Soldier Confronts Rummy

A 26 yrOld,spc,Nat'l Guard soldier, ask Sec of Def. Rumsfeld an
excellent Q?, in Kewait. ''Why don't we, the soldiers, have enough
Armor on our fighting vehicles?'' (not a Quote)
The secretary was speaking before about 2300 troops, who are about to go
into Iraq. (Not home)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rumsfeld answered, ''We go to war with the army we got at the
time''&.later said,
''all the armor in the world, would not necessarily, protect a Tank,
from a bomb''
(A Pitiful comment & answer)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
First, I wanna say, we did not have to GO, when Bush wanted to,
consequently, we could have been more prepared, then, invade Iraq.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~But that's not the real reason, that our
troops don't have sufficient ''what ever they need''. The real reason
is, They Thought after we got to Baghdad, it would just about, be Over.
They though that the Iraqi would be so grateful, that there wouldnt be
much post fighting. They (Bush) thought, it would be a 30 day war,
Saddom would be caught early on, or killed by the gratefull Iraqi, and
then, maybe another 30 days, with our help, the Iraqi would have
themselves a democratic governmet. THEN, about another 30/60 days, our
boys and girsl could come home.

<>haveAgoodDay-Bjay<>

 

Ok Charles, you've used the word "asshat" like 4 times the last couple of
weeks.
Might I propose a moratorium? Move on to another word, please.

 

Rumsfeld was right on his answer, just didn't follow through properly. With
his off the cuff smart ass answer he again showed the arogance of the
administration rather than geniune concern for those in the field.
A real answer that shows both concern and understanding (something I believe
he lacks) would have stated
"The vehicles are now supplied with the regulated armour. To upgrade the
armour and add more weight on some of these vehicles would make them less
useful or useless to use in the region. All the armor in the world, would
not necessarily, protect a Tank,
from a bomb''

Like I said anyone who was really concerned for the troops would have
thought about his answer before answering. Instead he just shows he the boss
and **** off.

 

Nothing about the answer that Rumsfeld gave was anything more than a display
of his dancing ability.. Any more than his arrogant responses about the
reasons our men and women are in that goddamed place fighting a war.. The
sleazy bastard hasn't gotten anything right since he's been Secretary of
Defense..

The troops that use those vehicles have been modifying them for months..
There is no such thing as a bomb proof or bullet proof vehicle.. There is
such a thing as applying protective barriers that might help the occupants
survive when they are blown up..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

The following below comes from the Swift Vets and POWS for Truth website.

Quote:
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.

The author's tongue-in-cheek comment made me think.
Where was the press blaming Clinton for Mogadishu tragedy??
I didn't know the details until I read the book, Blackhawk Down.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4088

Hillbilly Armor and Adaptability
December 10th, 2004

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.

This is exactly what's wrong with armchair generals and particularly
citified ones. Journalists now want us to believe that soldiers using their
mechanical skills in upgrading vehicles is a scandal and not ingenuity, a
virtue. The press thinks that a platoon ordering a Humvee is just like an
editor buying a Lexus in Chicago or Atlanta. If it doesn't have all the
features you requested, either the shop won't ship it to you or you can send
it back. After all, the editor wouldn't take an acetylene torch and create a
sunroof on a car he bought, were it missing this feature he had requested.
Why should soldiers in the field have to adapt to changing conditions?
Doesn't the Army know about The Lemon Law? Couldn't they call the Dept. of
Consumer Affairs?

Perhaps the soldiers should have complained to John Kerry, the
standard-bearer of the opposition party, but he and ten other Democrats
voted against supplying additional body armor in the $87 Billion Iraq War
supplemental funding bill. I haven't seen a word about that in the press
articles today. I have seen an article saying that John Kerry is going to
Iraq, apparently to complain about the lack of body armor that he also
complained about during the debates - the same body armor he voted against
funding. He was against body armor funding before he was for it.

In World War II, the Navy retrofitted some regular ships and made them small
aircraft carriers. They were second rate, but they fought in the Battle of
Leyte Gulf. Also, the Civil Air Patrol, flying along our coast looking for
German U-Boats, actually had pilots who home-made bomb racks at the bottom
of their plane. One was reported to have sunk a U-Boat. Many pilots risked
their lives by returning with a bomb still in place, a potentially fatal
risk in a hard belly landing.

I am not old enough to have read the newspapers in those days, but my
history books in public high school did not criticize Franklin Delano
Roosevelt for the shortage of bombers to patrol the US coasts and the risks
Civil Air Patrol pilots took. Gee, I wonder the history teachers of the
United Federation of Teachers never criticized Roosevelt for this
"unnecessary risk."

I'm not saying that we should accept the readiness standards of 1942 today.
But we would be better served by the press accepting reality. Probably, a
better job could, and now will be done in expediting the flow of safer
vehicles to our forces in Iraq (and elsewhere), thanks to the question asked
of the SecDef in Kuwait. The press should report on correctible shortcomings
in our war effort, but it doesn't do the country any good for them to spin
their articles as if they were writing for the Chicken Little Sky Is Falling
Tribune.

Things get confused in both the rapid deployment for war, as well as the fog
of battle. The press thinks they are doing us a service with their attitude
in these articles - they are not. And their agenda is very transparent. When
military papers use the term "Hillbilly Armor," they do so with humor and
respect for soldiers' adaptability. When some editor, sitting at a plush
desk Stateside uses the term to describe a quick fix in the field, it is
perceived as a smug "Gotcha" - because often that is what they is meant to
be.

(Jack Kemp is not the politician of the same name).

Jack Kemp

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~last paragraph~~~~~~
<>Things get confused in both the rapid deployment for war, as well as
the fog of battle. The press thinks they are doing us a service with
their attitude in these articles - they are not. And their agenda is
very transparent. When military papers use the term "Hillbilly Armor,"
they do so with humor and respect for soldiers' adaptability. When some
editor, sitting at a plush desk Stateside uses the term to describe a
quick fix in the field, it is perceived as a smug "Gotcha" - because
often that is what they is meant to be.
(Jack Kemp is not the politician of the same name).
Jack Kemp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jack, I have to say, your report was interesting and informative. I
learned things that I didnt know. I like the part about the military
Media using the term,
‘‘Hillbilly Armor’’. Most of the report was about the media's
slant on the Iraqi Invasion. Jack, probably a lot of this is true, but,
buddy, we'are stuck with the modern Media. Your piece was from some
Media journalist, somewhere, writing down, or using his keyboard, and
describing his opinion of what's going on about this Iraqi war. You,
like any of us, read that journalist's thoughts and opinions, and decide
if we believe all ot it, or a part of it, and go from there. That goes
with watching one's favorite TV News Outlet, and there are about 6
popular news org.s, airiing their opinions daily.

<>Happy Holidays<>Bjay,.