Military Newspapers: Rumsfeld Must Go!

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?
 
maineman said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Darla said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 
maineman said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, I can tell.
 
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.
 
Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Damocles said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

LOL

Damo, I totally get the impression that you think you are perfect.
 
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...
 
Darla said:
LOL

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

Beefy said:
You should see him after a dozen Guinnesses! :cof1:
Click to expand...
Damo's wrong, anyway. I am perfect. Ergo, he is not.
cool-smiley-029.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top