ARE YOU FOR THE TROOPS... OR ARE YOU FOR RUMSFELD?

I bet you remember how the Pentagon brass banned Air America from being played for our troops serving abroad while pushing naked right right propaganda from Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and the rest of the clown patrol. Well after Monday I bet they wished they would have banned the Army Times, the Navy Times, the Air Force Times, and the Marine Corps Times as well. All four newspapers have an editorial calling for the resignation of Bush's grieviously incompetent and malevolent Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

"'We say that Rumsfeld must be replaced,' Alex Neill, the managing editor of the Army Times, told The Virginian-Pilot Friday night. 'Given the state of affairs with Iraq and the military right now, we think it’s a good time for new leadership there'... The timing of the editorial was coincidental, Neill said. But he added, 'President Bush came out and said that Donald Rumsfeld is in for the duration … so it's just a timely issue for us. And our position is that it is not the best course for the military' for Rumsfeld to remain the Pentagon chief."

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.

But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake.

It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. 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.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

Scores of Democratic congressmen and Democrats running for Congress-- and some Republicans who have woken up-- or are making believe they have woken up-- from 6 years of Bush-induced, bribery propelled deep sleep, have already called for Rumsefeld to be sacked. Bush has dug in his heels and stated that Rumsfeld and Cheney are staying as long as he does. A few hours ago the bumbling Commander in Chief was in Colorado-- where all the Democratic candidates running have called for Rumsfeld to step down. Bush was there campaigning for arch gay-basher and rubber stamp, the odious and much-loathed Marilyn Musgrave-- who has outspent Angie Paccione TEN TO ONE and is still losing her seat. In his speech Bush accidentally spoke truth for a moment. "The only way we can win in Iraq is to leave."