AP Rehash of AP lie

[Comrade]

Recall the original thread here discussing the story of Rumsfeld in the field answering a soldiers question about the 'shortage' of up-armored humvees.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15630

{Now knowing his unit was already around 95% equiped with armor kits dispels the idea of there being a shortage. And we also know now the question was planted by a reporter.}

However, the idea A.P. conveyed was that Rumsfeld is to have answered brusquely that "You go to war with the army you have."

My answer to that story then was:

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.

...............

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.

After A.P.'s contrived press release it was no coincidence that there was a call for his dismissal from various members of the House. It makes you wonder just how closely are the Democrats working with the media?

Now after Rummys yesterday visit to Iraq, this latest A.P. story here has struck me with disbelief over their lack of shame, which must still exceed the amount of intelligence of its believing audience.

The specific aspect of the report is;

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=317421&category=&BCCode=&newsdate=12/24/2004

Rumsfeld cut off their complaints by saying, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have."

That's just asinine. He didn't 'cut off' any such question. In fact here is the entire text and not just A.P. lameass attempt to describe the response in their Rumsfeld hating minds.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041208-secdef1761.html

Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. My question is more logistical. We’ve had troops in Iraq for coming up on three years and we’ve always staged here out of Kuwait. Now why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromise ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles and why don’t we have those resources readily available to us? [Applause]

SEC. RUMSFELD: I missed the first part of your question. And could you repeat it for me?

Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. Our soldiers have been fighting in Iraq for coming up on three years. A lot of us are getting ready to move north relatively soon. Our vehicles are not armored. We’re digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that’s already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat. We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us north.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I talked to the General coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they’re not needed, to a place here where they are needed. I’m told that they are being – the Army is – I think it’s something like 400 a month are being done. And it’s essentially a matter of physics. It isn’t a matter of money. It isn’t a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It’s a matter of production and capability of doing it.

As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe – it’s a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment.

I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they’re working at it at a good clip. It’s interesting, I’ve talked a great deal about this with a team of people who’ve been working on it hard at the Pentagon. And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up. And you can go down and, the vehicle, the goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops. And that is what the Army has been working on.

And General Whitcomb, is there anything you’d want to add to that?

GEN. WHITCOMB: Nothing. [Laughter] Mr. Secretary, I’d be happy to. That is a focus on what we do here in Kuwait and what is done up in the theater, both in Iraq and also in Afghanistan. As the secretary has said, it’s not a matter of money or desire; it is a matter of the logistics of being able to produce it. The 699th, the team that we’ve got here in Kuwait has done [Cheers] a tremendous effort to take that steel that they have and cut it, prefab it and put it on vehicles. But there is nobody from the president on down that is not aware that this is a challenge for us and this is a desire for us to accomplish.

SEC. RUMSFELD: The other day, after there was a big threat alert in Washington, D.C. in connection with the elections, as I recall, I looked outside the Pentagon and there were six or eight up-armored humvees. They’re not there anymore. [Cheers] [Applause] They’re en route out here, I can assure you. Next. Way in the back. Yes.

Instead of 'cutting off' the soldier he asked him to repeat the question, and then spend a good deal of time explaining why the issue was important and how it was being solved. And in the process recieved laughter and applause.

THIS IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STORY THAN A.P. MADE IT OUT TO BE.

And yet A.P. has the gall to repeat it's lie once more, well after its original report has been discredited.

Of course it's obvious the strategy of defamation by the left has shifted away from Bush, who they cannot remove, to Rumsfeld, who could still be dismissed if they were able to turn pulic opinion against him enough. They will do this by attacking him with such 'reporting' bordering on outright libel.

However, from our position online, it's so easy to expose such sycophants now, and become the conduits of truth. Go forth, observe future A.P. articles, and tell others of their crass manipulation of the print media.

 

[NATO AIR]

its not just attacking rumsfield, its attacking the entire war effort and discrediting it