Discuss the editorial

[navyman198224_guest]

Wow did anyone hear John Kerry's remarks about the war in Iraq and the troops. As a current active duty member I am outraged becasue I served In Iraq. Then today he tried to back pedal what he said, I am not for the current adminstration but I am doing my job......John Kerry in the small skeam of things one vote does not matter but you lost my vote if you are going to run in 08. After that comment I am sure that you have lost several other......

signed
outraged

[FINKD]

Originally Posted by navyman198224_guest

Wow did anyone hear John Kerry's remarks about the war in Iraq and the troops. As a current active duty member I am outraged becasue I served In Iraq. Then today he tried to back pedal what he said, I am not for the current adminstration but I am doing my job......John Kerry in the small skeam of things one vote does not matter but you lost my vote if you are going to run in 08. After that comment I am sure that you have lost several other......

signed
outraged

I served 28 years active duty in the Air Force before I retired in 2003. I heard Kerry's remarks and I didn't take offense to it for two reasons. First, I understood what he was saying in that if you don't get an education you tend to make bad decisions like Bush did with going into Iraq. I'm sorry more people didn't understand that. Second, for those who thought he was dissing the troops by saying if they don't get an education they are not smart I ask you to stop and think for a second. Without an education you probably won't be qualified for a good job. The only prospect for these people for a good job and a career with benefits is the military and the military doesn't need people who aren't educated. Fifty years ago not having a high school education may not have mattered but in today's military an education is mandatory.

I don't think Kerry will be much of serious candidate in 2008 because he has too much baggage from the 2004 election.

[Administrator]

Saying Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large, the Military Times newspapers have called on President Bush to fire him.

In an editorial appearing in the Nov. 13 issue of Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times, on newsstands Monday, the papers say it is time for the president “to face the hard bruising truth.”

“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,” the newspapers say.
<a href="http://www.armytimes.com/story.php/?f=1-292925-2333360.php">Read the editorial</a>

[dogface_guest]

I agree, Secretary Rumsfeld must go. We must remember that leadership has always been a two-way street. It is not just orders, but influence. You instill confidence, but must gain and maintain trust. Secretary Rumsfeld has shown little respect for the expertise and motivations of the military establishment. Well reasoned arguments and historical precedent have been brushed off as not relevant to the current situation. This has led to a situation where the military leaders toe the line more from their innate professionalism than a belief of success. Secretary Rumsfeld has violated his trust, and must be replaced.

[rdslag_guest_guest]

I was not shocked by the editorial calling for Secretary Rumsfeld's departure - I concur in that action - what shocked me is the gall of the President to annouce to the public (of which over 60 percent disapprove of the Gulf War and its handling) that he plans to have the Vice President and Secretary Rumsfeld at his side for the remainder of this conflict, regardless of how long it takes to stay the course, or whatever. Instead of running around the country to show support for Republican candidates, he should be in his office monitoring what his speech writers are penning. Had he not made that statement, his party might have eked out sufficient seats to keep control of the Congress; however, I think the dissatisfaction of the electorate and his smugness will now be reflected November 7th.

Then WHY do the soldiers cheer him and bush whenever they speak to them. Why do they continue to vote for republican bushbot lapdogs that send them to die for NOTHING?
When will the troops speak out against those that waste their lives?

[lurknlearn_guest]

The truth of Kerry's remarks are what hurt. Many of us go into military service because we want to do something for our country-yeah, but also because there aren't so many good alternatives for us.

I hate to be picky but your 'skeam' instead of 'scheme' tells me something about your education or at least your willingness to pay attention to detail, run a spell check, look up a word when you're not sure. This is the way the Administration bumbled into war with Iraq and, I believe, lots of servicemembers jumped into the fray without being sure that the mission was an honest and well thought out one.

Your service is extremely honorable and and you do yourself proud. Kerry means well but he just can't get his words out right. His inability to do that got him trouble long before the 2004 debacle was over.

It's amazing that we don't need a draft. There are enough people, smart but with no great alternatives, to volunteer to take their chances on coming out intact.

Must agree, with the facts that Rumsfeld will never be fired; not as long as President Bush stays in office. Firing Rumsfeld will clearly state that the War in Iraq has "FAILED", and the President cannot face that reality.. I can bet once Bush is no longer the Commander and Chief, the truth will come out about mistakes. Admitting them now will hurt the POLITICAL race for the Republicans.

Why is the times during a time of war right before a political campaign launching an attack on a sitting Secretary of Defense ?

Why are you playing politics ? Shouldnt you care about the GIs more than the politics ?

Does this not show a care for the troops? Your logic is twisted.