[RowansDad]

Guess this photo op didn't go as smoothly as Rummy would have liked:

"Army Spc. Thomas Wilson, for example, of the 278th Regimental Combat Team that is comprised mainly of citizen soldiers of the Tennessee Army National Guard, asked Rumsfeld in a question-and-answer session why vehicle armor is still in short supply, nearly two years after the start of the war that ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense.

"Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

"We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north," Wilson said after asking again.

"Rumsfeld replied that troops should make the best of the conditions they face and said the Army was pushing manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly possible."

More here:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...feld&printer=1

 

[Marg of Arabia]

RD, I was in the middle of posting this but I checked first. You beat me again!

This is the most astounding statement:

Quote:

"You go to war with the Army you have,"

: WTF does that mean?

 

[chicagomom]

Well, actually you go to war with the Army (and TPFDL) that RUMSFELD HIMSELF gave us. The one he cut horribly because he thought he knew better than the generals. The blood is on HIS hands.

And now it's been two years and we *still* don't have the supplies - after spending just obscene amounts of money. And losing billions in 'accounting' snafus.

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up."

Oh well, thanks Rummy. That makes it all ok.

 

[RowansDad]

Imagine for a moment Bill Clinton (or Al Gore) as a war-time CiC and he blathered on and on how his administration was doing "whatever it takes" to make sure the military has everything it needs, and when some of those troops getting ready to ship off dared to ask a Secretary of Defense why their equipment was lacking, said SoD "you fight with the Army you have"?

Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Freepers et al. would be calling for someone's head and droning on and on about how weak Democrats are on defense.

 

[RowansDad]

It is worth remembering that the proper equipment complaint is not new
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...011204,00.html
http://www.wkbn.com/Global/story.asp?S=1593802
http://www.boston.com/news/world/art..._armor?mode=PF
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4758004/

And this issue is still an ongoing issue, as recently as at least October there were still complaints:
GIs Lack Armor, Radios
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...le652491.shtml

The administration and its Pentagon paper shufflers have had almost two years to address this issue and all this twerp can answer is "You go to war with the Army you have"?

 

[Anguschick1]

"You go to war with the Army you have" Well ok, Rummy. But we're no longer going to war, we're at war.

I wonder what will happen to Spc. Thomas Wilson. Will he be reprimanded, court-marshalled or just disappear?

 

[IslandMamma]

Oh, BLESS Spc. Thomas Wilson. THAT took some serious moxie, folks. May others be emboldened to speak up, too. I really do think we're going to start seeing more and more of this from those on the front lines. Perhaps then people will start to hear!

 

[SummerLover]

Wow! I just heard a recording of this on the radio. Listening to the swell of cheers and applause was great. Amazing courage that man has! And as Ed Schultz said, this question didn't come from the NY Times this time.

 

[journeymom]

I heard Rumy saying that this morning and I about choked. That's just pathetic. We're supposed to have the best damn army in the world. We've got one of the strongest economies in the world. What an embarrassment.

There is absolutely NO excuse for not supplying our guys and gals with just about whatever they need. I don't think it's too much to expect that we provide armor and ballistic glass for their vehicles when needed. I mean, our parents and grandparents went without basics (rubber tires, metal for new cars, silk, copper, shoes, leather, meat, sugar, butter and other foods) back in WWII so we could provide for our soldiers. I would happily go without many things in support of our troops; I mean, for pity's sake how many of us really need NEW cars?? But intellectually I KNOW it is completely unnecessary. We can dip into our economy very deeply before the average American would feel a pinch.

(NOT TO MENTION that our young people wouldn't even be over in Iraq if it wasn't for our obscene, repulsive, piggish, lazy dependence on automobiles and petroleum products. But that's a given.

: )

I hate this war! I hate what it has done to the US! I hate that I feel so helpless!

 

[RowansDad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IslandMamma Oh, BLESS Spc. Thomas Wilson. THAT took some serious moxie, folks.

Looks like it is no surprise to his partner:

"Regina Wilson wasn't entirely surprised to see her husband, a guardsman bound for Iraq, on television Wednesday challenging Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with a tough question.

"He is always like that," she said. "I don't think he understands the concept of biting one's tongue. It wouldn't matter if it was Bush himself standing there. He would have dissed him the same."

More here:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...tion-headlines

 

[EFmom]

What in the world was Rummy thinking, taking an actual question from a real soldier, instead of having a photo op with carefully orchestrated admirers? I can't actually remember anybody in this administration doing that in 4 years. I'm sure it won't happen again.

 

[RowansDad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EFmom I'm sure it won't happen again.

Why not? Really, what does he care? He has shown a disastrous lack of judgment in the conduct of Iraqi operations, including setting the tone for the Abu Ghraib prison et al. scandals. And Dubya asked him to stay on the team!

And lookee here:

Pentagon acknowledges shortage of armored Humvees

"A shortage of "up-armored" Humvees in Iraq, highlighted Wednesday by a soldier's pointed question to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is a consequence of insurgent tactics the military didn't anticipate, the Pentagon's chief spokesman said.

"The Army ramped up production of such Humvees from 15 to 450 a month last year after insurgents started using "improvised explosive devices" - homemade bombs - against U.S. and allied troops, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita noted."

From here:
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld...printstory.jsp

Anyone else sick of this "didn't anticipate the insurgency" bullshit excuse we hear time and time again from the suits in the Pentagon?

I mean what exactly DID they plan on:

"In March 2003, days before the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, U.S. war planners and intelligence officials met at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to review the Bush administration's plans to oust Saddam Hussein and implant democracy in Iraq.

"Near the end of his presentation, an Army lieutenant colonel showed a slide describing the Pentagon's plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war. He was uncomfortable with his material -- and for good reason.

"The slide said: "To Be Provided."

"A review of the Bush administration's Iraq policy and decisions has found that the administration invaded Iraq without a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country. The administration also failed to provide about 100,000 additional U.S. troops that American military commanders originally wanted to help restore order and reconstruct a country shattered by war, a brutal dictatorship and economic sanctions."

From here:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9927782.htm
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9928087.htm
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9930260.htm.

 

[RowansDad]

Jesus, the more I think about this, the madder and madder I get:

Prewar intelligence predicted Iraqi insurgency

"An examination of prewar intelligence on the possibility of postwar violence and of the administration's response shows:

"• Military and civilian intelligence agencies repeatedly warned prior to the invasion that Iraqi insurgent forces were preparing to fight and that their ranks would grow as other Iraqis came to resent the U.S. occupation and organize guerrilla attacks.

"• The war plan put together by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Army Gen. Tommy Franks discounted these warnings. Rumsfeld and Franks anticipated surrender by Iraqi ground forces and a warm welcome from civilians.

"• The insurgency began not after the end of major combat in May 2003 but at the beginning of the war, yet Pentagon officials were slow to identify the enemy and to grasp how serious a threat the guerrilla attacks posed.

From here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ce-intel_x.htm

And check out the following:

"Initial Iraqi gratitude for the destruction of the Saddam dictatorship is likely under most circumstances, but many Iraqis will nevertheless assume that the U.S. intervened for its own purposes and not primarily to help them. U.S. forces therefore need to complete occupation tasks as quickly as possible and must also help improve the daily life of ordinary Iraqis before popular goodwill dissipates. Even the most benevolent occupation will confront increasing Arab nationalist and religious concerns as time passes. The possibility of terrorism being directed against occupation forces probably will increase over time, and even a small number of terrorists can be expected to create serious problems for an occupation force. A popular uprising against U.S. troops is much less likely than a terrorist campaign, but is still possible if the occupation is poorly managed."

That's from a pre-war assessment of post-invasion reconstruction efforts that was published by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College, published in January 2003 and is available here (in pdf):
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pdffiles/PUB183.pdf

F*ck Rummy and to hell with the toadys who've got us in this mess.

 

[Victorian]

didn't plan for the insurgents? did they not notice the war with Russia?

 

[RowansDad]

Ms. Dowd nails it:

"These young men and women went to Iraq believing the pap they were told: they'd have a brief battle, chocolate, flowers, gratitude. Instead, they were thrust into a prolonged and savage insurgent war without the troop levels or armor they needed because the Pentagon's neocons had made plans based on their spin - that turning Iraq into a democracy would be a cakewalk. And because Rummy wanted to make his mark by experimenting with a lean, slimmed-down force. And because Rummy kept nattering on about a few "dead-enders," never acknowledging the true force, or true nationalist fervor, of the opposition.

"The dreams of Rummy and the neocons were bound to collide. But it's immoral to trap our troops in a guerrilla war without essential, lifesaving support and matériel just so a bunch of officials who have never been in a war can test their theories.

"How did this dangerous chucklehead keep his job? He must have argued that because of the president's re-election campaign, the military was constrained from doing what it is trained to do, to flatten Falluja and other insurgent strongholds. He must have told W. he deserved a chance to try again after the election.

"He had a willing audience. W. likes officials who feed him swaggering fictions instead of uncomfortable facts."

More here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/09/op...rint&position=

 

[ma2maya]

"You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want."

Umm, you pompous little s**t-head, did we have to go to war at the moment or at all. Was there some huge time constraint that made it imperative that we send people in underprepared for the long-term consequences of the invasion? Was Saddam hiding a huge nuclear warhead in his pants that only Rumsfeild and Georgy boy knew about?

I have had to stop listening to NPR and news radio in the car because my daughter should not have to here me cuss so much and be so angry!

What a prick

:

 

[RowansDad]

Hah....
http://www.denverpost.com/cda/articl...585190,00.html

 

[littleaugustbaby]

I had Fox News on this morning because I wanted to see how they'd spin this. In the entire time I had it on, they mentioned this story once, but they had the story of the nightclub shooting on about 5 or 6 different times.

Linda Vester did a segment on the story, and one of her guests alleged that the entire thing was staged so that the soldier could have his 15 minutes of fame...and one of the guests in the audience pointed out that they've upped the production of armored Humvees, "so what's the problem?". Um, the problem, you colossal jackass, is that our troops should never have been sent into battle without proper armor in the first place.

I really have to stop watching this crap.

 

[RowansDad]

Damn good letter to Rummy from Congressman Strickland from Ohio:
http://www.house.gov/strickland/

 

[UC MOM]

"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!"

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcp.htm

Jenny