PDA

View Full Version : Military Newspapers: Rumsfeld Must Go!



maineman
11-03-2006, 09:15 PM
The Army Times, the Navy Times, the Air Force Times and the Marine Corps Times will all come out on Monday with an editorial calling for the immediate resignation of Donald Rumsfeld.

I have had a subscription to Navy Times for a quarter of a century and there is no more conservative pro-administration periodical in the land.

How do the neocons spin this??????

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15552211/

Cypress
11-03-2006, 09:16 PM
Bush says rummy's doing a great job, and he's going to keep him through the rest of his term.

uscitizen
11-04-2006, 06:34 AM
I guess this proves Dixies point of the US servicepeople are all going to vote Republican ;)

maineman
11-04-2006, 12:53 PM
where are all the neocons proclaiming that the Army Times is just another rag of the ultra liberal controlled zionist media?

Prakosh
11-04-2006, 08:23 PM
The Army Times is just another liberal arm of the Zionist controlled ultra liberal American media.

maineman
11-04-2006, 08:29 PM
even the intelligent liberals are saying it....it MUST be true!

Prakosh
11-04-2006, 08:34 PM
Yes, unfortunately, it is true. During the last years of Vietnam, when the chant throughout the enlisted ranks was FTA; the Army Times was nothing more than a Commie pinko rag of the wildest and brightest hue that regularly published the condemned and banned writings Of Father Ho Chi Minh!!!!!!

Damocles
11-05-2006, 03:52 PM
Tell me Maineman... Who owns these newspapers?

Damocles
11-05-2006, 03:53 PM
Just because the military has access to a newspaper does not mean what is written is what they believe.

Cancel7
11-05-2006, 03:56 PM
Tell me Maineman... Who owns these newspapers?


Something called the Genat company. Or the Jenet company. I don't know how to spell it, but I do know how to pronounce it. The reason I know how to pronounce it is that 57 republicans were on tv today saying it.

I guess you got the memo, so you probably know how to spell it.

So since it isn't written by the military, but its audience is primarily the military, then Mainman is right and it's a liberal rag. They probably sell a lot of papers because military people are well known for patronizing liberal rags.

Cancel7
11-05-2006, 03:58 PM
Just because the military has access to a newspaper does not mean what is written is what they believe.

The military has access to all newspapers. That's not the question.

The military is the prime audience, and prime consumers of this newspaper.

Damocles
11-05-2006, 04:11 PM
The military has access to all newspapers. That's not the question.

The military is the prime audience, and prime consumers of this newspaper.
It is specifically only made available to the military. Once again, they have no control over what is written.

I am not saying that the military wouldn't like to see Rumsfeld go, just that 4 newspapers owned by the exact same group, not a military group, saying the exact same thing are not the sum total of what the military might think.

Cancel7
11-05-2006, 04:16 PM
It is specifically only made available to the military. Once again, they have no control over what is written.

I am not saying that the military wouldn't like to see Rumsfeld go, just that 4 newspapers owned by the exact same group, not a military group, saying the exact same thing are not the sum total of what the military might think.

It's a pretty good indication of Rumsfeld's standing with the troops.

I really don't care what happens to Rumsfeld, but I think it's become pretty apparent that he's not the most popular guy with the soldiers, or the most respected guy with the officers.

I'm not a person who believes that getting rid of Rumsfeld would change or solve anything. He's an idiot, but he's got too much company for his removal to mean anything.

maineman
11-05-2006, 05:56 PM
damo...the audience of these papers is the military. period. I have NEVER seen anyone who is not or was not in the military reading Navy/Army/Air Force/Marine Corps Times.

So.... let's make a hypothetical parallel situation here: what if there were a series of evangelical newspapers that catered ONLY to religious groups.... God Squad Times..Jesus Freak Times....Holyroller Times..... End of Times Times.... how long do you think that those newspapers would keep selling if they published editorials advocating the legalization of gay marriage or abortion or marijuana?

The fact is...the Navy Times is in every wardroom of every ship in the Navy...every Chief's Mess...every Acey-Duecy Lounge. If the subject of that editorial was so offensive to the military reader, how long before all those subscriptions would be cancelled.

No one is saying that these are government publications. They ARE written for military personnel and they have a pretty pro-government, pro-military stance. It is one thing for the New York Times to call for RUmmy's resignation. It is another thing altogether when the Army Times does.

Damocles
11-05-2006, 05:58 PM
damo...the audience of these papers is the military. period. I have NEVER seen anyone who is not or was not in the military reading Navy/Army/Air Force/Marine Corps Times.

So.... let's make a hypothetical parallel situation here: what if there were a series of evangelical newspapers that catered ONLY to religious groups.... God Squad Times..Jesus Freak Times....Holyroller Times..... End of Times Times.... how long do you think that those newspapers would keep selling if they published editorials advocating the legalization of gay marriage or abortion or marijuana?

The fact is...the Navy Times is in every wardroom of every ship in the Navy...every Chief's Mess...every Acey-Duecy Lounge. If the subject of that editorial was so offensive to the military reader, how long before all those subscriptions would be cancelled.

No one is saying that these are government publications. They ARE written for military personnel and they have a pretty pro-government, pro-military stance. It is one thing for the New York Times to call for RUmmy's resignation. It is another thing altogether when the Army Times does.
Just because that is the audience doesn't mean that the newspapers are not all owned by the exact same people, sending the exact same message. What are the other papers saying? What about Stars and Stripes?

And just because the newspapers are not made available to outside the military, doesn't mean that they speak for rather than to the military.

Maineman, simply... If I own 4 newspapers and write the same thing in all 4 is it really all that shocking? Does it mean that the people who read it think the same way?

maineman
11-05-2006, 06:05 PM
like I said, if those four papers wrote editorials that were universally disagreed with by their readers, if they didn't put voice to the concerns of their readers, they would cease to exist. I am aware that all four of them are owned by the same folks....

and clearly they don't speak FOR the military, but if they spoke AGAINST the military's perceived interests, they would not continue to have the faithful following they have always had.

maineman
11-05-2006, 06:07 PM
and if you refuse to acknowledge the quantum difference in magnitude between the New York Times calling for Rummy's resignation and the Army Times calling for his resignation, then you have too much fucking koolaid in ya for us to be able to chat about this point any further.

Damocles
11-05-2006, 06:12 PM
like I said, if those four papers wrote editorials that were universally disagreed with by their readers, if they didn't put voice to the concerns of their readers, they would cease to exist. I am aware that all four of them are owned by the same folks....

and clearly they don't speak FOR the military, but if they spoke AGAINST the military's perceived interests, they would not continue to have the faithful following they have always had.
LOL. If I read editorials in both Colorado Papers promoting gay marriage (did) and they were likely to lose by 75% in the vote (are) then I am supposed to presume that the readership thinks the same way that the editorials say? Come on... It defies all logic. It is basically one paper (owned by the exact same people with the same editorial appearing in all of them) putting an editorial in them. This isn't what the military thinks, well it may be what the people in the military think, but it sure isn't evidence that they think that way any more than it is evidence that Colorado thinks like the two Colorado newspapers wrote in their editorial.

No matter how much I may wish that Colorado would vote as the editorials say.

Damocles
11-05-2006, 06:14 PM
and if you refuse to acknowledge the quantum difference in magnitude between the New York Times calling for Rummy's resignation and the Army Times calling for his resignation, then you have too much fucking koolaid in ya for us to be able to chat about this point any further.
If you refuse to admit that it is the same as one newspaper that they read saying this, not all of them by a long shot. And that it has about the same relevance to what the military thinks as the Colorado papers had to what Colorado thinks above, then your "yellow dog" glasses became opaque and you can no longer see through them.

Cancel7
11-05-2006, 06:15 PM
like I said, if those four papers wrote editorials that were universally disagreed with by their readers, if they didn't put voice to the concerns of their readers, they would cease to exist. I am aware that all four of them are owned by the same folks....

and clearly they don't speak FOR the military, but if they spoke AGAINST the military's perceived interests, they would not continue to have the faithful following they have always had.

Agreed.

I think it very likely that they reflect the current prevailing opinion of the majority of their audience. And it's not like there isn't any other evidence that this is the case.

maineman
11-05-2006, 06:22 PM
I have never said that the four papers were anything other than the same paper packaged to four different audiences.

And, as I said, I had a subscription to Navy Times for a long long time..... I know that it NEVER went out on a limb and advocated anything that would be rejected by the rank and file....

but hey.... it really is no big deal if you don't want to let it be.... I could give a fuck. This asshole is going down soon.... this presidency will be lame duck in a week.... the house will be issuing subpoenas in february.... if you idiots on the right want to continue to support this terrible terrible president and his terrible terrible policies, the only result is that you will be banished further into the hinterland and forced to stay there longer before America ever lets you have a say in the way we run our foreign policy..... whatever blows your skirt up.... go for it. It is of zero consequence that the Army Times has called for Rummy's resignation....whatever...sure...it's no different that when the New York Times did it..... you keep telling yourself that...please?

Damocles
11-05-2006, 06:26 PM
I have never said that the four papers were anything other than the same paper packaged to four different audiences.

And, as I said, I had a subscription to Navy Times for a long long time..... I know that it NEVER went out on a limb and advocated anything that would be rejected by the rank and file....

but hey.... it really is no big deal if you don't want to let it be.... I could give a fuck. This asshole is going down soon.... this presidency will be lame duck in a week.... the house will be issuing subpoenas in february.... if you idiots on the right want to continue to support this terrible terrible president and his terrible terrible policies, the only result is that you will be banished further into the hinterland and forced to stay there longer before America ever lets you have a say in the way we run our foreign policy..... whatever blows your skirt up.... go for it. It is of zero consequence that the Army Times has called for Rummy's resignation....whatever...sure...it's no different that when the New York Times did it..... you keep telling yourself that...please?
Look. I'm not trying to protect Rusmfeld. I couldn't care less. I would be far more impressed if the Stars and Stripes put forward such an editorial than the Navy Times who are far more likely to lend their editorial page to something such as that.

I haven't said it would be rejected by the readers, only that it isn't evidence that that is how they think. While I was in I certainly read many editorials in that paper that it didn't reject out of hand, but didn't exactly hug to my mind for love and praises.

maineman
11-05-2006, 06:31 PM
the fact remains.... when the Army Times comes out against the secretary of defense, it is a significantly different thing than when the Washington Post or the NYT does the same thing.

Cancel7
11-05-2006, 06:32 PM
Look. I'm not trying to protect Rusmfeld. I couldn't care less. I would be far more impressed if the Stars and Stripes put forward such an editorial than the Navy Times who are far more likely to lend their editorial page to something such as that.

I haven't said it would be rejected by the readers, only that it isn't evidence that that is how they think. While I was in I certainly read many editorials in that paper that it didn't reject out of hand, but didn't exactly hug to my mind for love and praises.

Damo, who do you think that people always seem to conclude that you are protecting or defending someone or something that you later swear you are not? Are we all pinheads as Dixie says, unable to comprehend your extensive vocabulary?

Or, could there be some other reason? Have you ever wondered?

Damocles
11-05-2006, 06:35 PM
Damo, who do you think that people always seem to conclude that you are protecting or defending someone or something that you later swear you are not? Are we all pinheads as Dixie says, unable to comprehend your extensive vocabulary?

Or, could there be some other reason? Have you ever wondered?
No, there is an assumption when I post something that states "this isn't what this means" and then I get, stuff like this:



This asshole is going down soon.... this presidency will be lame duck in a week.... the house will be issuing subpoenas in february.... if you idiots on the right want to continue to support this terrible terrible president and his terrible terrible policies, the only result is that you will be banished


They are clearly assuming that I am making my post because I was trying to protect somebody. I am not. I am just saying that an editorial in one paper that is going to be read by the military does not mean that it is the overwhelming opinion of the military.

Cancel7
11-05-2006, 06:37 PM
No, there is an assumption when I post something that states "this isn't what this means" and then I get, stuff like this:



They are clearly assuming that I am making my post because I was trying to protect somebody. I am not. I am just saying that an editorial in one paper that is going to be read by the military does not mean that it is the overwhelming opinion of the military.

Oh, ok. So you don't perceive that any of the fault lies in your communication skills, or, in the way that you choose to use those communicaton skills.

Ok. I was just wondering. Perception is a funny thing.

Damocles
11-05-2006, 06:41 PM
Oh, ok. So you don't perceive that any of the fault lies in your communication skills, or, in the way that you choose to use those communicaton skills.

Ok. I was just wondering. Perception is a funny thing.
No, what I perceive is that it is a conversation. So, because this is a poli site and I am an R I know that there is a preconceived notion that I will defend all Rs at all cost.

I also know that some things negative for any post negative toward the Admin can be construed as pro-Administration even when they are not. Therefore I know that it is important, if I wish to get my clearest meaning across to often elaborate on previous posts with such statements...

Just as in conversation you make an assertion and often have to elaborate, the same happens here. It can be that you expect a perfect essay in each post from everybody but yourself? I don't think so. I think you just want to poke and see if I'll get all mad....

Well, lovely lady. It isn't working.

maineman
11-05-2006, 06:46 PM
why can't you just admit that it is a pretty big deal when the Army Times calls for the firing of the secretary of defense? Your defense here is misplaced..... this is not a battle you really want to fight, is it?

Damocles
11-05-2006, 06:48 PM
why can't you just admit that it is a pretty big deal when the Army Times calls for the firing of the secretary of defense? Your defense here is misplaced..... this is not a battle you really want to fight, is it?
I would say it is a pretty big deal. It is not, however, specifically indicative of what those in the military may think. I do not believe it will make any difference at all.

Cancel7
11-05-2006, 06:48 PM
No, what I perceive is that it is a conversation. So, because this is a poli site and I am an R I know that there is a preconceived notion that I will defend all Rs at all cost.

I also know that some things negative for any post negative toward the Admin can be construed as pro-Administration even when they are not. Therefore I know that it is important, if I wish to get my clearest meaning across to often elaborate on previous posts with such statements...

Just as in conversation you make an assertion and often have to elaborate, the same happens here. It can be that you expect a perfect essay in each post from everybody but yourself? I don't think so. I think you just want to poke and see if I'll get all mad....

Well, lovely lady. It isn't working.

No, I can tell.

Cancel7
11-05-2006, 06:49 PM
But seriously Damo, if I was misunderstood as often as you say you are? I'd wonder about it, that's all I'm saying.

Damocles
11-05-2006, 06:50 PM
But seriously Damo, if I was misunderstood as often as you say you are? I'd wonder about it, that's all I'm saying.
Whatever. I read the "So, what you are saying?" questions as often for the others. It's just a conversational tool. "I'm not trying to ..." it just makes people look a bit harder at the post to see if what I am saying was true. Was I trying to defend Rumsfeld?

maineman
11-05-2006, 06:53 PM
it may not be specifically indicative of what those in the military think, but, historically speaking, it is certainly not outside the mainstream of active duty military thought.

Damocles
11-05-2006, 06:54 PM
In other words. I think I am clear in my meaning, but like to treat the site like an actual conversation. What you think may be insecurity is simply another way to get something across without sounding like I believe I am perfect.

Cancel7
11-05-2006, 06:58 PM
Whatever. I read the "So, what you are saying?" questions as often for the others. It's just a conversational tool. "I'm not trying to ..." it just makes people look a bit harder at the post to see if what I am saying was true. Was I trying to defend Rumsfeld?

I rarely know what you are trying to do. It could be because I don't care that much, or it could be because you are ambigious on purpose and then claim you were misunderstood, or it could be a little bit of both.

This is why I communicate better with women. Women don't play coy, and hide behind verbal fans, and act all mysterious. They just put it out there.

Talking to men is hard work.

But I was just looking at an old thread about Kerry that I had posted on I guess a week ago? And I see you and Grind were claiming that I "should give it up" that Kerry meant the troops. So because I saw his WHOLE speech, and before I even knew there was a contraversy, I took his words as being in reference to bush without it ever crossing my mind that he meant the troops, and because I truly believe that anyone who thinks that he was talking about the troops is either lying, insane, or stupid, that I was defending Kerry. Meanwhile, I'm just relieved that he's now completely out of the running for the 08 nomination because I don't like Kerry.

But I guess if you shove that shoe onto someone else's foot Damo and tell them to wear it because it fits, then that's ok.

And it is ok, because I don't care. But it doesn't happen to me often Damo. Not like it does to you. And I think there's something in that.

Cancel7
11-05-2006, 07:00 PM
In other words. I think I am clear in my meaning, but like to treat the site like an actual conversation. What you think may be insecurity is simply another way to get something across without sounding like I believe I am perfect.

LOL

Damo, I totally get the impression that you think you are perfect.

Damocles
11-05-2006, 07:03 PM
LOL

Damo, I totally get the impression that you think you are perfect.
Okay.

AnyOldIron
11-08-2006, 05:06 AM
I am not saying that the military wouldn't like to see Rumsfeld go, just that 4 newspapers owned by the exact same group, not a military group, saying the exact same thing are not the sum total of what the military might think.

From what I've heard, many senior uniformed officers requested the editorial...

Beefy
11-08-2006, 06:47 PM
LOL

Damo, I totally get the impression that you think you are perfect.


You should see him after a dozen Guinnesses! :cof1:

OrnotBitwise
11-08-2006, 06:53 PM
LOL

Damo, I totally get the impression that you think you are perfect.


You should see him after a dozen Guinnesses! :cof1:Damo's wrong, anyway. I am perfect. Ergo, he is not.
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/cool/cool-smiley-029.gif

Damocles
11-09-2006, 07:33 AM
Damo's wrong, anyway. I am perfect. Ergo, he is not.
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/cool/cool-smiley-029.gif
That means nothing.

Perfection takes great practice.