Wednesday, May 12, 2004

Rumsfeld Resign Roll Call


RUMSFELD MUST GO, DAY 6. The number of media outlets calling for Donald Rumsfeld to leave his post has mushroomed in recent days, including some of the leading papers in battleground states.

Jim Jordan and colleagues at the Thunder Road Group, who send out regular e-mail updates for America Coming Together that are every bit as pleasantly vicious as the Center for American Progress’s Progress Report, though with little of the editorializing, have pulled together a nice list of the regional papers calling for Rumsfeld’s head:

Kansas City Star, May 10:

“Washington must prove to the world it is serious about reclaiming the moral high ground and holding accountable those who were responsible for this debacle. This requires the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld… a new defense chief is needed to deal with the world’s anger.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 9:

“Last week, we called upon Rumsfeld to resign for a series of costly miscalculations: exaggerating the Iraqi threat before the war, underestimating the cost of the war, mishandling the occupation and botching the prison abuse investigation. Rumsfeld rejects all of those as reasons to resign.

“But Rumsfeld said he would leave if he is no longer effective. American citizens and soldiers need a defense secretary who can concentrate on the volatile situation in Iraq and on protecting our troops, not one engulfed in scandal and focused on protecting his own hide.

Army Times, May 10:

“Around the halls of the Pentagon, a term of caustic derision has emerged for the enlisted soldiers at the heart of the furor over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal: the six morons who lost the war…

“But the folks in the Pentagon are talking about the wrong morons. There is no excuse for the behavior displayed by soldiers… but while responsibility begins with the six soldiers facing criminal charges, it extends all the way up the chain of command to the highest reaches of the military hierarchy and its civilian leadership…

“Accountability here is essential — even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war.

Philadelphia Inquirer, May 9:

“Donald Rumsfeld should resign as U.S. secretary of defense. If he lacks the decency and courage to do so, President Bush should fire him…

“He has to go. When you say you stand for a sacred principle such as human rights, you must stand for it. You can’t treat it as an option to be discarded when inconvenient.

“He must go. If President Bush can’t see that, then he must not grasp the risks that events in Iraq now pose to America’s security and moral standing.”

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, May 7:

“If President Bush really wants to clean this stain off America, never mind his administration, he needs to fire Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld”

Toledo Blade, May 7:

“Donald Rumsfeld owes it to President Bush to fall on his sword and resign”

Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 7:

“Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, should resign immediately. If they do not, they should be fired…”

Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 7:

“It is time for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to prepare the final document of a long and sometimes illustrious public career: his letter of resignation…”

Arizona Daily Star, May 7:

“If Rumsfeld were sincere in serving the president, he would resign…”

Des Moines Register, May 7:

“His resignation would be appropriate, but it would leave unanswered the question of whether some responsibility extends even higher up. Rumsfeld, after all, has always acted with the full confidence and complete agreement of President Bush. But presidents don’t resign over such things — they do damage control instead.”

The Kerry campaign, for its part, is holding a petition drive calling for Rumsfeld’s ouster. So far, more than 320,000 people have signed it, according the the Kerry campaign.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but those papers don’t exactly sound like a collection of the leaders of the SCLM.