RUMSFELD SET UP; REPORTER PLANTED QUESTIONS WITH SOLIDER

[Terri]

RUMSFELD SET UP; REPORTER PLANTED QUESTIONS WITH SOLIDER

Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter
via Drudge

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!

From: EDWARD LEE PITTS, Chattanooga Times Free Press military reporter
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.

More (http://www.drudgereport.com /flashcp.htm)

[myownthinker]

It's too bad if this is true as the questions were legit. Superiors need to be questioned and reminded these are real humans they are sending into combat. If they are not being supplied enough the top brass should have to answer the call.

[azwhitewolf]

Again, after years of downsizing and delpeting the military, it's all of a sudden Bush's fault that we can't snap our fingers and make armor-plated humvees and thousands of kevlar jackets on demand.

[Terri]

I'd like to know if the shortages are real in these units or if they were cooked up by the reporter too.

Does anyone think it's ok for reporters to engineer the news in this way? Should they be allowed to remain embedded if they do this?

[grnmeadow]

Quote[/b] ]I'd like to know if the shortages are real in these units or if they were cooked up by the reporter too.


I think, in some places, this is true. *Maybe not all of the units are getting what they need, but it does take time to outfit them all.



(from Terri) *(couldn't get the quotes to work)
Does anyone think it's ok for reporters to engineer the news in this way? *Should they be allowed to remain embedded if they do this?



No, I don't thing they should. *We have already had too much bad press from these guys. *If they want to make an issue of something, they need to go to the top brass there, not making an issue here in the USA first. *I think some of these reporters just want to make a name for themselves. *

Just my thoughts.

Sandra in WIS

[efildrah]

MOT - I don't know how much time you spent in the military or in combat, but the supervisors of all ranks are at all times painfully aware of the men and women they send into combat. No commander at any level would knowingly send their troops into combat with anything less than the best that is available, unfortunately, as azwhitewolf notes, our military is trying to recoop from eight years of rape by hillbillary clinton, while at the same time fight a war on a world wide front.

http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/usflag22.gif

[righton]

http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif
I'm sure there are units in the ME that are lacking in some/all the protection they require. Is it every unit? No, don't believe so, but then I'm not there.
The manipulation of the press is getting bolder and bolder - their tactics are verging on the extreme. Anything to get a byline or headline.
This "gottcha'" form of journalism is becoming more and more prevalent - and therefore, thank God for the 'net and forums such as this - separating the wheat from the shaft (or should I say sh*t).
With revalitions such as this, why on earth would the MSM think intelligent Americans would take anything they report seriously? The trouble is the reporter will be canonized and his deception will be forgotten - all that will remain in the MSM reporting is the comments of the unsuspecting(?) soldier.
What a shame the media has sunk so low! Or should I say has been sinking so low for such a long time?

L & L

[Pamela Bridgeman]

The base on which I was stationed from 1984-188, Rhein Main AB was car bombed and my then 8 year old son had to have armed guards on his school months for months. It was a harrowing experience and the threat to our lives and those of our friends was real. In fact a friend of mine was stuck in the rubble for almost 24 hours. But as frightening as that was, it was not as frustrating as the reports my mom was getting from the alphabet networks back home. She phoned to plead with me to send my son back to the states and when I insisted that I would be able to keep him safe, she responded, "That's not what the reporters are saying." Since then, I have scorned the reporting done my non-military journalists or, perhaps it is more accurate to say, I detest the reporting done by journalist hostile to the military and in other ways unAmerican.

I said all of that to say, not only no, but (expletive deleted - and I'm a minister) no!!!! No, civilian journalist should not be embedded with our troops.

[Anduril]

http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sflag171.gif

Civilian media has no place being embedded with combat units.

The military has their own journalists and photographers that do the job competently and without an outside agenda.

We don't need America-hating liberal scribes turning facts into left-wing propaganda that is *demoralizing our fine young people in uniform.

best to all, *

[MudPuppy]

Quote[/b] ]Does anyone think it's ok for reporters to engineer the news in this way? *Should they be allowed to remain embedded if they do this?
I don't believe providing coaching or suggestions for questions constitute "engineering" a news story.

Apparently the solder wanted to ask the Secretary those kinds of questions, so it's not like the issue is fabricated by the reporter. I think this happens quite a bit in the "news" business. Who said everything from the press side of things should be spontaneous or ad lib? I think if the truth should be told, quite a bit of the news in the political context these days is stage managed. The only issue is whose doing the managing.

Am I missing something here? It doesn't seem to me to be a big deal if the issue is legit, that is, there's a genuine problem in the GI's minds with equipment they have.

[Pamela Bridgeman]

I agree that those with the authority and ability to do something about problems should be held accountable, including confronted with legitimate questions. I don't agree that civilian journalist should be allowed to frame the issues with agendas that do more to hinder than to help.

[papajaxxx]

This story is way "overplayed" and does not deserve the attention it is getting.

"Yours is not to reason why, yours is but to do or die!"

Soldiers must trust their leaders in all respects, otherwise it would be every man for himself.

If you really think about it, it was a pretty stupid question to be asking Donald Rumsfield. .

[MudPuppy]

Quote[/b] (papajaxxx Dec. 09 @ 2004 -- 2:25 pm )]If you really think about it, it was a pretty stupid question to be asking Donald Rumsfield. .
I agree papajaxxx… Rummy definitely stepped in it. But looking at it from the GI's point of view it hard not to admire the stratagem if there's really an equipment problem that needed attention.

The issue is now in play at the highest level of the government. It will surely get attention now that it wouldn't have gotten otherwise… Even a three star general doesn't have that much stroke.

[grnmeadow]

Since everyone clapped after the soldier asked the question, it seems to me that it was something on everyone's mind. *Since Rumsfeld was there to answer questions, he pretty much asked for it.

On the other hand, he sometimes needs tape on his mouth because he sticks his foot in it and is too cocky for his own good. *He has a BIG job and I think he is doing well, but he could answer questions a little more diplomatically. *

Sandra in WIS http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag4.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag4.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag4.gif

[Terri]

I don't think Rummy minded answering the question and I think his answer was the correct answer.

The Bush administration did not build this army. It was built, or more accurately unbuilt, by the Clinton administration. Rummy went to war with the army Clinton left him and he is rebuilding it to fit the kind of conflict we have now.

As far as the Humvees go, that's what Congress granted the army the authority to buy. I think if we looked back we might find that the generals asked for other things in the 90s that weren't granted them by Congress. Humvees were never intended as armored vehicles. They are personnel carriers. They are failing at unprecedented rates because they were never intended to carry the weight of armor.

Once it was decided (some time after the war began) that the Humvees had to be armored, it was necessary to decide how to do it, to get the Humvee manufacturer ready to do it, and to ship the armor to the field for the vehicles already there.

It isn't as simple as some think to just pick up the phone and order armored vehicles.

On the other hand, I realize that this is a valid concern for these soldiers. I don't think they should be criticized for asking about it.

And I have nothing but comtempt for the media pimp who engineered the situation.

[lpara]

Quote[/b] ] Civilian media has no place being embedded with combat units.

I TOTALLY AGREE!

The gall of the liberals to play this up when they are the ones who voted for the person who voted against every military upgrade in weaponry, machinery, etc. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/madgo.gif Good thing he didn't win.

[MudPuppy]

Quote[/b] ]Civilian media has no place being embedded with combat units.
The idea of a bunch of anti-American communists or otherwise useful idiots filling the ranks of our media isn't exactly a comforting thought to me. These are for the most part people who would sell us all to the devil for a byline and 15 minutes of fame.

The idea of such persons being embedded with our armed forces where they can do us great harm is even less comforting. I don't like the idea any more than the rest of you, but it IS a fact of life in a free Republic.

I like political wonk Dick Morris' take on public relations and dealing with the media…

Morris said what we have is this ravenous beast which is called a twenty-four hour news cycle. Now this beast MUST be fed. So the object of this insatiable appetite has basically two choices; 1. Let it roam free at will where it will attack you unexpectedly, and you may not be able to survive the attack, or 2. Cage it and feed it to protect yourself from being mauled by it.

With the Pentagon's embedding policy, there comes the ability to exercise some degree of control over this beast. The media isn't going to go away under our system of government, so completely removing them is simply not an option and unrealistic. As it is, the potential damage they can do is somewhat limited by the rules of engagement which can be imposed by the Pentagon, and perhaps even determining to some degree exactly which reporters and organizations are given access to the news which is being made on the battlefield.

In my view, embedding is the better option between the two available choices. Not having any media on the battlefield with our troops isn't a choice which is available. I mean they are free to roam about if they're adventuresome, shooting them is not good PR, and may even be illegal. Removing them and replacing them with government personnel will only have the effect of trading problems. Would such "news" have any creditability or be considered anything more than the state's propaganda? I don't think so. As it is we have a creditability gap.

After witnessing the level of deception and fraud being perpetrated by the minions of the liberal media I don't want them to be left alone in a vacuum. I think then we’d just giving them license to start lying and wholly making stuff up with their unrelenting conspiracy tales. They've already demonstrated that they are not above doing this.

A broken clock will be right twice a day. Sometimes even idiots can be made useful to America, rather than to our enemies.

Quote[/b] ]As far as the Humvees go, that's what Congress granted the army the authority to buy. I think if we looked back we might find that the generals asked for other things in the 90s that weren't granted them by Congress. *Humvees were never intended as armored vehicles.
Congresses miserly dealings with funding the military, even in times of war, have always been a problem since the founding of the Republic. George Washington had to beg for funds and provisions at Valley Forge, so I suppose it always will be a problem of sorts. The way the Beltway works is the only wheel that gets any oil is the one that squeaks loudest and often.

Moreover, after the incident with the unit from the 343rd Maintenance Company refusing orders, I'm still somewhat alarmed and suspect there maybe something more sinister at work. I sure hope the powers that be are working on it.

Quote[/b] ]The gall of the liberals to play this up when they are the ones who voted for the person who voted against every military upgrade in weaponry, machinery, etc. * Good thing he didn't win.
The liberals have plenty of Chutzpa. In fact, it's about the only thing they seem to have these days.

[Danny]

Quote[/b] ]Since everyone clapped after the soldier asked the question, it seems to me that it was something on everyone's mind. Since Rumsfeld was there to answer questions, he pretty much asked for it.
He may have been there to answer questions, but he wasn't asked anything he wasn't capable of answering to the best of his ability. He doesn't have the TOTAL power of authorizing everything our troop's ask for and/or need. As pointed out by someone else, these humvee's aren't built to carry the weight capacity of armored protection. They need to redesign new vehicles altogether that's built for the purpose. It won't be over-night though. As Rummy pointed out, they have to work with what they've got.

Speaking of applauding (or clapping http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ) the media seems to conveniently edit the standing ovation Rummy receives from the Soldier's once he's given his answer! Soooooo, apparently, that doesn't give the media's version of the story much credibility as the "Media of great concern for our Troops" when all is said and done now does it? Why not point that out? Well, we know why..

... because they really don't care, but they'll milk it as long as they can as expected. Katy Curic and all the other hell-dweller's will interview the reporter a few times and we'll probably never hear from him again.

[ludwigsnike]

While I agree that it was legitimate for a soldier to ask the question, I also believe the business was concocted as a gotcha moment directed at Sec. Rumsfeld and calculated to inflame yet another media cycle.

Equipment for the troops is an issue that has concerned all of us for some time. Nobody disregards their need for protection as they get the job done--least of all Rumsfeld. But this is by no means a new issue; nor has the fact that the Department of Defense is having to overcome years of reduction, underfunding and inertia in ensuring that the production of equipment and materiel is smooth and up-to-date.

But--Danny D's comment was the first I learned that Rumsfeld had a standing O after his comments. This was edited out of every report I heard yesterday. Also, media comments revolved around the old saws of lack of preparedness, lack of plan and lack of exit strategy, etc, etc, the same old liberal carping. An agenda is manifestly at work here, and I am not altogether convinced that the welfare of our troops is at the real heart of it. I think the handwringing out there is really prompted because Rumsfeld is back for Anno Bush V-VIII, and there is a liberal contingent out there that is furious about it and wants a fresh start on the attacks on the Secretary of Defense, under the cheap guise of using a legitimate issue and manipulating soldiers who have an actual stake in the matter.

If the armed forces are going to use media embeds, let them use their own professionals. If any other media want a place on the lines, the forces should put them through a vetting course with the right of rejection, if it is indeed better to have them there than not to have them.

[Terri]

Some interesting information about equipment and other things in this article.

Quote[/b] ]Rumsfeld Grilling Revives War Plan Questions (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141094,00.htm l)

AP
Fox News

WASHINGTON — Critics of the war in Iraq seized on charges that U.S. troops there don't have enough armored vehicles as another example of poor planning by the Pentagon.

President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld tried Thursday to tamp down the firestorm, which was ignited a day earlier when an Iraq-bound soldier publicly complained to Rumsfeld that the Army wasn't properly armoring vehicles for the campaign.

[Bigdog]

Quote[/b] ]Does anyone think it's ok for reporters to engineer the news in this way? Should they be allowed to remain embedded if they do this?

No and No!!

There will always be shortages of something somewhere, and there will always be complainers. There will also be people asking serious and necessary questions, but we don't need setups for soundbites!!

[Bigdog]

You are probably right, Mudpuppy. The "freelancers" who try to wander around on their own tend to write unrealistic crap and then cause further problems by getting themselves killed.
With "embeds", there is some degree of control, as well as exposure to reality. Guess there wasn't enough "control" in this case.

Quote[/b] ]The liberals have plenty of Chutzpa. In fact, it's about the only thing they seem to have these days.

And that statement may qualify as the profundity of the day!

[myownthinker]

I think it's bad that the reporter was involved in this but it is good to put the top brass in front of the troops and let them speak their minds. Put THEM in the fry pan now and then and make them answer the tough questions. It's good for the troops to be able to question their commanders.

[myownthinker]

This story is way "overplayed" and does not deserve the attention it is getting.

"Yours is not to reason why, yours is but to do or die!"

Soldiers must trust their leaders in all respects, otherwise it would be every man for himself.

If you really think about it, it was a pretty stupid question to be asking Donald Rumsfield. .



On the contrary - a very good question to ask. If everything is not being done that can be done to protect the troops then the troops should call them on it and DEMAND it. A thinking man's army is an effective one. It's just too bad a reporter had to be involved. That should not have happened.

[ord03]

No unit ever has everything they want. American troops have always used scrounging and trading to improve living conditions or to maintain equipment. When I was in the Army overseas, there was a Property Disposal Office, where any unit could obtain parts and pieces of wrecked equipment they could use. Transportation units used old APC bodies and welded boxes to make 'hard trucks', carrying all sorts of weapons, to use as convoy guards, for example.
You never had 'everything' you could possibly want, or need, but, if you had a good scrounger in the outfit, you could get or make it.
American troops have always been inventive and will try to fabricate what they don't have. There is nothing unusual in that and it has been going on since Valley Forge, IMHO.

[RightWinger]

I said it before and I say it again:

GET THE BLOODY LIBERAL EMBEDDED JACKALS OUT OF IRAQ.

They do nothing but demoralize our troops.

This is WAR which was FORCED UPON US by TERRORIST ANIMALS. And as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said, you go to war with what you've got, not with what you want. Casting him in an unfavorable light to both troops and the rest of the country does nothing but erode the trust in our leaders.

Such conduct is nothing short of criminal in wartime. This war is no different from World War II and should be treated in the same respect from the information stanpoint, if you know what I mean. This "War at 11" approach needs to STOP. I don't care about a few liberals whining about their 1st Amendment rights - I learned to tune the whining out.

[myownthinker]

I dont think he was cast in an unfavorable light - the questions were not the least disrespectful. They were good questions. The day and age of having to scrounge should be over with - otherwise we havent made any strides. With all the money allocated for this effort there should not be one soldier lacking what he/she needs. We have been fighting for quite awhile now and why these problems are still there needs to be questioned and combed over with a fine tooth comb. If you are going to send the troops to war then you need to answer their questions. I think Rummy did fine with his answer as he answered truthfully as he could - and I dont blame him for the lack of needed supplies - as you said Clinton didnt help things - but if you are going to hold the post of high brass then you should be questioned and your actions should be scrutinized. The soldier had a legitimate point - Rumsfeld answered the best he could. I think it was good for our war effort. Maybe now these guys will get what they need.

[Charie]

Quote[/b] ]He said soldiers scrounging for extra armor are not unique to this war. He recently saw a magazine article about units in Vietnam scavenging steel for their vehicles

And I remember my uncle saying they scrounged for a lot of things during WWII.

Just think about the logistics of ferrying 150,000 fighting soldiers to the Middle East, clothing, feeding and supplying them with ammunition and protection plus transportation. You just don't order this stuff from FedEx and expect it to get there over night. That is just silly.

Our soldiers have always had "Yankee ingenuity" and for that we're blessed. Otherwise, if their gun was wrecked instead of scrounging up another one they'd stand there like morons and wait for the new gun to come up from the rear. War isn't like a game of horseshoes, where you know all the rules ahead of time and this war has less rules than usual. You do what you have to.

Do people actually think the president, and SoD would be holding back equipment from our troops? That's daft!

Note that it's all Democrats jumping on the bandwagon with the help of their news media friends.

I read the second article and it's actually a pretty well reported news article. I didn't detect any bias. I'm sure I don't know what made him put these soldiers up to the idea of questioning Rumsfeld, although I really see nothing wrong with the questions seeing as how the Secretary asked for them.

[papajaxxx]

MOT said:
Quote[/b] ]If everything is not being done that can be done to protect the troops then the troops should call them on it and DEMAND it.

Your opinion is based on an assumption, and not necessarily a true one.

It is not a front-line soldier's duty to question his superiors on this complex of an issue. There is no way that he has enough information available to him to make a valid conclusion.

Much as you have.

[righton]

http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Read something interesting - seems as if Wilson (or the reporter) has ever been in Iraq.

Don't deny the lack of armour, but ---?

L & L

[MudPuppy]

Quote[/b] (Charie Dec. 10 @ 2004 -- 7:15 pm)]Do people actually think the president, and SoD would be holding back equipment from our troops?
Unfortunately, yes there are.

Quote[/b] (Charie Dec. 10 @ 2004 -- 7:15 pm)]Note that it's all Democrats jumping on the bandwagon with the help of their news media friends.
That's what opposition parties do; oppose.

At least now they're taking a position that implicitly says "get the troops the equipment needed to FIGHT the war", not surrender, or appeasement… I consider it progress for the DemoRATs.

Moreover, I believe the criticism of the Administration for miscalculation in the war plan is a fair one. *Additionally, I don't believe the Administration has yet adjusted for what needs to be done in Iraq.

The mujahedeen will continue to pour into Iraq from all over Islam in general and Arab nations in particular. From Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Morocco, Algeria, Pakistan, and Indonesia. Any mujahedeen who have the means to get there will come to the Jihad. Our war plan even now doesn't seem to anticipate this. Hence they were caught flat footed by the strength of the "insurgency". Iraqi elections won’t change a thing in this regard. A democratic government will only exist in Iraq by armed force. The mujahedeen will never quit or accept such an affront to Islam.

Ah yes, but Islam is such a peaceful religion, and this war has nothing to do with religion. Right?

[Revalamb]

Quote[/b] ]Moreover, I believe the criticism of the Administration for miscalculation in the war plan is a fair one. Additionally, I don't believe the Administration has yet adjusted for what needs to be done in Iraq.
Sounds like Kerry to me, sorry if that offends you but, You can critisize the administration all you want. We did not miscalculate the war. The plan was good, even in it's modified state. What was miscalculated was the length of the war. We were better and faster than we thought. Due to our swiftness, many mistakes were made in the field. Many of the Iraqis did welcome us. Problem came when the Iraqi deserters and released prisoners infiltrated us and hit us from within and without.
Mistake was not slowing our advance and making sure that the prisoners were not released so that they could attack us again.
This was directed from the field by field commanders, not the Administration. The Saudis and Turks injured our plans by not allowing us to move our troops through their countries, thus not allowing a full choke hold on the Northern and Eastern parts of the country. Once the mistakes were noticed they were quietly corrected. When there is a mistake the media is all over it. When the problem is corrected they get quiet.

As for Humvees, they were not designed to be armoured, they were replacements for the Jeep.
http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/twocents.gif
Quote[/b] ]The mujahedeen will continue to pour into Iraq from all over Islam in general and Arab nations in particular. From Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Morocco, Algeria, Pakistan, and Indonesia. Any mujahedeen who have the means to get there will come to the Jihad. Our war plan even now doesn't seem to anticipate this.

I would rather have all the Muhajedeene in Iraq rather than here in the US. I don't think anyone but the military Mucks really know what we have anticipated. We'll know when something happens. It's about time our Military kept its secrets.

[Terri]

It's only in this time of ultra-criticism by the left and also by some of the right that anyone would expect a war to be conducted with absolute clairvoyance.

Quote[/b] ]Ah yes, but Islam is such a peaceful religion, and this war has nothing to do with religion. Right?
The topic of this thread, armored vehicles and a reporter's planted question, has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Right!

Quote[/b] ]As for Humvees, they were not designed to be armoured, they were replacements for the Jeep.
Revalamb, this can't be said often enough and still people do not get it.

Rumsfeld did not mind being asked a difficult question and he answered it honestly. Sometimes the truth isn't the answer we want to hear.

[MudPuppy]

Quote[/b] ]As for Humvees, they were not designed to be armoured, they were replacements for the Jeep.
A lot has been said about the lack of armored Humvees. What about the Stryker ACV (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/stryker/)? It's more of a fighting vehicle. Why are they missing from action?

Quote[/b] (Terri Dec. 11 @ 2004 -- 6:16 am)]It's only in this time of ultra-criticism by the left and also by some of the right that anyone would expect a war to be conducted with absolute clairvoyance.
ALL wars are a series of miscalculations and blunders.

The best made plans go wrong. There is a military adage that no battle plan will survive contact with the enemy. Yet only a fool goes to war without a plan.

War is an art, not a science. It is the art of calculated risk. He, who makes the least mistakes, while taking the highest risk for the greatest reward, is the one who will win in the end. So one must exploit and enemy’s strength, and be overpowering in weakness.

One must make adjustments along the way because you can't depend on the enemy continuing to do stuff to get himself killed. It's like a game of chess. You win on offense. If you're on the defensive, you've become predictable, then you've lost.

I'd like to see the adjustment to expedite the destruction of the mujahedeen, by fighting the war to annihilate them, not negotiate a victory. Victory won't come through negotiation or changing the form of governments.

Clairvoyance is not required, only a proper assessment and identification of the enemy is demanded.

Quote[/b] (Revalamb Dec. 11 @ 2004 -- 2:34 am)]We did not miscalculate the war. *The plan was good, even in it's modified state.
I'm not taking issue with the strategic objective of the war, just some of the tactical plan. The war in Iraq was and is the right thing to do.

This is going to be a long bloody fight to the death all the way. Rather than trying to pressure the surrounding nations to stop the flow, we ought to be trying to expedite it in order to destroy the mujahedeen wholesale. We should be viewing Iraq as the kill zone in the war on terrorism because that's what it's going to be for some time. *

Quote[/b] (Revalamb Dec. 11 @ 2004 -- 2:34 am)]We were better and faster than we thought. *Due to our swiftness, many mistakes were made in the field. *Many of the Iraqis did welcome us. *Problem came when the Iraqi deserters and released prisoners infiltrated us and hit us from within and without.
I acknowledge the damage done to our war plan by the Turks and Saudis. We really needed that northern front from the 4th Infantry Division.

Yet we didn't have the destruction of certain Iraqi forces as part of the tactical war plan. Namely, the annihilation of the Tewekalna Division of the Special Republican Forces, *the Adnan Motorized Infantry Division, the Medina al Munawara Division of the Republican Guard and the al-Tikriti tribe and allied clans. Instead, we cut surrender deals with them. To us it was a surrender. For them it was a cease fire until they're strong enough to attack. It's that religion thing everybody keeps denying.

Yeah, we did it fast, but now we're paying for not doing it right.

In my view, US policy makers are thinking about this war all wrong. They're thinking in strategic terms of seizing power, thus "regime change". I believe we need to think of this war in tactical terms of KILLING PEOPLE; removing Homo sapiens from the face of the earth. The quick and decisive battle to remove the odious regime left far too many of it's supporters alive. Then there is the continuing influx of third party nationals coming into Iraq to fight us which seems to have caught us by surprise.

We fought this in a manner to take down Saddam as quickly as possible. Once Baghdad fell, the Iraqi Army melted away, but they were still full of fight. We bypassed way too many forces in the rush to Baghdad. In other words our war plan should have included the liquidation of certain Iraqi forces in their entirety. All the trouble in the so-called Sunni triangle is the manifestation of not destroying the al-Tikriti and members of various sub-clans of Saddam's tribe, the al-Bu Nasir.

So, how many opportunities should we give the terrorist to kill us? If we give them two, they'll take two, if three, then they'll attempt three. Not wanting to be crass about it, but we're going to have to be much more efficient that this if we're going to win this war. *The enemy will overwhelm us by their shear numbers if we're not.

With their birth rates, males reaching military age are already exceeding our rate of destroying them. I've done some stats on this trend and we can't sustain the casualties we're taking against the numbers opposing us from the universe defined as "radical Islam" which is between 130-225 million persons. I happen to believe it's much larger than this, but for the sake of illustration I use these consensus estimates (10-15% of 1.3-1.5 billion). Their birth rates are, on average, at least 2½ times those of every Western Industrialized nation. Western Europe is virtually static, with birth rates nearly equaling death rates. In other words, they are reproducing more radicals than we're presently killing, assuming this is the radical Islamic universe.

We're not helping our cause any by releasing POW's who simply return to the battlefield a little wiser. This is not that kind of a war.

Quote[/b] (Revalamb Dec. 11 @ 2004 -- 2:34 am)]I don't think anyone but the military Mucks really know what we have anticipated. *We'll know when something happens. *It's about time our Military kept its secrets.
I reject your premise.

The initial war plan called for a troop draw down by mid August 2003 (?). This is not indicative of planning for a sustained guerrilla war. Although some of the planned draw down was to be related to US troops being replaced by NATO forces which never materialized, the overall war plan called for a reduction in total troop strength from invasion levels.

Although I'm aware there is a covert aspect to the war on terrorism, this is all a matter of public record. If you don't know these things, you haven't been reading. Moreover, the President has admitted as much; that the plans have been changed. Rummy has said on record that he's suprised by the strength and persistence of the insurgency. I'm not.

Quote[/b] (Revalamb Dec. 11 @ 2004 -- 2:34 am)]I would rather have all the Muhajedeene in Iraq rather than here in the US.
Agreed…

But since mujahedeen are coming to Iraq why don't we kill 'em while they're there? In fact, why don't we help them get there to Iraq so we can do it more efficiently? They going to come anyway, so why let them trickle in on their terms?

We’re not going to get it done at this rate. They can wear us down by nickel & diming us for years.

It’s the right war, at the right time, in the right place, but done the wrong way… John Kerry I ain’t.

[buffpilot80]

The wrong way huh? Killing over 4,000 terrorists in the last month is pretty good startegy to me. Waiting for the terrorists to congregate in one area becuase we have made it a safe area for them in the past seems like perfect deception to me. As for the Stryker vehicle, the GAO says they are not worth the money we paid for them and they are rolling death traps.

Of course, if you ask the soldier in the filed you get a totally different answer. And event the Stryker vehicles are getting better armor to repel IED fragments. Problem is there are only so many Stryker vehicles because Congress listened to the GAO and didn't buy more. I don' tknow who is in charge of the General Accounting Office, but they constantly tell a different story from military reality. In the first Gulf War they said the A-10 and the B-52 were useless. It is they who are clueless.

[MudPuppy]

Quote[/b] ]As for the Stryker vehicle, the GAO says they are not worth the money we paid for them and they are rolling death traps.

The GAO said the same thing about the Bradley. Is there another opinion out there?

Have any been deployed to Iraq at all? What do the soldiers say about them?

Quote[/b] ]The wrong way huh? *Killing over 4,000 terrorists in the last month is pretty good startegy to me.
Well, at that rate we will have killed all the estimated mujahedeen which currently exist in 4,688 years… Wonderful.

[Revalamb]

Quote[/b] ]It’s the right war, at the right time, in the right place, but done the wrong way… John Kerry I ain’t.
Done the wrong way in your estimation!
I agree there are many things we could have done differently, there are many things we could have done, period.
There are many things we should not have done.
We have the greatest position in Football and in the History of war.
We have the position of Monday morning quarterback. We see with real clarity what is shown to us by the press. Of course we don't see what is happenning close down on the field.
Are we there making the ill concieved decisions that we see and the press says happen? Do we see the correct actions taken and not reported.
I have faith in the soldier on the field to make the correct decisions, no matter what others feel the correct decision should have been. It is not my life on the line at this time. So I have the luxury of saying, well they should have done this and they should have done that
You can psyco-analyze the war, second guess the plans and decisions, deride the way we drove forward or stalled. Think we can see the next move and then complain when they move differently. Presume to know the enemy because of what we read or what we heard.
Yes we are the armchair and Monday morning quartebacks. Problem is, we have no idea what is really happenning.
So arguing this thread is useless. So have fun. I'm outa here.
May God Bless

[Terri]

Sorry, MudPuppy. You haven't convinced me of anything. I'd rather have Rumsfeld in charge of this war than any hypercritical armchair general.

[Terri]

Quote[/b] ]Hillbilly armor and adaptability (http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article _id=4088)

Jack Kemp
The American Thinker

Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter Edward Lee Pitts has criticized the military for not having full armor for all vehicles in Iraq and has admitted he convinced the soldier at Secretary Rumsfeld's press conference to ask his question for him on the subject. This has caused a feeding frenzy among the press who hate this war, and who are now trying to make the standard for going to war that every single vehicle in the Motor Pool must be refitted before it gets shipped out. The press writes as if troops can only be sent overseas in a textbook deployment. Like me, you may have trouble remembering that when Clinton sent the troops to Mogadishu without any armor at all, the press jumped on him for doing so. But I am certain that they must have, since they are so even-handed in their treatment of serious issues.

[lpara]

Quote[/b] ]I'd rather have Rumsfeld in charge of this war than any hypercritical armchair general.

Amen to that! I'm so tired of hearing the nay saying from people who ARE NOT THERE. I despise the know-it-all type generals who SAY they could do it better.

[MudPuppy]

Quote[/b] (Revalamb Dec. 11 @ 2004 -- 2:38 pm)]We have the greatest position in Football and in the History of war.
We have the position of Monday morning quarterback. *We see with real clarity what is shown to us by the press. *Of course we don't see what is happenning close down on the field.
This isn’t Monday morning quarterbacking. It’s game day. This is real time, what we're not doing right now, today December 12, 2004. What we won't be doing tomorrow December 13, 2004, so it not simply a matter of water under the bridge.

I believe there are things we’re not doing now that we must start doing that is if we expect to win this war. You do the math; the demographics simply aren’t in our favor. There’s one thing about mathematics, 1+1 will never ever be 3. The current tactics won’t tip the balance in our favor. We’re simply going to have to wage this war much more effectively than we are at present. By effective I mean the relative body count MUST rise exponentially for the mujahedeen.

Why aren't we actively engaging in operations to bring the mujahedeen into the kill zone since we know they’re coming anyway? It's getting out in front of this insurgency and putting the enemy on the defensive by actively transporting him to the point of his destruction. Making it happen, rather than waiting for them to come into Iraq on their own where we'll have dig them our from behind enemy non-combatants. We not only can do better, we must if we’re going to win.

I'll concede that if we were doing this it probably shouldn't be in the public domain. I’ll even concede that if this is our strategy it’s possible I wouldn’t know it. But I think I would be able to detect or infer such a strategy by other events on the ground which I don't "see" happening. I have friends in 4th Infantry at Fort Hood Texas. I have family in the Air Force and Navy. I live down the street from the National Guard Armory. I pick up a lot of scuttle butt just by the activity going on there.

Quote[/b] (Revalamb Dec. 11 @ 2004 -- 2:38 pm)]Done the wrong way in your estimation!
Yep.

The right way in yours, no?

Quote[/b] (Revalamb Dec. 11 @ 2004 -- 2:38 pm)] We see with real clarity what is shown to us by the press. *Of course we don't see what is happenning close down on the field.
Are we there making the ill concieved decisions that we see and the press says happen? *Do we see the correct actions taken and not reported.
There IS a real insurgency in progress, today. The Administration can and does rebut the press when it disputes press accounts. None of these facts are in dispute. Some are from the Administration itself, so there is no denial of these events on the ground to my knowledge.

Moreover, my opinions are not based solely on press accounts. I have very little, if any, confidence in the media. But I have relied on what I believe to be reliable sources for information about what's going on in Iraq.

Quote[/b] (Terri Dec. 11 @ 2004 -- 4:25 pm)]You haven't convinced me of anything. I'd rather have Rumsfeld in charge of this war than any hypercritical armchair general.
He's definitely in charge. So it's rather a moot point.

Pity, his leadership will make us, or break us. He's certainly got a blind spot and is missing exploiting an opportunity the enemy has handed us in my view… Maybe he's listening?

[Terri]

Quote[/b] ]I’ll even concede that if this is our strategy it’s possible I wouldn’t know it.
Oh, surely not! http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tqrolleyes.gif

[MudPuppy]

Like I said, you do the math, 1+1 is not 3, as things are it doesn't compute. It’s what I do for a living, balance ledgers. It doesn’t matter whether its dollars, widgets or dead bodies, it still works the same way. These accounts don’t balance.

So argue with the arithmetic… I'm sure I can't possibly be better at arithmetic than your esteemed highnesses?

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, It's not that I don't like learning, it's the lesson I resent.

I suspect some sacred cows of this Administration will be slaughtered before this is all over.

[Revalamb]

Quote[/b] ]Like I said, you do the math, 1+1 is not 3, as things are it doesn't compute. It’s what I do for a living, balance ledgers. It doesn’t matter whether its dollars, widgets or dead bodies, it still works the same way. These accounts don’t balance.
The Math may be right, but your information is incorrect. *If your information is incorrect then the math will not compute.

Quote[/b] ]This isn’t Monday morning quarterbacking. It’s game day. This is real time, what we're not doing right now, today December 12, 2004. What we won't be doing tomorrow December 13, 2004, so it not simply a matter of water under the bridge.
The Game is always the day before (since we are not there) All we here is the final score and that is usually tainted by incorrect information. *What is happenning there now will be in the score tommorrow. *but the complete game will not be shown til History is written, and then we'll get the winners side. *Right now the story is being written by the media. *It's the Media that says some of this comes from the Administration, but I have yet to hear the Administration admit this to be the case.
Quote[/b] ]I'll concede that if we were doing this it probably shouldn't be in the public domain. I’ll even concede that if this is our strategy it’s possible I wouldn’t know it. You not only would not know it but you would be getting processed information.
Quote[/b] ]Pity, his leadership will make us, or break us. He's certainly got a blind spot and is missing exploiting an opportunity the enemy has handed us in my view… Maybe he's listening?
I don't believe your view matters, or mine to the Administration. *They have the Job of Quarteback. *We are but fans watching the tube. *We get selected shots. *They will take the hits. *I'll trust their calls and movements. I would not even fathom to referee on this field.
Quote[/b] ]I have friends in 4th Infantry at Fort Hood Texas. I have family in the Air Force and Navy. I live down the street from the National Guard Armory. I pick up a lot of scuttle butt just by the activity going on there.

I have relatives in Fallujah and Mosul. *I have freinds at Bliss and Benning, I have a son at fort Meyer and another aboard a Submarine only God and the Navy know where.
So we know that we all know someone somewhere. *The Ground Pounder only knows where he is at and what he needs to do. He may not agree with the politics, but, from my experience the Man/woman in the field really knows nothing of the Politics. *The Sailor knows what he is doing in his given place in time, yet cannot say for sure what their position is in the grand scheme of things. And shame on you listening to scuttle-butt. *The worst form of information next to the news media. *And I thought you did the Math.
May God Bless

[MudPuppy]

Quote[/b] (Revalamb Dec. 11 @ 2004 -- 7:57 pm)]The Math may be right, but your information is incorrect. *If your information is incorrect then the math will not compute.
So which numbers are incorrect?

The fact remains, we're facing a prolific adversary which is already estimated to number nearly half our entire population in the best case, more than three quarters in the worst case. Nobody's spin doctor is going to change this fact, if the population estimates are to be believed. Neither will our present tactics, as we simply won't be able to sustain the ratio of casualties we're taking, or the expenditures we're making to generate such level of casualties, even assuming that at some point in the future we institute a draft.

If I extrapolate the number of casualties inflicted by US forces, inception to date to be two, three or even four times those floated in public records it will yet remain so insignificant as to be statistically meaningless. The rate of destruction visited upon the mujahedeen MUST increase exponentially, by orders of ten; to change the unfavorable demographic and numerical advantage they have over us. We simply have neither the blood nor the treasure to sustain the conflict at this present rate. We have to effect a change in the balance of this equation to mitigate their numerical advantage if we are to win this war.

Keep in mind Iraq is but a battlefield, not the war. This present trend is highly unfavorable and unsustainable for us. The one and only thing that changes this equation are these numbers.

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." --Will Rogers

[Revalamb]

Quote[/b] ]If I extrapolate the number of casualties inflicted by US forces, inception to date to be two, three or even four times those floated in public records it will yet remain so insignificant as to be statistically meaningless. The rate of destruction visited upon the mujahedeen MUST increase exponentially, by orders of ten;
You are attempting to tell us that you have to defeat every muslim in the world to win the war on terror. You are talking of defeating 1/2 the whole world.
You are crazy and totally incorrect. There are only a small percentage of (in relation to Muslims in the world) Muslim extremists and the recruitment is no where as near in numbers as you estimate.
You are operating on assumed information not on actual knowledge. You are still operating on scuttle butt. You cannot come to truth with assumtion, premise and opinion, no matter what numbers you use. The information is flawed so the math is useless.
Besides this thread is not on this subject.

[Revalamb]

Muddpuppy: After going back over your mathematical information as you purport it to be, then the only thing to do is to identify the countries with high populations of Muslims, Nuke them to level the playing field (includes; France, Norway, Sweden, China, Indonesia, Philipines, Kazekstan' Ubekistan, Pakistan, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qtar, and about 42 other Muslim infected countries.). Otherwise we can't win. That's the Math you want us to believe. My opinion is that you are either sick or just trying to push buttons. Either way, your information is still flawed.
Good Day Sir

[MudPuppy]

Quote[/b] ( Revalamb Dec. 13 @ 2004 -- 1:11 am)]You are attempting to tell us that you have to defeat every muslim in the world to win the war on terror. *You are talking of defeating 1/2 the whole world.
You are crazy and totally incorrect. *There are only a small percentage of (in relation to Muslims in the world) Muslim extremists and the recruitment is no where as near in numbers as you estimate.

These are based consensus estimates of "radical Islam" as I noted in my previous post: 10-15% of 1.3-1.5 billion.

Rosie Scenario ain't my lover… I'd like to think it will not be necessary to destroy all 130-225 million of the mujahedeen, however, I think it unwise to plan like our fight or base our tactics on such optimistic assumptions of what portion of Islam this war will ultimately require us to destroy. Moreover, we already have an inkling of what to expect with the continuing influx of them into Iraq from all over Islam.

No, I'm not crazy, nor am I sick. In fact, I think even the consensus estimates are far too low, but I used them for the sake of illustration here. I believe the situation is even more unfavorable than these numbers indicate. Not only are we *reproducing at a far lower rate than Muslims, the average age of Americans is rising. In other words, not only are we not keeping pace with population growth, we’re also growing relatively older too.

Quote[/b] ( Revalamb Dec. 13 @ 2004 -- 1:11 am)]You are operating on assumed information not on actual knowledge.
It’s Standard Operating Procedure to perform any trend analysis. It doesn't need to be that exacting to establish and identify the trends. Only a reasonably accurate "guestimate" is necessary. The relative ratios and numerical relationships are more important than the absolute values. The numbers would have to be very inaccurate to distort the trends. You will note that the differential of the base population estimates for all Islam is statistically very high at +15.4% *(200 million) between the high (1.5 billion) and low (1.3 billion).
I've used varied sources for this base. Personally, I've never taken a census of any country. I think one of the reasons for the great disparity between the population estimate is that many of these governments are relatively poor and don't take a regular census because they are cost prohibitive, so there's quite a lot of guess work even here. A country like Indonesia consists of tens of thousands of islands so they do a lot of estimating. It may have been more than ten years since they actually did a head count. Some of the sources used the last official census. Others tried to adjust for growth since the last census. I’m not positive this is the source of the differential, but I suspect it is.

My sources for these are published reports from the Arab League, the UN, the CIA, various news services, and encylopedic references. Have you got better numbers? Let's have them.

Quote[/b] ( Revalamb Dec. 13 @ 2004 -- 1:22 am)]Nuke them to level the playing field (includes; France, Norway, Sweden, China, Indonesia, Philipines, Kazekstan' Ubekistan, Pakistan, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qtar, and about 42 other Muslim infected countries.). *Otherwise we can't win. *
Well, that's one suggestion.

Right now the “playing field” is in Afghanistan and Iraq. My suggestion was based on keeping it a conventional war by a more aggressive baiting in the host countries to draw them into Iraq, the battlefield of choice, on our terms. I don’t think nuking Western Europe is in the offing or necessary at this juncture. However, Iran may not be out of the question.

But of this I'm certain: the rate of destruction visited upon the mujahedeen MUST increase exponentially. How it is done is a tactical matter, but it needs to be done if we’re going to win.

Someone in another thread on this same topic awhile back said the mujahedeen "needed to be reduced to a manageable level". I wonder, in an age of thermonuclear weapons, what exactly constitutes "a manageable level" of suicidal mass murderers.

[pRIMrose]

Hi Ord03 ~ http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wavey.gif ~ welcome to http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/gopusa.gif http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

There's an old saying ~ not sure who said it, maybe Patton! Sounds like something he'd say anyway.

"Either lead, follow or get the hell out of the way."

From what I've seen so far, embeds are totally superfluous. In fact, they are making it harder for our guys to make "split second" decisions.

There is a chain of command and daily briefings. Reporters should only be privy to report the things that the Generals or their designates disseminate. To use the war and the lives of our fighting men as partisan tools is disgusting.

War is hell and it's far more expeditious and pragmatic to possibly ask forgiveness than to ask permission. We're there to win. We know what happens when you fight a politcal war. We've been there, done that. Sadly!

Where are all the reports on the evening news showing the things I get daily in emails ~ of our guys and all the good things that have come about in Iraq?

[Revalamb]

Quote[/b] ]These are based consensus estimates of "radical Islam" as I noted in my previous post: 10-15% of 1.3-1.5 billion.

According to the Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey, a cult dats center and two other data centers on the Mujahedeen Cult, Also from internet CIA reports, and US Armed Forces records. Your numbers are totally wack. The Mujahedeen is not in all muslim countries. It consistes of approximately 1.1% of the total Shia Muslim sect or possibly as high as 1.3 Million with active violent participants at less than 3% of the 1.3M or around 39000. They are recruiting, but only at about 5% of the muslims they claim. Of these many are used as fodder, true the fodder or human bombers kill people but when you figure the rate of enemy deaths since the Iraq war ended and insurgency began, we are leveling the playing field.

Of course the Mujahedeen is not the only radical cult out there. But, many of these cults have been decimated even though still dangerous.

Quote[/b] ]My suggestion was based on keeping it a conventional war by a more aggressive baiting in the host countries to draw them into Iraq, the battlefield of choice, on our terms. Look at the Iraq war today. Where are we fighting the Mujahedeen? Where are we still eliminating Al Quaeda? Whahabi and Rajki extremists are coming in from Saudi Arabia and Iran. I mentioned this a while back, we are doing exactly that. We are pulling them into Iraq from all over the world.

I'd love to continue, but I have family business (and a vacation) in Florida till December 24. So have a Merry Christmas Season.

[MudPuppy]

Quote[/b] (pRIMrose Dec. 13 @ 2004 -- 3:43 am)]From what I've seen so far, embeds are totally superfluous. *In fact, they are making it harder for our guys to make "split second" decisions. *

There is a chain of command and daily briefings. *Reporters should only be privy to report the things that the Generals or their designates disseminate. *To use the war and the lives of our fighting men as partisan tools is disgusting.
Back to Dick Morris' analogy of the media beast… This beast is a carnivore. If you want it eating out of your hand, you must feed it red meat. It won't eat straw.

So how does the Pentagon impose more control on them without driving them out on their own, or worse, creating a conspiracy mill where it's nearly impossible to put one of these nefarious tales to rest once started?

[MudPuppy]

Quote[/b] ( Revalamb Dec. 13 @ 2004 -- 4:07 am)]According to the Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey, a cult dats center and two other data centers on the Mujahedeen Cult, Also from internet CIA reports, and US Armed Forces records. Your numbers are totally wack.
I think not. I don't know who Rick A. Ross is, but the numbers you've quoted don't appear to be based WORLDWIDE data to me.

You make mention only of the Shia sect. The Sunni constitute about 85% of Islam. Moreover al-Qaeda alone is estimated by the CIA to have over 50-60,000 members the last I heard. I have information that two Egyptian groups, The Society Of Muslims (Jama'at Al-Muslimin), and Society Of Struggle (Jama`At Al-Jihad) are far larger than the 39,000 number you’ve cited.

I believe yours is the data which is incorrect and unreasonable on its face for comparative purposes. It’s probably not based on global data concerning radical Islam which goes by a myriad of names and umbrella groups.

I stand by my numbers.

[pRIMrose]

Quote[/b] ]So how does the Pentagon impose more control on them without driving them out on their own, or worse, creating a conspiracy mill where it's nearly impossible to put one of these nefarious tales to rest once started?

You make a good point MP. Sadly, it is the troops who will suffer. At one time "war correspondents" were pretty much respected and welcome. That was before the "PC" bunch changed the rules and expect us to win a war by playing "nicey nice." I've never heard of anyone winning an antiseptic war. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes2.gif

[DAB]

Editor & Publisher:

Quote[/b] ]Soldier Says He Asked Rumsfeld Armor Question Without Aid of Embed

By E&P Staff

Published: December 19, 2004 9:55 PM ET

NEW YORK In his first public account of last week’s controversy, Spc. Thomas Wilson says that he came up with the now famous armor question for Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld on his own, without the help of oft-criticized reporter Edward Lee Pitts. And he adds, "If this is my 15 minutes of fame, I hope it saves a life."

The account appears in next week’s edition of Time magazine.

Wilson, who serves with Tennessee’s 278th Regiment in the National Guard, tells Time that he befriended Pitts, an embed for the Chattanooga Times Free Press, at California's Fort Irwin, where his unit trained. Later, in Kuwait, after Pitts learned that only soldiers could ask questions at the upcoming town hall meeting with Rumsfeld in Kuwait, he urged Wilson to come up with some "intelligent questions."

After his convoy arrived at Camp Arijan in Kuwait, Wilson found hundreds of fully armored vehicles promised to another unit months down the road. Wilson says he asked if the 278th could use them in the meantime, and was told no. That inspired his question about the shortage of armor, which he showed to Pitts.

The reporter, far from being the protagonist, suggested that he find “a less brash way of asking the question," but Wilson “told him no, that I wanted to make my point very clear."


http://www.editorandpublish er.com/eandp....0739870 (http://www.editorandpublish er.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp? vnu_content_id=10007 39870)

[Froufrou]

DAB - Hi, nice post and very interesting! It would put a very different light on the comments that have gone before, although it's hard to tell what REALLY happened, isn't it? http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Bigdog]

Quote[/b] ]AB - Hi, nice post and very interesting! It would put a very different light on the comments that have gone before, although it's hard to tell what REALLY happened, isn't it?

Actualy, it is not hard at all. If you follow the story, instead of just focus on the original incident, you find that over 90% of that units vehicles were already armored and the rest were in process, and were finished the next day!
The soldiar surely should have known this and the reporter surely [I]could[I] have. Looks more and more like the reporter was deliberately stirring something up and found someone willing to play the game with him in order to get 15 minutes of fame.

[ronnie]

DONALD RUMSFELD IS THE DEFENSE SECRETARY OF STATE WE NEED.WE DON'T NEED A PRO-TERRORIST RED DEFENSE SECRETARY OF STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif

[Froufrou]

Bigdog - I read

Quote[/b] ]After his convoy arrived at Camp Arijan in Kuwait, Wilson found hundreds of fully armored vehicles promised to another unit months down the road. Wilson says he asked if the 278th could use them in the meantime, and was told no. That inspired his question about the shortage of armor, which he showed to Pitts.


Where did you read they were ready the next day? Why would a soldier 'give up his career' for a question like this?