Update added below fold
The Secretary of Defense has decided to recommend a new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, rather than re-nominate General Peter Pace. Reporting this development, this CBS/AP story noted that the Pentagon personnel move by Secretary Robert Gates was done to avoid a contentious Senate circus, more so than with dissatisfaction with Pace's performance.
"It would be a backward looking and very contentious process," the AP quoted Gates, noting that Gates insisted the personnel move had "nothing to do" with Pace's performance.
So why this teaser photo illustration on the CBSNews.com front page, done in a grainy black-and-white and preparing the Web site reader for a negative take on the outgoing 40-year Marine veteran? (picture below jump)
Update (16:29): CBS Pentagon-based producer Mary Walsh blogs at "Couric & Co." that the Pace departure notes "you can finally say the Rumsfeld years are over."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
And of course, in the pictu
June 8, 2007 - 15:15 ET by motherbeltAnd of course, in the picture he looks dejected and miserable. A picture is worth 1000 words. It doesn't matter what the story says.
Pace would of had to be recon
June 8, 2007 - 15:23 ET by bigtimerPace would of had to be reconfirmed ...it would of been hell...played right into the msm's hands at the beck and call of the leftists like Hillary, and Warner, Graham ect. tearing him apart about all the mistakes he has made...blah blah blah...
IMO it is disgraceful to let this man go this way...but hey, what do I know...I was furious with Bush with his handling of dismissing one of my favorite people, that being Rummy....so what is new?
I am so disappointed in this administration that I cannot believe what they are doing now....
I have been fooled again I feel by politicians of all stripes.
Rumsfeld & Pace
June 8, 2007 - 16:52 ET by piniellaPace was another bootlicker who went along with an immoral war. This is sadly reminiscent of the Vietnam War:
Http://www.armedforc...
Pete Pace is a great man
June 8, 2007 - 16:59 ET by tumblerI've a friend in San Diego who went to school with Pace. He told me the man is one we can all admire.
Naturally, you're over on the opposing side, with the defeatists. You call it immoral not to flee from danger, immoral to face it. --To fight.
I find you sadly reminiscent of Broke Back Mountain.
Look another looney trollster
June 8, 2007 - 17:05 ET by bigtimerLook another looney trollster.
pinella...who are you to say what is moral or not?
Save your sadness for somebody who gives a shite.
Just askin'
pinhead...your comment shows
June 8, 2007 - 19:11 ET by m4ster chiefpinhead...your comment shows your total ignorance of things military.
I am retired Navy, but during my career I came into contact with hundreds of Marines. You can call lots of military officers bootlickers, including some from my Navy, but I have never, EVER, met a Marine who was a bootlicker. And I mean Marines from Private to General. These are men and women who will charge a machine gun nest, screaming and bleeding...and they never leave one of their own lying on the field of battle if there is one of them alive and able to crawl.
But they are also people of action here at home. A Parris Island female drill instructor was at a gas station filling up her car. A robber stuck a gun in her face and demanded money and her auto. She took the guy(!) down, pinned him, and held him for the police. Just one example.
Nah, Marines aren't bootlickers. General Pace was selected for the top job; he saluted smartly and stated, "Aye, aye, Sir!" He has done his best under poor leadership, a poorly-run war, and a home-grown enemy stabbing him in the back at every chance...the main stream media, of course.
If I have to go to war, or if I need help carrying my groceries into the house...give me a United States Marine! Semper Fi to Our Marines!
As far as you are concerned, Pinhead...you worthless piece of s**t...you need to get down on your knees and thank God you are an American, and that there has been a United States military there since about 1775 to protect you.
God Bless America.
Perfect response, Master Chie
June 8, 2007 - 19:21 ET by BlondePerfect response, Master Chief.
What you said....thanks!
Oh for the love of pete!
June 8, 2007 - 15:29 ET by MightyMouthbalboa says: Oh for petes sake!!...blah blah blahhhh blah! This again? blah blah. blahhhhhhhhhhhhhh?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Eh...
June 8, 2007 - 15:34 ET by balboaEh...
Has it said anywhere that Gen
June 8, 2007 - 19:43 ET byHas it said anywhere that General Pace would exit the joint chiefs? Is it possible that he can continue to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff just not as head; i believe these patriots can work together with minimal interference from ego. (Unlike say Congress?) So do we get to keep the libs quiet with a move more of symbolism than substance? (Right out of the lib playbook)
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Botg:I doubt that he would st
June 9, 2007 - 13:18 ET by BDBotg:
I doubt that he would step into a role below being the CJCS. It is a difficult role to take on not unlike going from president to being a Vice President in a single jump.
I assume he will retire and probably work for a foundation or perhaps found one ala Colin Powell...
BDAdmittedly i know little of
June 9, 2007 - 13:25 ET byBD
Admittedly i know little of this it's why there were so many ? ? ? in my comment.
Thanks for the info
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Not a problem. Nearly all s
June 9, 2007 - 13:31 ET by BDNot a problem. Nearly all senior officers I have worked for and with have a natural desire to retire at the "top of their game"
Division Commanders, when offered meaningly staff jobs, post commanders when they are sent to minor positions, etc. THey all seem to desire to retire at the peak.
THe only exception I have run into is some Colonels who will stay in pas their peak for their kids to finish school somewhere...
Bruce,Here is an article abou
June 9, 2007 - 13:44 ET by BlondeBruce,
Here is an article about Pace's "retirement" and some of the background (read political sniping). Bottom line, SecDef Gates did not want to put the last couple of years of their decision making in Iraq in front of a congressional committee by re-nominating Pete Pace. So they are replacing him, figuring the "advice and consent" process for a new CJCS will be less contentious. Nice, huh?
Notice Hillary's spokesperson's comments here. Disgusting.
I don't get the Adm. Mullins appointment, though. Isn't CENTCOM also Navy? I'd have thought an Army General with an infantry background would be the logical choice.
Can anyone enlighten me what's up with that? Or why this isn't getting more coverage?
Thanks BlondieAnd Hil wants t
June 9, 2007 - 13:54 ET byThanks Blondie
And Hil wants to be CIC while using national security for political points?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Blonde:The Bush administratio
June 9, 2007 - 13:57 ET by BDBlonde:
The Bush administration has been known for shaking up the structure as often as possible. In the first term they put a Marine in charge of EUCOM (normally army), they have put a sailor in charge of CENTCOM (normally Army), and then they put Pace in at CJCS. Prior to him they brought back a retired Army General (Schoemaker) who was big in SOCOM circles.
Couple this with the recent change at SOCOM (Navy Seal now in charge) and it seems the army has been getting hit a bit at the Combatant Command Level, but seems to do alright at the Iraq/ Afghnaistan level.
We have internally debated the issue for some time and have just figured that the administration is unpredictable.
Thanks, BD.Why do you suppose
June 9, 2007 - 14:05 ET by BlondeThanks, BD.
Why do you suppose they're "shaking up the structure"?
I didn't know that about SOCOM. Navy again.
I'd imagine the Army, in general, is none too pleased.
Well, I have been thinking.
June 9, 2007 - 16:03 ET by BDWell, I have been thinking. If you approach this from a "Power Player" approach (which I am not) Who cares about command of CENTCOM if you have essential command of both Iraq and Afghanistan as well as a hefty share of the operations in the Horn of Africa and Philippines?
CENTCOM Commander is now relegated to a sort of George Marshall in WWII supporting leader concept while the real command is pushed forward to an Eisenhower like commander named Petreus?
The only thing that is sad is
June 9, 2007 - 02:16 ET by jdhawkThe only thing that is sad is Gates' remarks of a Pace reconfirmation hearing. Pace has done a terrific job. If you don't believe me, review the first couple of years of WWII. As an example, after Pearl Habor it took us two ong years to get and stay on the offensive against Japan. Meanwhile, we took horrific losses because we didn't have the resource to fight back. Yet, the press of the day did not take the President or the Secretary of Defense to task. They understood the desperate times that we were in.
If you are looking for General Pace's accomplishments try the following:
Strategy to surge against the Iraqi terrorists
Involving NATO in Afghanistan
Kept our other enemies at bay ie Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc.
Kept America safe from attack on our soil
Continued to restructure our Armed Forces in light of recent war fighting contingencies
Kept morale high and ensured our fighting men and women know the reason they are fighting. The result has been record reenlistments.
Kept enlistments high and fueled our military with its most important asset, our18 year old young men and women.
We salute you, General Pace!