G.I.'s Query to Rumsfeld Prompted by Reporter

[Pacridge]

Turns out that the question from the GI directed at Rumsfeld was prompted by a reported and didn't just come from the GI.

From the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/10/international/worldspecial/10reporter.html

The soldier with the Tennessee National Guard who asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld a pointed question in Kuwait on Wednesday about the lack of armor on military vehicles was prompted by a reporter for The Chattanooga Times Free Press, according to Tom Griscom, the newspaper's publisher.
The reporter, Edward Lee Pitts, is embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team of the National Guard. His article on the town hall meeting made no mention of his own role; that came to light yesterday, when an e-mail message he wrote to a colleague at the newspaper boasting of his involvement in the questioning was posted on several Web sites.

 

[Schweddy]

I am probably a lonely poster that believes this, but I think he should stay.

The Goverment truely is doing everything it can to armor the troops.

1. A caller on a talk radio show says that he buys sheet metal in bulk, but it has been unavailable for months because the government takes first dibs.
2. If the transportation isn't armored they fly the troops to where they are going - unless convoy.
3. I like Rumsfeld - Even though he is from one of the most liberal places in the world - Taos, New Mexico.

 

[Pacridge]

1. A caller on a talk radio show says that he buys sheet metal in bulk, but it has been unavailable for months because the government takes first dibs.
2. If the transportation isn't armored they fly the troops to where they are going - unless convoy.
3. I like Rumsfeld - Even though he is from one of the most liberal places in the world - Taos, New Mexico

1. They don't use sheet metal for armor. If they do they're more problems then even I was aware.

2. The concern is that units out on partol don't have the needed armor plated vehicles, can't fly troops to partol within areas.

3. He's from a liberal area? None of that wore off on him.

Finally, I actual tend to agree with you. I'm not sure changing out Rumsfled at this stage would be a good move. I think there's work that needs to be done, changing the leadership might cause more problems then it solves.

 

[CSA_TX]

I think Rumsfeld should stay. Why you may ask? Because the president wants him to stay. Last I checked the President selected the cabinet confirmed by the senate. So who ever the President wants will get my support.

 

[LiberalFINGER]

Was the HMMWV ever really designed to pull escort duty?

I think there's more here then meets the eye. The HMMWX has a fiberglass hood and extremely thin doors and siding. This leads me to beleive that it was never designed for such a role. If not this kind of role, then what should be used in it's place? If there is a suitable alternative, why aren't we using it.

Could we not be using M2s? Do they eat up too much fuel? M1s are a bit unweildy for this kind of duty. What about bringing in the 113s again?

 

[Pacridge]

Was the HMMWV ever really designed to pull escort duty?

I think there's more here then meets the eye. The HMMWX has a fiberglass hood and extremely thin doors and siding. This leads me to beleive that it was never designed for such a role. If not this kind of role, then what should be used in it's place? If there is a suitable alternative, why aren't we using it.

Could we not be using M2s? Do they eat up too much fuel? M1s are a bit unweildy for this kind of duty. What about bringing in the 113s again?

Just a guess, but since we failed to plan, even after a year and a half into this war, to have enough armored Humvees. Then my guess would be we don't have enough of the other vehicles you metioned to fill in the gaps either. It all been one big "catastrophic success."

 

[heyjoeo]

I think Rumsfeld should stay. Why you may ask? Because the president wants him to stay. Last I checked the President selected the cabinet confirmed by the senate. So who ever the President wants will get my support.

CSA, thats exactly the problem. Blind support of the president and not questing his decisions. You are the poster child for what the Republican party wants all of America to do.

The only way this country is going to get better is CHANGE. Right now, things ain't workin' right. Get rid of the bastard. Plus, even if that comment from the GI was from a reporter, he still gave an asshole-ish response. That's no way to speak to troops, I'm sorry.

 

[Pacridge]

CSA, thats exactly the problem. Blind support of the president and not questing his decisions. You are the poster child for what the Republican party wants all of America to do.

To some degree I agree with you heyjoeo. I'm always amazed at the republician call to support our President solely because he's our President. Yet, by and large, most of these people had a completely different attitude when Clinton was in office.

I've had, up tell now, an attitude that replacing "Rummy" wouldn't solve anything. However here lately I've been rethinking that. Many upper level GOP members like Lott and McCain are now calling for his replacement. So, if theey're willing to work towards real reforms and start re-working this situation, maybe there is hope. But that probably just makes me a liberal "Flip-Flopper." But if I am- so are they.

 

[LiberalFINGER]

Pac:

But that probably just makes me a liberal "Flip-Flopper." But if I am- so are they.

You damn liberal flip-flopper.

Joe and CSA:

Blind support of the president and not questing his decisions. You are the poster child for what the Republican party wants all of America to do.

Granted, I probably would have chosen less inflamatory speach, but I have to agree based solely on the Declaration of Independance.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It is our responsibility to insure that the government is acting in our behalf. I am not attempting to prove whether or not Rumsfeld is the right man for the job, I am stating that it is our duty to raise any doubts we may have.

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

 

[Pacridge]

Pac:

You damn liberal flip-flopper.

I stand accused of the things I've done.

 

[CSA_TX]

Heyjoeo

CSA, thats exactly the problem. Blind support of the president and not questing his decisions. You are the poster child for what the Republican party wants all of America to do.

The only way this country is going to get better is CHANGE. Right now, things ain't workin' right. Get rid of the bastard. Plus, even if that comment from the GI was from a reporter, he still gave an asshole-ish response. That's no way to speak to troops, I'm sorry.

I'm just following the constitution and giving the president his constituional right to select his cabinet. If Kerry had won I would have supported who ever he selected. So if you want change your going to have to wait 4 yrs for a new president.

 

[Fantasea]

Pac:


It is our responsibility to insure that the government is acting in our behalf. I am not attempting to prove whether or not Rumsfeld is the right man for the job, I am stating that it is our duty to raise any doubts we may have.

If the government is not acting in our behalf, then they are acting on behalf of the other side, the enemy. This is the meaning of your words. Is that your intent? If so, it is tragic. If not, then a more careful choice of words will enable others to better understand your position.

Duty? I see the duty in another light. Many people seem to forget that in November of 2002, Congress bestowed a mandate upon the Administration -- to clean out the rat's nest in Iraq. Those who rant and rave, moan and groan, whine and sigh, complain and criticize, as they second guess every move, do nothing to improve the situation but do give aid and comfort to the enemy who has not forgotten the primary lesson of Viet Nam.

To win, it is not necessary to defeat the US on the battlefield. All that is necessary is to win the hearts and minds of the populace back home. When the people can be made to lose confidence in the government, then the government will 'bug out'.

When doubts are raised in the way that those opposed to Administration policies are raised, they have a detrimental effect.

Sadly, in this age of politics of personal destruction, the 'outs' will use any and every imaginable tactic to try to make the 'ins' look bad. They don't seem to care about the effect of their actions on the 'mission' and those who are dying in the attempt to carry it out.

Fighting a single enemy is difficult enough, but as previously noted, the Administration is currently tasked with fighting a war on two fronts; one foreign, one domestic.

I believe that it would be far better to present a united front, finish the job, and then conduct a critique to bestow accolades or goat horns upon those who have earned them.