Fucking Rumsfeld (nsr)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ripzalot

it certainly does matter if the question was planted or not. isn't the media supposed to report news, not manufacture it? if this armor issue was such a real issue, it would have come up on its own. instead, a well rehearsed prompted script from a journalist was read.
this question was posed, and if were true, would not be so bad if posed. But the whole thing is spurious.

---

By having the courage to ask the question, the soldier took ownership of it. The reporter did not have a gun to his head forcing him to ask it. The soldier made that choice, just as countless politicians/CEOs/PR people constantly ask questions and make speeches that they do not formulate themselves, speeches and questions that are "well rehearsed." Manufactured news? Spurious? IF this was such a real issue? Are you fricken blind?! Reports of the lack of proper equipment like armored vehicles and body armor, reports of family members having to buy the stuff for their loved ones have been flooding the media since this war began! Do I need to hold your hand and direct you to these reports so you would realize this has "come up on its own numerous" times? Tell the amputees who would be whole if their vehicle was properly armored that this is not a real issue...
We have the most powerful, most well-equipped military in the world. Not one soldier should have to go into battle without proper protective equipment, especially in an optional war like the war in Iraq that was supposed to have been fought on our timetable, when we felt the time was right--or so the shrub said.

you guys are running on only bits and pieces of the full story. read the links. here are some points that will come to light...

1) humvees are basically jeeps. they are not meant to be taking hits from heavy artillery.
2) all humvees in iraq meet the required level 3 specs or better. the issue is that these vehicles are now being used in situations not originally intended.
3) the question that was posed makes it sound like they are deficient and not up to spec. they are all up to spec.
4) even fully up armored to the level 1 specs, the extra armor will not protect it from an RPG, 20kg roadside bomb, or 100mm+ shell.
5) up armoring military vehicles is common practice, even when already considered fully armored. soldiers will always do this regardless.
6) up armoring is not always better. an up armored vehicle is heavier and slower. there is a balance that is needed, say to chase down insurgents in a light pick up truck.
7) the event was spun as a "gripe session" which it was not. watch the entire session online.
8) media journalists creating stories on "rumors" and then having the main stream media spin it as a "gripe session" is reprehensible and unethical.
9) if there is no problem with the posed question, why did the journalist's own paper publically apologize for it?

there are more points.

yes, we need to get them more equipment. yes, there are plenty of reports of lack of body armor and other things. we need to get this stuff to them asap. but this whole thing got spun way over the top by big media into something that it's not.

again, read the links. don't be afraid of information....

:fm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ripzalot

don't be afraid of information....

---

the armour issue has been around for a while, just not widely reprted.
and new info is fun too:

Quote:

---

According to figures furnished by the military branches, the active Army has sent about 250,000 soldiers to Iraq, and 622 have been killed. That works out to one death for every 402 soldiers who have deployed. About 37,000 Army Guard soldiers have been sent to Iraq since the war began and 140 have died there — one fatality for every 264 soldiers who have served, or about a 35% higher death rate.

There are several reasons for the greater death rates among so-called part-time soldiers, who generally drill one weekend a month and two weeks during the summer when there's no war. The Pentagon has called up thousands of part-time troops for tours of a year or more in Iraq. Some of the most dangerous missions, including driving convoys and guarding bases and other facilities, frequently are assigned to Guard and reserve troops. Iraqi insurgents have attacked convoys with roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades, and a Tennessee Guardsman publicly complained to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last week about the lack of armor on some vehicles.

Active-duty casualties have spiked during major battles such as the attack on Fallujah, largely carried out by Army and Marine troops. But such engagements have rarely been waged since President Bush declared major combat over in May 2003.

Other branches with troops in harm's way in Iraq — the Army Reserve, the Marine Corps, the Air Force and the Navy — did not supply total numbers of their troops deployed to Iraq since the war began in March 2003, which would have made similar comparisons possible. But fatality numbers show the vast majority of U.S. deaths in Iraq come from the active-duty Army, active-duty Marines, the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve. The Marines have lost 350 troops, while the Army Reserve has suffered 59 deaths. The Air Force and Navy together have suffered 27 deaths.

---

& A Politician that has actually seen combat has "no confidence" in Rummy

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=326680

I have not confidence in his ability to legislate. Nice Campaign Finance bill.

oh yeah, he's the head of all these armed services committees. he has a problem with the war. do something.

or wait, maybe the steroid problem in baseball is that problem.

no confidence. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

I have not confidence in his ability to legislate. Nice Campaign Finance bill.

oh yeah, he's the head of all these armed services committees. he has a problem with the war. do something.

or wait, maybe the steroid problem in baseball is that problem.

no confidence. :rolleyes:

---

jesus, you are attacking McCain now too just because he doesn't blindly support Rumy? He seems to be the only guy in the GOP that has a clue as to what the fack is really happening over there....I voted for Gore and Kerry in the last 2 elections, but if McCain had won the GOP nomination in 2000, I would have voted for him over Gore...IMO, he is one of the last politicians who doesn't kow tow to the party line and blindly follow orders from party bosses...he has a fackin' clue. Listen to him...the GOP would be better off with more guys like him around...but you dumb facks run guys like Powell outta office because he doesn't blindly follow Shrub and Cheney, and then try and discredit McCain b/c he speaks up when he sees what a shitty job Rumy has done....I mean, how, how can you possible defend Rumy? What has he done right w/regards to planning & running this mess in Iraq???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ripzalot

you guys are running on only bits and pieces of the full story. read the links. here are some points that will come to light...

1) humvees are basically jeeps. they are not meant to be taking hits from heavy artillery.
2) all humvees in iraq meet the required level 3 specs or better. the issue is that these vehicles are now being used in situations not originally intended.
3) the question that was posed makes it sound like they are deficient and not up to spec. they are all up to spec.
4) even fully up armored to the level 1 specs, the extra armor will not protect it from an RPG, 20kg roadside bomb, or 100mm+ shell.
5) up armoring military vehicles is common practice, even when already considered fully armored. soldiers will always do this regardless.
6) up armoring is not always better. an up armored vehicle is heavier and slower. there is a balance that is needed, say to chase down insurgents in a light pick up truck.
7) the event was spun as a "gripe session" which it was not. watch the entire session online.
8) media journalists creating stories on "rumors" and then having the main stream media spin it as a "gripe session" is reprehensible and unethical.
9) if there is no problem with the posed question, why did the journalist's own paper publically apologize for it?

---

[/B]

All of the above are VERY weak rationalizations that wouldn't be necessary for anyone if this administration hadn't been so half-assed and bloodthirsty. Bottom line: people are getting killed and maimed when they don't need to be. A lot easier to justify the lack of equipment when you're safe at home or in D.C.

Quote:

---

there are more points.

yes, we need to get them more equipment. yes, there are plenty of reports of lack of body armor and other things. we need to get this stuff to them asap.

---

The above is absolutely true, and is the only really important thing to note.

Quote:

---

but this whole thing got spun way over the top by big media into something that it's not.

---

No, this whole thing hasn't gotten far too little attention over the past two years, because the media is so completely under the thumb of the White House (no surprise given who owns big media).

Quote:

---

again, read the links. don't be afraid of information....

:fm:

---

Very ironic, as it is this sort of information that Rumsfeld and his supporters are afraid of having exposed. And there's a lot more that hasn't received attention. Republicans by definition are afraid of too much information (people who are well informed are usually known as Democrats).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

Republicans by definition are afraid of too much information (people who are well informed are usually known as Democrats).

---

I'm not sure thats entirely a true statement :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

(people who are well informed are usually known as Democrats).

---

You should make this your signature to remind everyone why they can't take you too seriously.

so you two repubs above me don't think this administration is more secretive and less forthcoming than previous republican administrations?

you don't belive they manage the information in the media with more discretion than past administrations?

Setting the record for fewest press conferences ever proves your point, B. Refusing to allow anyone to face unscripted questions does as well. These guys are scared shitless of the truth.
Look what happens when something tough actually does sneak through...

well, i believe they are less forthcoming than any previous administration, as thats what the facts seem to show. and i have my own opinions as to why they might handle infomation in the fashion that they do.

but the question was asked in an atttempt for brett and laser to think criticaly about this administration. i'm kind of just wondering if that is possible (although i know laser to be capable of rational political conversation and has conceeded points to others not of the same view many times. Brett, however, has a much harder time with this it seems)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ripzalot

you guys are running on only bits and pieces of the full story. read the links. here are some points that will come to light...

1) humvees are basically jeeps. they are not meant to be taking hits from heavy artillery.
2) all humvees in iraq meet the required level 3 specs or better. the issue is that these vehicles are now being used in situations not originally intended.
3) the question that was posed makes it sound like they are deficient and not up to spec. they are all up to spec.
4) even fully up armored to the level 1 specs, the extra armor will not protect it from an RPG, 20kg roadside bomb, or 100mm+ shell.
5) up armoring military vehicles is common practice, even when already considered fully armored. soldiers will always do this regardless.
6) up armoring is not always better. an up armored vehicle is heavier and slower. there is a balance that is needed, say to chase down insurgents in a light pick up truck.
7) the event was spun as a "gripe session" which it was not. watch the entire session online.
8) media journalists creating stories on "rumors" and then having the main stream media spin it as a "gripe session" is reprehensible and unethical.
9) if there is no problem with the posed question, why did the journalist's own paper publically apologize for it?

there are more points.

yes, we need to get them more equipment. yes, there are plenty of reports of lack of body armor and other things. we need to get this stuff to them asap. but this whole thing got spun way over the top by big media into something that it's not.

again, read the links. don't be afraid of information....

:fm:

---

Nice rationalizations, using information gleaned from a blogger who thinks rumsfeld handled the question "perfectly." :rolleyes: If one soldiers dies because of lack of armor (and in the end, you admit that there are reports of this and that "we need to get this stuff to them asap") that is one soldier too many. I don't get it--you admit there is a problem, but then explain it away by saying the info was spun or overblown. Again, try explaining to a dead or maimed soldier's family whose loved one may, just may, have been helped by armor that is actually there, not getting there "asap." I doubt that family would say these concerns are overblown or care about the media's spin. But please, keep rationalizing, you are quite good at it.



Also, the The Chattanooga Times Free Press's editor DID NOT apologize for the question! He only said that the reporter should have indicated his involvement in his newpaper article. This does not make the subsequent new reports about the question or rumsfeld's bumbling, arrogant, disrespectful response to it "overblown."

From the NYT article:

Mr. Griscom, the publisher, said it was legitimate for Mr. Pitts to discuss questions with the soldiers because reporters were not allowed to ask questions at the meeting.

"I know this is what the soldiers are talking about," Mr. Griscom said yesterday. "People forget that even if Lee talked to this soldier, the soldier made the decision to ask the question."

He said his newspaper had received many e-mail messages from soldiers and their families in response to its articles on the lack of vehicle armor. He added, however, that Mr. Pitts's article should have noted his involvement.

"It was supposed to be in our story, how the question got asked, but it was not," Mr. Griscom said.

Robert Steele, the Nelson Poynter scholar for journalism values at the Poynter Institute, said Mr. Pitts's action was not unethical or deceptive. "It appropriately held the secretary of defense accountable on a significant issue," he said yesterday. "It was not an irrelevant question, and it was asked meaningfully and respectfully."

He said the applause by the soldiers after the question was asked implied that many soldiers present "shared a concern about this issue."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basom

well, i believe they are less forthcoming than any previous administration, as thats what the facts seem to show. and i have my own opinions as to why they might handle infomation in the fashion that they do.

but the question was asked in an atttempt for brett and laser to think criticaly about this administration. i'm kind of just wondering if that is possible (although i know laser to be capable of rational political conversation and has conceeded points to others not of the same view many times. Brett, however, has a much harder time with this it seems)

---

I could really give a shit about the insightful questions hacks like Helen Thomas, Mike Allen, Dana Millbank and other humps from whatever shit hole press room has an axe to grind with the administration. read these reporters bylines. They do more editorializing than their Op-Ed pages.

I do however give a shit about a SecDef standing infront of the troops and answering questions from them. regardless of the question, Rumsfeld answered. he did not take a pass. was each and every answer what the troops wanted to hear, I think not. however, it was not a grilling that the WaPo deemed important to keep on it's web page for two days, prominently displayed. look at the transcript, hardly a grilling.

How many of you that work for a company even a tenth the size of the army have had a chance to ask a direct question of your CEO?

Oh and Freshies, if what Rove supposedly orchestrated in South Carolina four and a half years ago was so bad. Why has the straight talk express, been water boy for the past four years? toeing the party line? not mr. honesty and integrity John McCain. no way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

Oh and Freshies, if what Rove supposedly orchestrated in South Carolina four and a half years ago was so bad. Why has the straight talk express, been water boy for the past four years? toeing the party line? not mr. honesty and integrity John McCain. no way.

---

Simple, because he is going to run in 2008 and he needs the republicans to back him in order for him to get the nomination. My guess is that you will fully support him if he gets the nomination.

I will admit I lost a lot of respect for McCain the way he kissed Bush's ass on the campaign trail. I think he compromised his belief's for future gain, which is all too common in politics.

What Bush and Rove did to McCain was that bad. To have a prepared speaker call McCain a liar and claim he is not an american at a political rally is truely disgusting. Then listening to Bush claim he didn't know what the speaker was going to say as a defense is possibly worse or at least sad. I don't believe for a second his political team including Bush didn't know what the speaker was going to say. On some off chance Bush really didn't know he should have at least rebutted him right there rather than shaking his hand afterward and thank him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grange

Simple, because he is going to run in 2008 and he needs the republicans to back him in order for him to get the nomination. My guess is that you will fully support him if he gets the nomination.

I will admit I lost a lot of respect for McCain the way he kissed Bush's ass on the campaign trail. I think he compromised his belief's for future gain, which is all too common in politics.

What Bush and Rove did to McCain was that bad. To have a prepared speaker call McCain a liar and claim he is not an american at a political rally is truely disgusting. Then listening to Bush claim he didn't know what the speaker was going to say as a defense is possibly worse or at least sad. I don't believe for a second his political team including Bush didn't know what the speaker was going to say. On some off chance Bush really didn't know he should have at least rebutted him right there rather than shaking his hand afterward and thank him.

---

I don't dislike McCain. He can just be so ridiculously self-righteous sometimes. He has been to war. He should know how imperfect it is. in fact the inferior planes he was flying three years into Vietnam, would lend to the fact that he is personally aware of how imperfect war is. our tanks in WWII were a far cry from the German Panzer's and Tigers. Soldiers bitched as loudly as they could. But as the war wore on, Patton didn't seem to have much trouble with them. That I think is where Rumsfeld was coming from regardin the "You go to war with the army you have" comment.

We'll see where McCain ends up. There is a reason Henry Kissinger has called Rumsfeld the most ruthless man he has ever met.

I doubt McCain will run in four years. hopefully Condi is in the mix in some form or another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

Soldiers bitched as loudly as they could. But as the war wore on, Patton didn't seem to have much trouble with them. That I think is where Rumsfeld was coming from regardin the "You go to war with the army you have" comment.

---

But what he fails to comprehend, or comprehends but is avoiding, is that the "army they have," with regard to current documented lack of armor, is the army rummy gave them. The arrogant ass chides the troops for his lack of forsight and preparation from when the war began (with families buying body armor for their soldiers) until today with the current lack of factory up-armored vehicles, which are the best. This was an optional war that should have been fought on our timetable, when we were ready and prepared. And obviously we weren't. Our troops are paying for it and our leaders try to deflect blame by saying "this is what happens in war."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

hopefully Condi is in the mix in some form or another.

---

unreal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basom

but the question was asked in an atttempt for brett and laser to think criticaly about this administration. Brett, however, has a much harder time with this it seems)

---

Why wrestle with a pig? I'd only end up getting muddy.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com.../lpo041214.gif

This is smacking of Vietnam a bit too much.
- Daily body count on evening news by(substitute Rather for Cronkite)
- Random hit-and-run attacks by(substitute insurgents for VietCong)
- Failure to pacify and control(substitute Sunni Triangle for Iron Triangle)
-Failure to win hearts and minds of (substitute Iraqis for Vietnamese peasants)
-Propping up of US-coached puppet leader(substitute Allawi for Thieu)
-Steady increase of US troop levels by(substitute Rumsfeld for McNamara)

Midnight Oil has a song called "Short Memory" ..(which we have if we forgot the lessons of Vietnam) :frown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveTV

This is smacking of Vietnam a bit too much.
- Daily body count on evening news by(substitute Rather for Cronkite)
- Random hit-and-run attacks by(substitute insurgents for VietCong)
- Failure to pacify and control(substitute Sunni Triangle for Iron Triangle)
-Failure to win hearts and minds of (substitute Iraqis for Vietnamese peasants)
-Propping up of US-coached puppet leader(substitute Allawi for Thieu)
-Steady increase of US troop levels by(substitute Rumsfeld for McNamara)

Midnight Oil has a song called "Short Memory" ..(which we have if we forgot the lessons of Vietnam) :frown:

---

But Democracy is On the MArch!

be intereseting to see what the US does wen Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim - the head of Iraq's largest Shiite party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution or the like gets elected.

do we declare a Mulligan or let Iraq go down the road to Iran dominated theocracy?

how does that help middle east stability?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grange

Simple, because he is going to run in 2008 and he needs the republicans to back him in order for him to get the nomination. My guess is that you will fully support him if he gets the nomination.

I will admit I lost a lot of respect for McCain the way he kissed Bush's ass on the campaign trail. I think he compromised his belief's for future gain, which is all too common in politics.

What Bush and Rove did to McCain was that bad. To have a prepared speaker call McCain a liar and claim he is not an american at a political rally is truely disgusting. Then listening to Bush claim he didn't know what the speaker was going to say as a defense is possibly worse or at least sad. I don't believe for a second his political team including Bush didn't know what the speaker was going to say. On some off chance Bush really didn't know he should have at least rebutted him right there rather than shaking his hand afterward and thank him.

---

Grange, thanks for responding for me , but you basically said what I was going to point out: he is going to run in 2008. You KNOW Rove and Bush, in order to keep him from joining Kerry as VP in the campaign (which he seriously considered), to appease him for the mudslinging they did against him in 99/2000, and to get him to stump for Shrub (whom you know he thinks is a fackin idiot chicken hawk draft dodger near-do-well prick whos way in over his head) promised to back him fully in 2008...

He sold out, but even so, I do have a lot of respect for the guy...(wow, hard admitting that, being a raving bay area liberal and all)

The US army is up against a bunch of rag heads on camelback and all the American soldiers can do is bitch about how much kevlar they don't have. What a pack of pussies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freshies

Grange, thanks for responding for me , but you basically said what I was going to point out: he is going to run in 2008. You KNOW Rove and Bush, in order to keep him from joining Kerry as VP in the campaign (which he seriously considered), to appease him for the mudslinging they did against him in 99/2000, and to get him to stump for Shrub (whom you know he thinks is a fackin idiot chicken hawk draft dodger near-do-well prick whos way in over his head) promised to back him fully in 2008...

He sold out, but even so, I do have a lot of respect for the guy...(wow, hard admitting that, being a raving bay area liberal and all)

---

I don't think that is much of a secret anymore. In fact I heard on Fox News a few weeks ago that one rumor that is going around is Cheney will leave office in a couple of years and McCain will take his place. That way the Republicans can have an incumbent run for office. Plus they could say McCain has more executive experience.

I do like how the guy speaks his mind at times, but have a hard time getting over the fact he bent over and took it purely for his own political gain. I also haven't heard much about his votes regarding the environment. I know from reading about his votes on the overtime rules for example he isn't an great advocate for the middle class.