Grrrrrr

[CSM]

Sometimes Rumsfeld is such a jerk!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=718&e=2&u=/ap/20041208/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld

Troops Put Tough Questions to Rumsfeld

It really irks me that Rumsfeld gave an answer like that. The troops deserve better. Yes, go to war with the Army you have; BUT you better be trying like hell to make it better! Half assed rhetoric about producing stuff as fast as you can is pure bullshit; then add insult to injury by implying they dont NEED armor....

Steaming mad now!

 

[Comrade]

AP ALERT ---- AP ALERT ---- AP ALERT

Quoted text WILL be taken out of context to reflect whatever tone the author chooses, in this case insensitivity to the troops.

Note where the author finishes the limited quote with his own 'context'.

Rumsfeld replied that, "You go to war with the Army you have," not the one you might want, and that any rate the Army was pushing manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly possible.

Instead of what is likely something along the lines of "My Commander taught me that you go to war with the Army you have, etc...."

and

There's no way I can prove it, but I am told the Army is breaking its neck to see that there is not" discrimination against the National Guard and Reserve in terms of providing equipment, Rumsfeld said.

You see the liberties the author takes?

As far as one answer, there is simply no quoted text but the authors 'interpretation'.

Yet another soldier asked, without putting it to Rumsfeld as a direct criticism, how much longer the Army will continue using its "stop loss" power to prevent soldiers from leaving the service who are otherwise eligible to retire or quit.


Rumsfeld said that this condition was simply a fact of life for soldiers at time of war.

(Just like that, hmm? Not really!)

"It's basically a sound principle, it's nothing new, it's been well understood" by soldiers, he said. "My guess is it will continue to be used as little as possible, but that it will continue to be used."


Set moonbat filter to Code Orange when reading all AP 'articles'.

 

[CSM]

AP ALERT ---- AP ALERT ---- AP ALERT

Quoted text WILL be taken out of context to reflect whatever tone the author chooses, in this case insensitivity to the troops.

Note where the author finishes the limited quote with his own 'context'.



Instead of what is likely something along the lines of "My Commander taught me that you go to war with the Army you have, etc...."

and



You see the liberties the author takes?

As far as one answer, there is simply no quoted text but the authors 'interpretation'.


(Just like that, hmm? Not really!)

"It's basically a sound principle, it's nothing new, it's been well understood" by soldiers, he said. "My guess is it will continue to be used as little as possible, but that it will continue to be used."


Set moonbat filter to Code Orange when reading all AP 'articles'.

good point

 

[krisy]

Just heard a clip of this on the radio too,the part they played made him sound like an ass. Ahhhh the media,gotta love em!!!!

 

[CSM]

Just in case anyone hasn't noticed, I tend to get a bit testy when it comes to taking care of the troops. I overlooked the fact that the media tends to slant anything to do with Iraq and the war on terror.

 

[Merlin1047]

Just in case anyone hasn't noticed, I tend to get a bit testy when it comes to taking care of the troops. I overlooked the fact that the media tends to slant anything to do with Iraq and the war on terror.

After reading your original post, I was very interested in hearing or reading what Rumsfeld had to say. Michael Savage played an excerpt which matches Comrade's post. Savage was going off about it, but he's a loon anyway. What I heard Rumsfeld say made sense to me.

Rumsfeld made the mistake of telling the unvarnished truth. That's never popular with the lib media. He didn't throw out any warm fuzzies, he didn't pull any punches and he didn't gloss anything over. Seems that blunt honesty is the kiss of death - especially when it comes to dealing with the press.

What I'm interested in is seeing that the administration is doing all it can to ease the problem. What I'm curious about is why an aircraft mechanic asked this question. Somehow I doubt that he's out scrounging scrap metal in land fills. But nevertheless I still think it was a good question which needed to be asked. Rumsfeld didn't have a good answer, but at least he gave an honest one.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

AS shown on the nightly news....our troops have been "adapting, adjusting and improvising" to find their own solutions which include getting the materials in any place they can to weld, and attach more armor to the vehicles that are going in to harm's way. I am not saying this is the solution, but their actions are another testament to the adaptability of our young men an women in the face of adversity, utilizing the skills and creativity to find solutions that work, NOW, and not waiting for the govt to provide the solutions for what ails them!

Shoudl changes be made....YES! Are changes being made....YES. Are the troops doing their best to make their current situation better? YES

If less of our tax money was spent for wasteful pork that lawmakers jammed in to the omnibus spending package there would be even more funding for the safety of the troops and provide better equipment.

Get involved...register and make your voice heard! www.cagw.org

 

[Comrade]

It looks like LGF also picked up the thread and comments on AP bias here:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=13883_Media_Spin_vs._Reality#comments

Is Charles, the Grand Lizardoid himself, reading the USMB?

Also note the perspective of the same speech heard by a soldier that was actually there.

http://www.missick.com/

Mr. Rumsfeld gave a very good speech to “Rally the Troops” and it was heartening to sit there in that aircraft hangar, only feet away from the man who holds the power of America’s armed forces in his hand. After his formal speech, he opened the floor to questions. I was impressed once again with our nation, when a 20 year old Specialist has the opportunity to stand before the Secretary of Defense and ask him a direct and difficult question. Mr. Rumsfeld did receive such questions today, and handled them fairly well. Certainly, in areas such as stop loss, the answer was not one that some soldiers wanted to hear, but honestly, even that was slightly comforting. His answers were usually direct and blunt, telling the audience the realities of a situation rather than an overly sugar-coated prepared sound-byte. I will admit, I am partial to the Secretary and believe he puts America’s and the military’s best interests first, but even from the most un-biased position I could conjure up, I was impressed at both his speech and the fact that he visited today.

 

[CSM]

I have since seen the videos of the entire thing and Rumsfeld was indeed blunt and to the point; he was also exactly right in saying that "... it is not a matter of money or a matter of will for the US Army; it's a matter of production..." That little piece was left off every quote I could find in the public media. I have since learned that the kits for uparmoring the vehicles were produced at a rate of 15 per month prior to combat in Iraq. They are now produced at a rate of 450 a month.

As for an aircraft mechanic asking that question; that i can understand. Many, many units have assumed "non-standard" missions in Iraq. Artillery units, and aviation units in particular have assumed light infantry mission. The reason is obvious: the US Army does not have enough troops trained as light infantry.

 

[Comrade]

I have since seen the videos of the entire thing and Rumsfeld was indeed blunt and to the point; he was also exactly right in saying that "... it is not a matter of money or a matter of will for the US Army; it's a matter of production..." That little piece was left off every quote I could find in the public media. I have since learned that the kits for uparmoring the vehicles were produced at a rate of 15 per month prior to combat in Iraq. They are now produced at a rate of 450 a month.

As for an aircraft mechanic asking that question; that i can understand. Many, many units have assumed "non-standard" missions in Iraq. Artillery units, and aviation units in particular have assumed light infantry mission. The reason is obvious: the US Army does not have enough troops trained as light infantry.

I also caught that clip, the part where the soldiers cheered his question does put things into perspective!

However, even more unsettling is that it now appears Rumsfeld was ambushed by the media after all. Not just in the aftermath, either! The question actually orginated from a reporter!

And would you imagine, that this whole affair is a media manufactured event.

RUMSFELD SET UP; REPORTER PLANTED QUESTIONS WITH SOLIDER
Thu Dec 09 2004 11:49:38 ET

Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter Edward Lee Pitts is embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team, now in Kuwait preparing to enter Iraq, and is filing articles for his newspaper. Pitts claims in a purported email that he coached soldiers to ask Defense Secretary Rumsfeld questions!

When reached Thursday morning, various Chattanooga Times Free Press staffers offered 'no comment' on the development.

From: EDWARD LEE PITTS, MILITARY AFFAIRS
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2004 4:44 PM
To: Staffers

Subject: RE: Way to go

I just had one of my best days as a journalist today. As luck would have it, our journey North was delayed just long enough see I could attend a visit today here by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. I was told yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions so I brought two of them along with me as my escorts. Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have. While waiting for the VIP, I went and found the Sgt. in charge of the microphone for the question and answer session and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd.

So during the Q&A session, one of my guys was the second person called on. When he asked Rumsfeld why after two years here soldiers are still having to dig through trash bins to find rusted scrap metal and cracked ballistic windows for their Humvees, the place erupted in cheers so loud that Rumsfeld had to ask the guy to repeat his question. Then Rumsfeld answered something about it being "not a lack of desire or money but a logistics/physics problem." He said he recently saw about 8 of the special up-armored Humvees guarding Washington, DC, and he promised that they would no longer be used for that and that he would send them over here. Then he asked a three star general standing behind him, the commander of all ground forces here, to also answer the question. The general said it was a problem he is working on.

The great part was that after the event was over the throng of national media following Rumsfeld- The New York Times, AP, all the major networks -- swarmed to the two soldiers I brought from the unit I am embedded with. Out of the 1,000 or so troops at the event there were only a handful of guys from my unit b/c the rest were too busy prepping for our trip north. The national media asked if they were the guys with the armor problem and then stuck cameras in their faces. The NY Times reporter asked me to email him the stories I had already done on it, but I said he could search for them himself on the Internet and he better not steal any of my lines. I have been trying to get this story out for weeks- as soon as I foud out I would be on an unarmored truck- and my paper published two stories on it. But it felt good to hand it off to the national press. I believe lives are at stake with so many soldiers going across the border riding with scrap metal as protection. It may be to late for the unit I am with, but hopefully not for those who come after.

The press officer in charge of my regiment, the 278th, came up to me afterwords and asked if my story would be positive. I replied that I would write the truth. Then I pointed at the horde of national media pointing cameras and mics at the 278th guys and said he had bigger problems on his hands than the Chattanooga Times Free Press. This is what this job is all about - people need to know. The solider who asked the question said he felt good b/c he took his complaints to the top. When he got back to his unit most of the guys patted him on the back but a few of the officers were upset b/c they thought it would make them look bad. From what I understand this is all over the news back home.

Thanks,

Lee

EDWARD LEE PITTS FILED STORY ABOUT THE TROOPS BEFORE THE POW-WOW WITH RUMSFELD

 

[Merlin1047]

However, even more unsettling is that it now appears Rumsfeld was ambushed by the media after all. Not just in the aftermath, either! The question actually orginated from a reporter!

And would you imagine, that this whole affair is a media manufactured event.

Well that certainly is interesting. I was wondering why an aircraft mech would pose such a question. He could have been assigned other duty, as CSM pointed out. But now it appears that is probably not the case. It appears that he was merely the pawn of a devious reporter. That is infuriating. That a scheming little prick from a third rate rag would use a soldier like that and then try to paint himself as a hero.

The vehicles which are being criticized are trucks and Humvees. Trucks have NEVER been armored. Some trucks are lightly armed, having a machine gun mounted above the cab. But their purpose is to move materiel, not to fight. Likewise with the Humvees. These vehicles are the replacement for the venerable jeep - a light utility vehicle never intended as a fighting machine. So neither trucks nor Humvees are armored. That is the result of their mission and their design.

US forces are facing an urban warfare scenario which the military is ill prepared to handle, both from a tactical viewpoint as well as equipment. It has become obvious that trucks and Humvees need some armor protection since they have become the focal point for IED attacks. Based on the facts presented by CSM, it is apparent that the procurement pipeline is scrambling to make up this deficit.

Each conflict teaches us new things. Each conflict will produce things which were not, could not, be forseen. The best we can do when confronted with unexpected or unorthodox situations is adjust our tactics and modify our equipment.

It appears that only reporters and left wingers are gifted with prescience. Perhaps we should consult the staff at CBS, the NYT or at the Democratic National Committee before we engage in our next battle and see what is in store and how we should deal with it.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Just for information, our daily newspaper's editorial on this topic:

Today's Editorial (The Indianapolis Star)
U.S. Must Do Better to Protect Troops
December 10, 2004

Our position is: U.S. troops need equipment redesigned from the ground up for fighting a new kind of warfare.

Spc. Thomas Wilson was blunt with Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld this week during an open forum involving U.S. troops in Iraq. "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?" Wilson asked.

Rumsfeld's answer? "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." Sorry, Mr. Secretary, but that's not good enough.

Rumsfeld needs to explain to not only the soldiers but also the American public why Pentagon planners were so badly unprepared for equipping soldiers for the type of warfare that has developed in Iraq.

The Pentagon obviously envisioned a "shock-and-awe" campaign in which speed, airpower and force would overwhelm the enemy. And, in the first weeks of the war in Iraq, that is exactly what happened. But now the U.S. is confronting a prolonged insurgency with no front lines, where every soldier and piece of equipment -- armored or not -- is exposed to gunfire, rocket-propelled grenades and homemade bombs.

Although the Pentagon was too slow to ask for funding for more heavily armored Humvees, in all fairness, its ability to start shipping add-on armor kits to the troops within six weeks of coming up with a design is nothing short of a miracle when the traditional procurement process takes five to seven years.

But putting more plating on Humvees scratches the surface of properly equipping U.S. troops for the conflicts they face in combating terrorism. Redesign of military transport vehicles is needed from the ground up.

Many of the military's basic vehicle designs are outdated. The Humvee -- relatively new by military standards -- is nearly 20 years old. Most truck designs are far older. Retrofitting these vehicles with armor plating often makes them top-heavy and unstable, and causes excessive wear on engines and suspensions. Lack of basic safety equipment -- shoulder harnesses, airbags, anti-lock brakes -- contributed to many of the 833 crashes, 50 vehicular deaths and 223 injuries the Army sustained last year, mostly in non-combat situations.

As one solider who handles logistics observed, "War is a come-as-you are party."

Rumsfeld must ensure that U.S. troops are provided with the tools necessary to protect themselves and to win the fight in Iraq.

 

[CSM]

Fortunately, the US military is constantly trying to upgrade its equipment. As for all the pundits, their views mean little (in my opinion) until those same pundits push as hard for funding all the needed upgrades as hard as they push for cutting the military budget. In case they haven't noticed, modern military equipment doesn't grow on trees.

 

[Merlin1047]

This article is an excellent example of civilian ignorance of the problems faced by the military. Although probably well-intentioned, the author reveals his lack of knowledge of the needs of the military.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Just for information, our daily newspaper's editorial on this topic:

Today's Editorial (The Indianapolis Star)
U.S. Must Do Better to Protect Troops
December 10, 2004

Our position is: U.S. troops need equipment redesigned from the ground up for fighting a new kind of warfare.

Spc. Thomas Wilson was blunt with Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld this week during an open forum involving U.S. troops in Iraq. "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?" Wilson asked.

Rumsfeld's answer? "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." Sorry, Mr. Secretary, but that's not good enough. (Well, that may not be good enough to suit the writer, but unfortunately that's a fact that cannot be changed. We go through these cycles all the time. We get into a conflict, there is a frenzy of military spending. Conflict over, now the military becomes the whipping boy of politicians and leftists who want to take money away from the military and funnel it into their favorite pork or "gimme" program.)

Rumsfeld needs to explain to not only the soldiers but also the American public why Pentagon planners were so badly unprepared for equipping soldiers for the type of warfare that has developed in Iraq. (Actually, it needs no explanation. Anyone who has been paying attention can tell that the war has changed from a conventional battlefied to urban warfare. The military has not trained very extensively in that type of conflict. Who will we blame for that? Perhaps we need to draft some media types so that the military can take advantage of their ability to foretell the future.)

The Pentagon obviously envisioned a "shock-and-awe" campaign in which speed, airpower and force would overwhelm the enemy. And, in the first weeks of the war in Iraq, that is exactly what happened. But now the U.S. is confronting a prolonged insurgency with no front lines, where every soldier and piece of equipment -- armored or not -- is exposed to gunfire, rocket-propelled grenades and homemade bombs. (Well DUuh! So he answers his own question. He fails to point out that this is the first time we have experienced this type of conflict. You can't count Lebanon or Mogadishu because we weren't there long enough to learn any tactical lessons.)

Although the Pentagon was too slow to ask for funding for more heavily armored Humvees, in all fairness, its ability to start shipping add-on armor kits to the troops within six weeks of coming up with a design is nothing short of a miracle when the traditional procurement process takes five to seven years. (Well, a little balance, although apparently presented begrudgingly. The Pentagon was slow to ask? Baloney. Seems to me they got on it fairly quickly. Not only that, they expedited the procurement process.)

But putting more plating on Humvees scratches the surface of properly equipping U.S. troops for the conflicts they face in combating terrorism. Redesign of military transport vehicles is needed from the ground up. (Well, maybe. Perhaps the author will give us the benefit of his prescience to determine what kind of vehicle we will need for the NEXT conflict.)

Many of the military's basic vehicle designs are outdated. The Humvee -- relatively new by military standards -- is nearly 20 years old. Most truck designs are far older. Retrofitting these vehicles with armor plating often makes them top-heavy and unstable, and causes excessive wear on engines and suspensions. Lack of basic safety equipment -- shoulder harnesses, airbags, anti-lock brakes -- contributed to many of the 833 crashes, 50 vehicular deaths and 223 injuries the Army sustained last year, mostly in non-combat situations. (Old is not necessarily outdated. If it works, why mess with it? But let's concede that design improvements need to be made. The author still comes up with some ridiculous concepts. Let's take a look at seat belts. Here we are in a combat situation. Your vehicle comes under attack. You pull over to the roadside to exit the vehicle and assume a defensive position. But before that, you have to get loose from your seat belt. Precious seconds go by and you're a sitting duck. Not conducive to longevity. Airbags and anti-lock brakes. Hey, we're talking COMBAT here. Combat vehicles need to be kept simple because you can't take them down to your friendly dealer for warranty work. They have to be fixed in the field, often by 19 year old mechanics working in primitive conditions. Combat vehicles need to be kept as simple, reliable and durable as possible.)

As one solider who handles logistics observed, "War is a come-as-you are party." (Yup. No disagreement there.)

Rumsfeld must ensure that U.S. troops are provided with the tools necessary to protect themselves and to win the fight in Iraq. (Again, no disagreement. But the truth is that stating the principle is far easier than executing it.)

 

[Merlin1047]

Now that the truth about the Chattanooga Times Free Press has been outed, the paper is scrambling to cover it ass and to spin it's lack of journalistic ethics (oxymoron?).

It's a shame that the activities of media charlatans are getting in the way of what should have been a meaningful discussion of the needs of our military.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBWVGMGK2E.html

Paper Regrets Readers Not Initially Told Reporter Involved in Soldier's Question to Rumsfeld

By Bill Poovey Associated Press Writer
Published: Dec 10, 2004

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (AP) - Readers should have been told promptly that an embedded reporter had helped frame a question that a serviceman asked of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this week in Kuwait, the reporter's publisher says.
The question to Rumsfeld from Spc. Thomas "Jerry" Wilson, 31, of Nashville, complaining that many military vehicles in Iraq are not adequately armored, has touched off a storm of new publicity about the issue.

"In hindsight, information on how the question was framed should have been included in Thursday's story in the Times Free Press. It was not," the paper's publisher and executive editor, Tom Griscom, said in a note to readers published Friday.

Military affairs reporter Edward Lee Pitts, who is embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team, said he worked with guardsmen after being told reporters would not be allowed to ask Rumsfeld any questions.

Griscom said Pitts "used the tools available to him as a journalist to report on a story that has been and remains important to members of the 278th and those back at home."

Pitts had sent an e-mail to co-workers back in Tennessee on Wednesday outlining his role.

"I was told yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions so I brought two of them along with me as my escorts," he wrote. "Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have."

He also said he went to the officer running the question and answer session "and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd."

But the story by Pitts published Thursday about the question to Rumsfeld made no mention of Pitts' own role.

The question from Wilson appeared to surprise Rumsfeld on Wednesday and prompted cheers among the soldiers listening to him in a hangar.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?" Wilson had said.

Rumsfeld said the Army was prodding manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it quickly, but added, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have."

In commending Pitts' work, Griscom, who served as White House communications director under President Reagan, said Pitts "used what was available to him to get an answer to a story that we have covered and that has been important."

Kelly McBride, a member of the ethics faculty at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, said she did not fault the reporter for getting help with asking the question, but described the failure to include that information with his story as "dishonest with his readers."

"I suspect some people would see it as manipulative," McBride said. "I suspect Rumsfeld felt manipulated."

Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita said Rumsfeld gives reporters ample time to ask questions and that his appearance in Kuwait was for the soldiers.

"Town Hall meetings are intended for soldiers to have dialogue with the secretary of defense," Di Rita said. "It would be unfortunate to discover that anyone might have interfered with that opportunity, whatever the intention."

The reporter's e-mail also indicated Pitts was proud of his role in asking the question: "I just had one of my best days as a journalist today," he wrote. He said it "felt good" that the question and answer received so much attention from other media.

AP-ES-12-10-04 0931EST