• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Army Times to call for Rummys head...

#1
News just broke over here (US) reporting that the Military Times Group; the people who publish the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps Times; will be publishing an editorial in their papers on Monday, calling for Rumsfeld's resignation.

Details to follow.
 
#2
Not surprised that they would call for Rummies' head. I beleive that a lot of US servicemen would say the he has much to answer for.

What does really surprise me is the timing of the editorial to coincide with election week.

I might atcually have to buy it this week!
 
#6
tomahawk6 said:
Army Times is owned by Gannett. Needless to say they have an agenda. I almost did not renew my subscription.

http://www.gannett.com/
Why does having a point of view equate with "having an agenda", like there's some sort of grand conspiracy? There is no news organization closer to the US armed forces, which comprises the overwhelming majority of their audience.

Think of it this way, they have a very specific readership and they exist to make profit. If they thought for a second that people would cancel their subscriptions en masse in opposition, do you think for a second they'd run the editorial? I'm not naive enough to believe in journalistic integrity when it comes to something like this. When it's something this serious, it comes to questions of dollars and cents. Rule number one of journalism in a capitalist society is "don't fcuk up the money".
 
#7
Army Times: "Time for Rumsfeld to go"

AP

An editorial scheduled to appear on Monday in Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times, calls for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The papers are sold to American servicemen and women. They are published by the Military Times Media Group, which is a subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc.

Here is the text of the editorial, an advance copy of which we received this afternoon.

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


Time for Rumsfeld to go

"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.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/foreigndesk/detail?blogid=16&entry_id=10582

NB. I don't know if this is the authentic piece or not.
 
#9
FINALY!!!!!!!! :roll:

jezus, about fu*kin time Cletus woke up and saw through all the false over-the-top flag waving propaganda he's been subjected to, dragging the original ideals of his nation down by a bunch of manipulative monopolists hell bent on world-wide economic domination at the expense of thier own people.
now he finaly realises just how the repukes are out for themselfs and how little they care about the average working class bloke.

theres hope for the American yet.
 
#10
PartTimePongo said:
NB. I don't know if this is the authentic piece or not.
The comments being what they are, these are not "military newspapers," as the headline incorrectly states. They are commercial newspapers that cater to a military audience. There are but two "military newspapers, "Stars & Stripes" and "Pacific Stars & Stripes," which have officers as editors. Additionally, the military "Times" papers are not "distributed to American servicemen and women." They are sold to them, and to you and I, if we so desire.

Posted By: TikiPundit (an alias) | November 03 2006 at 06:36 PM
 
#11
crabtastic said:
tomahawk6 said:
Army Times is owned by Gannett. Needless to say they have an agenda. I almost did not renew my subscription.

http://www.gannett.com/
Why does having a point of view equate with "having an agenda", like there's some sort of grand conspiracy? There is no news organization closer to the US armed forces, which comprises the overwhelming majority of their audience.

Think of it this way, they have a very specific readership and they exist to make profit. If they thought for a second that people would cancel their subscriptions en masse in opposition, do you think for a second they'd run the editorial? I'm not naive enough to believe in journalistic integrity when it comes to something like this. When it's something this serious, it comes to questions of dollars and cents. Rule number one of journalism in a capitalist society is "don't fcuk up the money".
You would think so,but newspapers like the NYT and LA Times have lost alot of subscribers in the past couple of years. When this editorial appears, I will be interested to see the letters to the editor section. Essentially Gannett wants to influence the troops to vote democrat or not vote at all. Too bad though the CNN sniper video and Kerry's comments have the troops stirred up.
 
#12
tomahawk6 said:
crabtastic said:
tomahawk6 said:
Army Times is owned by Gannett. Needless to say they have an agenda. I almost did not renew my subscription.

http://www.gannett.com/
Why does having a point of view equate with "having an agenda", like there's some sort of grand conspiracy? There is no news organization closer to the US armed forces, which comprises the overwhelming majority of their audience.

Think of it this way, they have a very specific readership and they exist to make profit. If they thought for a second that people would cancel their subscriptions en masse in opposition, do you think for a second they'd run the editorial? I'm not naive enough to believe in journalistic integrity when it comes to something like this. When it's something this serious, it comes to questions of dollars and cents. Rule number one of journalism in a capitalist society is "don't fcuk up the money".
You would think so,but newspapers like the NYT and LA Times have lost alot of subscribers in the past couple of years. When this editorial appears, I will be interested to see the letters to the editor section. Essentially Gannett wants to influence the troops to vote democrat or not vote at all. Too bad though the CNN sniper video and Kerry's comments have the troops stirred up.
You poor, simple soul. Since the early 90s, newspapers everywhere have been suffering from steadily falling circulation due to the proliferation of new media, specifically 24 hour cable news outlets and a little something called The Internet (Internets, if you're Bush who, by the way, is reportedly a big fan of "The Google").

If your hypothesis that they have suffered a decline in sales due to their failure to support the retarded simian (and his handlers) who caused this whole mess is valid, one would have to begin with the precondition that the tw@t actually had a considerable level of public support. Shame his approval rating has been languishing in the mid 30s for most of the last 18 months. You would also have to demonstrate that sales fell off when editorials in the LAT and NYT etc. started to become more critical of the administration- because, certainly in the early days of the War Of Terror (thank-you Borat) they were at least acquiescent, if not openly supportive..

Lastly, you're making an assumption that the instruction to write an print the editorial was a decision made my the Group's owners and not the papers' editors. Can demonstrate that this message came from upon high? Do you have any data or any source that might corobborate your idea? As it happens, if we look at political contributions, Gannett doesn't appear to be heavily involved in politics. They did slightly favour donating to Democrats (57%-43%), but between 1999 and 2002, they only contributed a little over $35k to political campaigns. (Compared to $3.1million by Viacom, $1.7 Million by NewsCorp, $250k by NBC and even McGraw-Hill contributed twice as much as Gannett, with $69k.) They own a large number of newspapers whose editorial positions vary from centre-left to center-right. (one can hardly call the biggest selling paper in Arizona a lefty rag.)

General Melchett: "That's the spirit, George! If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
 
#15
tomahawk6 said:
Dont forget USA Today which is not friendly to the administration.
As I have already stated, their output covers the mainstream political spectrum. Besides Nobody reads USA today for the news unless it's a complimentary copy from a hotel or airline.

The point Virgil was making, Brain, is that you can't accuse the Garrett group of blatant partisanship the way you could perhaps levy the charge at News Corporation or Viacom. You're on a losing wicket with this line of argumentation.

All this aside, what comeback do you have regarding Perle and Adelman's analyses?
 
#16
what comeback do you have regarding Perle and Adelman's analyses?
People can change their minds I suppose.

Perle's Predictions:

On resistance to the invasion and occupation: "Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder… There is an internal opposition to Saddam Hussein. The Kurds in the north … the Shi'a in the south… we have the ability to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime. And it will be quicker and easier than many people think. He is far weaker than many people realize."

On the length of the conflict: "Now, it isn't going to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."

On the links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein: "There is collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, which means to destroy us."

On weapons of mass destruction: "It entails chemical weapons, biological weapons, training in their application. And he's working on nuclear weapons. The message is very clear - we have no time to lose, Saddam must be removed from office. Every day that goes by is a day in which we are exposed to dangers on a far larger scale than the tragedy of September 11…"

On international support: "We'll get lots of allied support when it's over, when it's clear that the result was as we anticipated… So I don't think we need the Europeans and their bank accounts."

On resistance to occupation: " It makes a great difference whether we are seen as invaders serving only our own purposes or whether we're working with the opposition to liberate Iraq from the scourge of Saddam Hussein. And I have no doubt that when it's over, Iraqis will consider that they have been freed from a nightmare regime that has practiced the most brutal murderous repression. So at the end of the day, there may be a brief period when people are confused, but this will be seen as an act of liberation. And the Iraqis themselves will welcome the change."
 
#17
Very dumb move on papers part there going to anger over half there readers. Timeing it to election day will be a unforgivable act to most of people that disagree.

I expect a new army times to be in buisness by end of next week.

In fact idea is so dumb I dont think it will actualy happen.
 

Latest Threads