
It's perfectly fine for papers to do op-eds, but printing and broadcasting factual lies is another issue. What ever happened to slander.
We didn't serve so the NYTs can use the Joseph Goebbels method of "Repeat a lie, often, and it becomes the truth.".
Al
11/06/2006 6:12 AM
ew-3: I am with you, brother. I see it every day in the way headlines are worded, in the way whole articles are worded, and then you see who a newspaper endorses for a particular race. I want to see unbiased reporting. If I want commentary, I go to the OP-ED pages and I get tired of the OP-ED pages in the Ann Arbor News matching whatever AP or NYT articles are in the paper. I hope my fellow veterans here in SE Michigan can see through the BS and lies, but unfortunately I suspect a number of them have fallen for the promises of the other evil presence here: the UAW...
11/06/2006 1:05 PM
Wonder just how many votes these "military papers" cost Allen in VA. Odds are Leahy will be chairman of the Judicaiary Committee, Byrd as chairman of appropriations (more roads in WV!), Patty Murray on the Veterans ommittee, Carl Leven as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Byden as chairman of the Foreign Relations committee, Kennedy as chairman of Health, Education and Pensions, and also as Chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee....
11/08/2006 8:22 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home