There are several Republicans who are also calling for his resignation. I know that Mike Dewine of Ohio was on one of the Sunday morning shows a few weeks back and said he had no confidence in Rumsfeld. I am all for loyalty but you would think the President would see that this is a problem and do something about it. You would think that Rummy would leave voluntarily but that obviously isn't going to happen.

it reflects the whole "faith based" administration attitude. they need to be "reality based" to effectively lead this country

Where's the contradiction?  The is a military oriented paper, but it isn't put out by the military.  Yes, they call for Rumsfeld's resignation, and have before, but whatever they have to say is the opinions of civilians.

There is no "contradiction" here.  Only you trying to make it sound like news, when it really isn't.

Where's the contradiction?

everyone but the president and his inner circle has at least suggested rumsfeld's resignation. that's the contradiction.

Don't know much about Rumsfeld but you would think that, in a country that sent man to the moon almost 40 years ago, he could employ
some boffins to work out a strategy against suicide bombings. Is he really on top of the Iraq war?

Is he really on top of the Iraq war?

it seems everyone but the "inner circle" thinks that rumsfeld has failed.

It's also an editorial. Those are opinion-based pieces where someone on the paper staff gets to vent for a bit. It's not like they published an expose on Rumsfeld or did extensive research or provided anything other than opinion. It's fine to think Rumsfeld should resign (or shouldn't) but an editorial doesn't make it any more true or false. It's just someone else sharing their view.

everyone but the president and his inner circle has at least suggested rumsfeld's resignation.

Lotta work to do to support that one.

I believe it is a stretch to suggest that "everyone" but the 'inner circle' thinks Rumsfeld has failed or should resign. Rather presumptious. I also don't see how it "contradicts" anything - if Bush decides to can Rumsfeld, then that would "contradict" his prior contention, not to put too fine a point on it.

It would also be worth repeating, in the interest of full disclosure, that these are private publications, unaffiliated with (but catering to) the military, which have editorialized in favor of his resignation before.

Lotta work to do to support that one.

not really...this isn't a criminal court of law. and as far as i and millions of others are concerned...we've seen enough of donny over the past several years to make a call. if you disagree, fine.

It would also be worth repeating, in the interest of full disclosure, that these are private publications, unaffiliated with (but catering to) the military, which have editorialized in favor of his resignation before.

ummm,,,did you read the article?,,,that was disclosed....the military times has now twice asked for rumsfeld's resignation....The publications, which are the largest that serve the military, have now called for the Pentagon's pointman's resignation twice. The 1st time was after the Abu Girab debacle and scandal.

It would also be worth repeating, in the interest of full disclosure, that these are private publications, unaffiliated with (but catering to) the military, which have editorialized in favor of his resignation before. ummm,,,did you read the article?,,,that was disclosed....the military times has now twice asked for rumsfeld's resignation....The publications, which are the largest that serve the military, have now called for the Pentagon's pointman's resignation twice. The 1st time was after the Abu Girab debacle and scandal.

I don't care how you slice it. The Military Times are "still" someones opinion (editorials are not news but rather the writers point of view.) and having READ the Navy Times for over 6 yrs, I can tell you without hesitation that they do NOT always (usually never) represent the US militaries opinion. So whether or not the MT called for Rumsfeld's resignation is immaterial as it may or may not be the opinion of the military.

And no, nobody read the article since you didn't post a link to it.

I don't care how you slice it. The Military Times are "still" someones opinion

i never disputed that. i believe, as do millions of others, indeed a majority of citizens believe that rummy must go. i believe the "opinion" holds water. i called for his resignation 2 months ago. it's my opinion...so what? most things in life are opinions. everyone's ideas about what to do in Iraq are "opinions." no one can say for sure , "do this and that will happen." politics is not science. and in my opinion, and the opinions of most others, say that he should resign. we say that based on how many bad calls you have made in the past, we cannot trust your opinions and views in dealing with the future.

And no, nobody read the article since you didn't post a link to it.

i was referring to THIS article. my article clearly said..."
the military times has now twice asked for rumsfeld's resignation....The publications, which are the largest that serve the military, have now called for the Pentagon's pointman's resignation twice. The 1st time was after the Abu Girab debacle and scandal. "

thanks for nitpicking!

have a nice day:)

I posted the following on the Army Times forum:

The time of this editorial was way out of line. It should have not been published in the middle of an election.

I have subscribed to this magazine for two years and have read it for much longer. I received my renewal request, and I am temped to not renew.

I'm personally neutral on this subject of the editorial. I just find the magazine staff using the paper to try and effect an election as disgusting.

If this editorial was posted last month or in two weeks, no problem. But the day of election and given to all the other media outlets the week before was out of bounds.

---------------------------------------------------

I don't care if Rumsfeld gets fired, there will just be another Bush appointee to replace him. But I don't like news agency staffs dropping bombs just for political gain, no matter what political side they are on.

Rummy has disregarded the military and many resent him. He was dead wrong going into Iraq with too small a force to control Iraq after Sadden was removed. Every thing Rummy said about the war was 100% incorrect. I know that in war not everything goes per the planning. In the case of Rummy, NOTHING he stated as to the way the war would develop was correct. We have spent almost as much time in Iraq as we were in WWII and every day we fall further behind.

The choice to go to war was Bush which was an error. Then Rummy did not listen to the advice of the generals as to what was required and has turned the General Staff into parrots. Those that did stand up to Rummy were removed. Rummy, Bush and Cheney need to go!

Rummy, Bush and Cheney need to go!

Hey col....tough tittie, they ain't going!

I also fail to see the 'contradiction'.

Yuo might want to check the actual meaning of the word. Now if The Army Times had said that Rumsfeld had resigned when Bush said he didn't, that would be a contradiction.

At any rate, that is not new news. A lot of people and organizations have called for his resignation and it most likely won't happen.

My belief is that, in your opinion (there's that opinion word again), the name of the organization, The Army Times, is somehow supposed to give weight to the call for his resignation because of the inference to the US Government, despite the fact that it is still an opinion (not in any way associated with the US Government's views or position, by the way); carrying no more eight than anyone else's opinion of the desire for Rumsfeld to resign.

It reminds me a bit of those commercials for lists of confiscated property auctions by the company with the official sounding name that 'seems' like it must be affiliated with the US Goverment, but really isn't.