Soldiers on the offensive...towards Rumsfeld

[UndefinedBoy]

IRAQ IN TRANSITION
Faceoff on Iraq
GIs confront Rumsfeld over lack of armor

U.S. defense chief taken aback by pointed questions

By Eric Schmitt, New York Times News Service. Tribune news services contributed to this report
Published December 9, 2004

CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld came here Wednesday to lead a morale-lifting town hall discussion with Iraq-bound troops. Instead, he found himself on the defensive, fielding pointed questions from soldiers complaining about aging vehicles that lack armor for protection against roadside bombs.

Rumsfeld, seemingly caught off guard by the sharp questioning, responded that the military is producing extra armor for Humvees and trucks as fast as possible, but that the soldiers would have to cope with equipment shortages.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time," he said.

Spec. Thomas Wilson, a scout with a Tennessee National Guard unit scheduled to roll into Iraq this week, was the first to step forward, saying that soldiers had to scrounge through local landfills for rusty scrap metal and bulletproof glass--what they called "hillbilly armor"--to bolt to their trucks.

"Why don't we have those resources readily available to us?" Wilson asked Rumsfeld, drawing cheers and applause from many of the 2,300 soldiers assembled in a cavernous hangar here to meet the secretary.

A few minutes later, a soldier from the Idaho National Guard's 116th Armor Cavalry Brigade asked Rumsfeld what he and the Army were doing "to address shortages and antiquated equipment" that will affect National Guard soldiers heading to Iraq.

Rumsfeld seemed taken aback by the question and a murmur began spreading through the ranks before he silenced it. "Now, settle down, settle down," he said. "Hell, I'm an old man, it's early in the morning, and I'm gathering my thoughts here."

Rumsfeld, 72, said all organizations have equipment, materials, and spare parts of different vintages, but he expressed confidence that Army leaders are assigning the newest and best equipment to the troops headed for combat.

Moreover, he said, adding more armor to trucks and battle equipment doesn't make them impervious to enemy attack.

"If you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up," he said. "And you can have an up-armored Humvee and it can be blown up."

A lieutenant colonel told Rumsfeld that many of the soldiers in his unit are having trouble receiving all the pay due them, causing problems for families back home who are being badgered by collection agencies.

"Can someone here get the details of the unit he's talking about?" Rumsfeld asked. "That's just not right."

The soldiers' sharp questioning came on the day that the U.S. combat death toll in Iraq passed 1,000. According to an Associated Press tally, 1,278 U.S. troops have died in Iraq, 1,001 of them in fighting. November's U.S. death toll of 136 was the most of any month of the war.

The U.S. announced last week that it was increasing its force in Iraq to 150,000 to help the interim government conduct its election, scheduled for Jan. 30.

On Wednesday, officials at Iraq's Interior Ministry voiced support for the idea of holding the vote over a two- or three-week period so that Iraqis in different regions would vote at different times, allowing security forces to shift to where they are needed. But the country's top electoral official said he received no formal proposal for staggered voting.

Police station sacked

In Samarra, one of the most restive Sunni cities, guerrillas stole weapons Wednesday from a police station and blew it up, and a suicide car bomber attacked a Bradley armored vehicle. No U.S. soldiers were reported killed, but at least five Iraqis died, and the city's police chief resigned. Fighting also was reported in Mosul and Ramadi.

Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita, speaking in Washington after the Kuwait session, said the military is producing 450 armored Humvees a month, compared with 15 a month in autumn 2003, when the threat of roadside bombs emerged. He also said that three out of four Humvees in the war zones are armored, and that unarmored vehicles are used in back-up operations, inside bases.

It was difficult to gauge the scope and seriousness of the equipment problems cited by the two soldiers and by several others in interviews after Rumsfeld's appearance. A senior officer in Wilson's unit, Col. John Zimmerman, said later that 95 percent of the unit's more-than 300 trucks have insufficient armor.

Senior Army generals in Kuwait said they were not aware of widespread shortages and insisted that all vehicles heading north from this staging area 12 miles south of the Iraqi border would have adequate armor.

"It's not a matter of money or desire," Lt. Gen. Steven Whitcomb, commander of Army forces in the Persian Gulf, told the troops after Rumsfeld asked him to address Wilson's question. "It's a matter of the logistics of being able to produce it."

But the complaints voiced by the soldiers are likely to revive accusations that the Bush administration did not anticipate the kind of tenacious insurgency confronting troops in Iraq, and that the Pentagon is still struggling to provide enough basic supplies such as body armor, and fortified Humvees and other vehicles.

About 10,000 soldiers, many them reservists from Oregon, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Tennessee and North Carolina, are in Kuwait on their way to one-year tours in Iraq or passing through this camp on their way home after their stints.

In interviews after the meeting, the equipment issue resonated with many soldiers and commanders.

Spec. Blaze Crook, 24, from Cleveland, Tenn., said he and other members of his Tennessee National Guard unit felt shorthanded going into their mission in Iraq. "I don't think we have enough troops going in to do the job," said Crook, a truck driver.

In an interview, Wilson said the question he asked Rumsfeld was one that has been on the minds of many men in his unit, the 1st Squadron, 278th Regimental Combat Team.

"I'm a soldier, and I'll do this on a bicycle if I have to, but we need help," said Wilson, 31, who served on active duty in the Air Force for six years, including in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, before leaving the military, then re-enlisting in the National Guard after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Zimmerman, the staff judge advocate, or legal adviser, for the 278th combat team, said the unit's Humvees are sufficiently armored, but that most of its heavy trucks are not. He said Army supply officials have given the unit 70 tons of steel plates to attach to vehicles, but it isn't enough.

Double standard perceived

Zimmerman suggested that the Army wouldn't let this happen to an active-duty unit about to deploy into Iraq.

"We've got two armies," he said. "We've got the active-duty and we've got the National Guard. We're proud to serve. We just want what everyone else has. We're not asking for anything more."

Zimmerman said he appreciates the efforts by Army supply officials in Kuwait but that he and his troops fumed at the sight of the fully "up-armored" Humvees and heavy trucks put on display for Rumsfeld's visit.

"What you see out here isn't what we've got going north with us," he said.
Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune

[turtlefootrx]

i like how the news said the soldier that spoke up about better equipment wouldnt be punished. apparently the DOD had considered it. cant have troops standing up against the people in charge.

the majority of government spending is on the military. they could have easily been well equipped from the start.

[Brit_Ben]

i love the part were he said something like 'at the end of the day u can put as much armour on a vehicle as u want, but it still can be blown up'

why not just make em outa cardboard then?

[cal1082]

i like how the news said the soldier that spoke up about better equipment wouldnt be punished. apparently the DOD had considered it. cant have troops standing up against the people in charge.

the majority of government spending is on the military. they could have easily been well equipped from the start.

no they didnt

[cal1082]

It's a fair question by the troops and something that should be dealt with if the problem is that major. I do find it funny though many of you are the exact ones that supported Kerry, and he actually voted against a bill to provide money for body armor.

[BrandNew20]

I do find it funny though many of you are the exact ones that supported Kerry, and he actually voted against a bill to provide money for body armor.

That was a vote of protest, my friend. You can't send troops to Iraq without armor and proper funding.

Kerry voted for the war to give Bush the leverage to oust Saddam diplomatically, with war as a last resort. Kerry didn't think we had done everything we could, thus the vote of protest.

[open mind]

It's a fair question by the troops and something that should be dealt with if the problem is that major. I do find it funny though many of you are the exact ones that supported Kerry, and he actually voted against a bill to provide money for body armor.
he wanted amother spending bill that he thought was better to pass.
there are different versions of bills you know.

[cal1082]

That was a vote of protest, my friend. You can't send troops to Iraq without armor and proper funding.

Kerry voted for the war to give Bush the leverage to oust Saddam diplomatically, with war as a last resort. Kerry didn't think we had done everything we could, thus the vote of protest.

I dont care if it was a vote for protest or for white power. Fact of the matter ist he troops were there and he voted against it.

[turtlefootrx]

no they didnt

it was a joke man. the idea that the news would even have to tell us that he wouldnt be punished for standing up for himself is just sad.

[Bishop]

It's a fair question by the troops and something that should be dealt with if the problem is that major. I do find it funny though many of you are the exact ones that supported Kerry, and he actually voted against a bill to provide money for body armor.

Maybe he was voting down that bill in order to support another bill that provided more sufficient and efficient funding.

[BrandNew20]

Maybe he was voting down that bill in order to support another bill that provided more sufficient and efficient funding.

exactly.

[Lueda Alia]

I dont care if it was a vote for protest or for white power. Fact of the matter ist he troops were there and he voted against it.
Even IF that was true and what Anthony said isn't, Kerry's more to blame than the current administration who were the ones to SENT THE TROOPS THERE LIKE THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE??

[turtlefootrx]

its alot simpler to blame someone else than take reponsibility.

[UndefinedBoy]

It's a fair question by the troops and something that should be dealt with if the problem is that major. I do find it funny though many of you are the exact ones that supported Kerry, and he actually voted against a bill to provide money for body armor.

The election is over so you can't just go back to Kerry-bashing when the Bush administration is obviously fucking up.

[_astheruinfalls]

The election is over so you can't just go back to Kerry-bashing when the Bush administration is obviously fucking up.
Seriously. Fuck.

And they told US to get over it!? You are still going on about fucking Kerry when everyone knows he is a damn tool.

[Bishop]

True, Kerry did do a poor job of explaining his ideas, he often just stated them but moved on. But then again all I heard was Bush dodging the question completely or hearing "this man keeps on saying wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. Our troops can't fight with that behind them."

[_astheruinfalls]

i'm not bashing kerry. i was pointing out how many of you are complaining about the amount of armor, and simply pointing out kerry did not support the bill that would have provided the money for the armor.
Which is Kerry bashing. Why would you even mention Kerry. Does he serve any significant importance? NO.

[_astheruinfalls]

Again my intention to bring up Kerry was to show how YOUR apparent outrage at the current lack of armor for the soldiers seem to be lacking when Kerry voted against a bill that would supply money for the armor :huh:.

It's not Kerry bashing I'm doing it's shifting stances by some that I'm talking about.
But I don't even like Kerry! So you cricizing him affects me to NO EXTENT. You attempts to smash Kerry and hurt me in the process are futile and moronic.

You could of picked plenty of others. But you picked Kerry for a reason.

And why would you supply something you don't agree with?

[_astheruinfalls]

I was only using myself as an example. Of course your posts aren't directed towards me.

Where is the hypocrisy?

[_astheruinfalls]

Because they do not care about Kerry.

Kerry as one person holds not much power. Definately not as much as Rumsfield does.

And no one was really defending Kerry. You brought him up OUT OF NOWHERE.

[_astheruinfalls]

Where?

[_astheruinfalls]

But I don't like Kerry to begin with, so it doesn't bother me.

And it doesn't bother plent of other people because they didn't like Kerry either.

And again, it was to show that he would not support a war he did not agree with. A very weird way of going about it, but that's the only explanation.

[_astheruinfalls]

But the double standard does not apply because the situation is not just black and white.

I assume this, yes, but in a logical sense. And even if it was to only contend, no one cares because Kerry is a tool and we all know.

[UndefinedBoy]

I didnt ask that. I just asked if you see the double standard.

There would be a double standard assuming every liberal agreed with everything Kerry did, which is ridiculous...

You only assume this. Like I said the other speculation is that he was trying to contend with the 'anti-war' candidate Dean because at the time he was way ahead and gaining steam. Point still remains I don't remember hearing the questioning on the behalf of many liberals.

When have conservatives EVER questioned Bush? And why do you assume liberals would point out all the flaws in their candidate?

[The Bled 13]

Cal, are you ever going to admit that Bush has made a mistake? I can't even post in here because I know I will call you a fucking asshole. Woops.

Seriously dude, Bush is not God, Bush is not a good president. And you still come up with an excuse to justify the armor situation. You always go right back to the Kerry subject. It doesn't matter, he's not in office. It is Rummy's job, and Bush's to supply the troops, don't sit there and say that Kerry wouldn't have done it either.. first off, you don't really know that, and secondly, Kerry holds no power.

BUSH IS FUCKING UP. And it was interesting, you can say stereotypes hold no meaning.. But the only reason Bush holds that postion in office is because of his stance on abortion and homosexuality.

[The Bled 13]

How the hell can you stand behind a man that says "You go to War with the army you have, not the one you want."

Oh, great, that's awesome.

The best thing I have ever seen on the internet - "DRAFT YOUNG REPUBLICANS." If you're so gung-ho for this War, and you continue to cock suck Bush, why don't you pick up a gun and get out there?

[Poopy]

How the hell can you stand behind a man that says "You go to War with the army you have, not the one you want."

Oh, great, that's awesome.

The best thing I have ever seen on the internet - "DRAFT YOUNG REPUBLICANS." If you're so gung-ho for this War, and you continue to cock suck Bush, why don't you pick up a gun and get out there?

First of all this whole situation was staged by a reporter who was merely angry because the vehicle used to transport the reporter was unarmorred.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41963

Second
"[Going] to war with the army you have" is about reality. You are never perfectly prepared for a war. War involves killing, and that is never a good thing, its dangerous for americans, its dangerous for civilians. When it comes down to it, our army is all volunteer and they know what they signed up for.

[UndefinedBoy]

First of all this whole situation was staged by a reporter who was merely angry because the vehicle used to transport the reporter was unarmorred.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41963

Second
"[Going] to war with the army you have" is about reality. You are never perfectly prepared for a war. War involves killing, and that is never a good thing, its dangerous for americans, its dangerous for civilians. When it comes down to it, our army is all volunteer and they know what they signed up for.

The situation was hardly staged...he only did his best to see that certain questions that he and the soldiers felt were important were answered. It was not at all staged.

[_astheruinfalls]

First I've said a number of times on things I think Bush has done wrong. Whether you missed it or ignored it is up to you.

Second I never justified the armor situation. I said specifically in my first post on this thread, "It's a fair question by the troops and something that should be dealt with if the problem is that major."

You're just not reading......... :headshake
But then you try and pawn it off on Kerry like it's his fault.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[_astheruinfalls]

And cal, I've only seen you list 3 things you see wrong with Bush.

One of them is the borders.

And I don't remember the other two.

[_astheruinfalls]

No I didnt. Where did I say any of this way Kerry's fault? He deserves his share of the blame for not voting on a bill, but in the long run the bill was passed. I'm not pawning blame on any one person. I'm sure it goes from the men on the battlefield to the higher ups that deserve some blame. You're foolish
But the fact is that they were not supplied with the right armor when they needed it. That is not Kerry's fault, nor any of his fault.

So now signs of protest mean nothing? That's a healthy thought.

Thanks.

[_astheruinfalls]

No I didnt. Where did I say any of this way Kerry's fault? He deserves his share of the blame for not voting on a bill, but in the long run the bill was passed. I'm not pawning blame on any one person. I'm sure it goes from the men on the battlefield to the higher ups that deserve some blame. You're foolish
Wee.

[_astheruinfalls]

border control, how he handled parts of the insurgency, spending, didnt really care for the gay marriage amendment (but i understand why he did it), immigration ammnesty bill, the huge medicare package, how he's dealt with so-called allies like France, and Russia.
Hmmmmmmmm.

I don't think a lot of those are things the other side agrees with. So it doesn't really count.

[_astheruinfalls]

yes, "He deserves his share of the blame for not voting on a bill, but in the long run the bill was passed."

Again where did I blame Kerry for the soldiers not having armor......... :huh:
"HE DESERVES HIS SHARE OF THE BLAME."

[_astheruinfalls]

what.......doesnt really count?
Your spending ideals are probably opposite of what the other side wants.

[_astheruinfalls]

Do you seriously not read? I specifically said what he deserves his share of the blame for........."for not voting on a bill". Then I clearly say......"but in the long run the bill was passed."

You are an idiot with horrible reading comprehension skills.
So he doesn't deserve blame?

THEN WHY DID YOU EVEN PUT THAT IN THERE?

Apparently, you have no clue how to combine simple thoughts and present them in a manner that makes sense.

[Lueda Alia]

He deserves blame for not voting on the bill........BUT....... (<------important word) ........in the long run the bill that was to supply the money for armor, and etc.. was passed.


If that doesnt make sense to you then I dont know what to say.
Um what blame does he deserve if the bill was passed anyway?

I don't get your llogic.

[Lueda Alia]

"Fact of the matter is the troops were there and he voted against it."
But what does that matter since he holds no power whatsoever?


Ok, fine, he voted against it. What the hell does that have to do with the troops not having good armor though?! He wasn't the one to send them to war like that?!?!

He can't be blamed for ANYTHING.


You don't make sense.

[Lueda Alia]

he's a senator........why do you think it's so important the republicans hold a majority in the senate? Um.....maybe because it gives them power.




Again.....again.....again......the only thing I'm blaming him for is not supporting the bill. That's it, it's that simple. I'm not blaming him for the troops not having the armor because (like i said) the actual bill was passed.

Come on people, it's not that hard to understand.
oooooooooook? we're talking about the troops not having good armor, so what's the point of bringing up the whole Kerry thing?

[_astheruinfalls]

BUT WE DON'T CARE ABOUT KERRY AND WHAT HE SAID.

So you are just being stupid.

[_astheruinfalls]

Then why did you even bring it up!?

Wtf?

[Lueda Alia]

the "my point exactly" was suppose to be sarcastic. Meaning you're right, you didnt care about what kerry did (voting against the bill). Most democrats had raised no questions about it at the time, but now it's a slow political time and one question raised by a soldier that was fed to him by reporters have drawn the democrats up in arms about the armor.
Who cares if the question was "fed" to the soldier? The answer Rummy gave was... well, I have no words for it.

[Poopy]

Who cares if the question was "fed" to the soldier? The answer Rummy gave was... well, I have no words for it.

YOU should care that the question was fed to the soldier! Media bias is a big deal today whether its to the right like on Fox News, or to the Left, like everything else. Media bias does the country a disservice by corrupting the information we get. If you cant get rid of it, at least learn to spot it.

I felt Rummy's answer was an appropriate reply to an inappropriate question.

[Lueda Alia]

YOU should care that the question was fed to the soldier! Media bias is a big deal today whether its to the right like on Fox News, or to the Left, like everything else. Media bias does the country a disservice by corrupting the information we get. If you cant get rid of it, at least learn to spot it.

I felt Rummy's answer was an appropriate reply to an inappropriate question.

You felt that his answer was appropriate? Wow. Some of you are unbelievable.


I don't care one bit who asked the question. Its hard for soldiers to criticise their leaders. They want to believe that everything possible is being done to protect them - can you imagine how scary it must be to know you are going to Iraq and to know that you're not protected? The reporter gave him the confidence and the style to ask the question. Perhaps not ethically sound for a journalist but helpful for the soldier.

And did you hear the response to the question? The soldiers in attendance all cheered. The reaction to that soldier's question wasn't staged.

Rumsfeld's answer was hoirrble. Instead of comforting them that he was protecting them he basically said "what's the point in giving you it, you'll still get blown up". That's not an adequate response.

Fact of the matter is, Rumsfeld couldn't care less about those soldiers. And he needs to be kicked out office.

Oh and take a look at this too: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041219/wl_afp/usiraqmilitaryrumsfeld_041219075846 &e=4

[UndefinedBoy]

YOU should care that the question was fed to the soldier! Media bias is a big deal today whether its to the right like on Fox News, or to the Left, like everything else. Media bias does the country a disservice by corrupting the information we get. If you cant get rid of it, at least learn to spot it.

I felt Rummy's answer was an appropriate reply to an inappropriate question.

It wasn't fed to the soldier, it was something the soldier and reporter discussed previously...it was obviously a problem.

An inappropriate question? That's ridiculous. They have a right to ask whatever they want, especially about something that serious. I can't believe you think it's inappropriate...

[Poopy]

It wasn't fed to the soldier, it was something the soldier and reporter discussed previously...it was obviously a problem.

An inappropriate question? That's ridiculous. They have a right to ask whatever they want, especially about something that serious. I can't believe you think it's inappropriate...

Just to make this clear for all of you who may not understand, the US military works on something called the chain of command. That means you lead those directly below you and you report to those directly above you. Thats the way it is because thats the way it has to be in war. If you start having every soldier question the authority of the upper levels of the military then you have disorder, chaos and loss of american lives. Any problems this soldier had should have been directed to his commanding officer and flowed up the chain of command. It is not appropriate as a memebr of the media to coerce a soldier into disregarding the chain of command simply to make a story.

[Poopy]

You felt that his answer was appropriate? Wow. Some of you are unbelievable.


I don't care one bit who asked the question. Its hard for soldiers to criticise their leaders. They want to believe that everything possible is being done to protect them - can you imagine how scary it must be to know you are going to Iraq and to know that you're not protected? The reporter gave him the confidence and the style to ask the question. Perhaps not ethically sound for a journalist but helpful for the soldier.

And did you hear the response to the question? The soldiers in attendance all cheered. The reaction to that soldier's question wasn't staged.

Rumsfeld's answer was hoirrble. Instead of comforting them that he was protecting them he basically said "what's the point in giving you it, you'll still get blown up". That's not an adequate response.

Fact of the matter is, Rumsfeld couldn't care less about those soldiers. And he needs to be kicked out office.

Oh and take a look at this too: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041219/wl_afp/usiraqmilitaryrumsfeld_041219075846 &e=4

In reference to your link that story, whether or not The secretary of defense stamps every letter, or signs it is not my concern. I know he thinks about the americans killed and injured everyday when he works to keep those still in harms way safe.

[UndefinedBoy]

Just to make this clear for all of you who may not understand, the US military works on something called the chain of command. That means you lead those directly below you and you report to those directly above you. Thats the way it is because thats the way it has to be in war. If you start having every soldier question the authority of the upper levels of the military then you have disorder, chaos and loss of american lives. Any problems this soldier had should have been directed to his commanding officer and flowed up the chain of command. It is not appropriate as a memebr of the media to coerce a soldier into disregarding the chain of command simply to make a story.

Rumsfeld was there for QUESTION AND ANSWER. He got a question. Don't treat me like I'm the dumbass when you obviously can't understand that...

[Poopy]

Rumsfeld was there for QUESTION AND ANSWER. He got a question. Don't treat me like I'm the dumbass when you obviously can't understand that...

He got a QUESTION and he gave an ANSWER! What more do I need to say except...

you're a dumbass

[UndefinedBoy]

He got a QUESTION and he gave an ANSWER! What more do I need to say except...

you're a dumbass

What?

Read your preceding post about how "inappropriate" you felt the question and circumstances were and then maybe you can retract that statement...

[Poopy]

What?

Read your preceding post about how "inappropriate" you felt the question and circumstances were and then maybe you can retract that statement...

None of my posts warrant retraction, they all speak for themselves. I have clearly explained myself, if you do not want to accept it, then fine I will still take comfort in knowing that I am right and you are wrong.

[UndefinedBoy]

None of my posts warrant retraction, they all speak for themselves. I have clearly explained myself, if you do not want to accept it, then fine I will still take comfort in knowing that I am right and you are wrong.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

You stated that the soldier's question was inappropriate and that he should have worked up the chain of the command instead of asking 'ol Rummy about it (correct me if I'm wrong with this).

I said it was entirely appropriate because Rumsfeld was there for question and answer.

How are you right and I'm wrong?

[Poopy]

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

You stated that the soldier's question was inappropriate and that he should have worked up the chain of the command instead of asking 'ol Rummy about it (correct me if I'm wrong with this).

I said it was entirely appropriate because Rumsfeld was there for question and answer.

How are you right and I'm wrong?

So you believe that ANY question the soldier wished to aske would have been appropriate? Thats rediculous, your wrong.

I told you why I thought the question was inappropriate, because it was concocted by a reporter. Rummsfield answerred the question anyway. Is not everything I have written right?

[UndefinedBoy]

So you believe that ANY question the soldier wished to aske would have been appropriate? Thats rediculous, your wrong.

I told you why I thought the question was inappropriate, because it was concocted by a reporter. Rummsfield answerred the question anyway. Is not everything I have written right?

Yes, I believe the soldiers have a right to ask a question like "why don't we have any armor on our tanks?" It's unfortunate you don't believe soldiers have the right to do that.

It was not concocted by a reporter, it was discussed between the journalist and soldier because it is a problem. The cheering after the question was not concocted by the reporter, this is an obvious problem...why aren't you "supporting the troops" in their right to be protected, and to question why they're not receiving the necessary equipment?

P.S. Stop being a prick and try and check your ego before you attempt to "debate." Going "I'm right, you're wrong" is a sure way to be viewed as a dipshit.

[Poopy]

Yes, I believe the soldiers have a right to ask a question like "why don't we have any armor on our tanks?" It's unfortunate you don't believe soldiers have the right to do that.

It was not concocted by a reporter, it was discussed between the journalist and soldier because it is a problem. The cheering after the question was not concocted by the reporter, this is an obvious problem...why aren't you "supporting the troops" in their right to be protected, and to question why they're not receiving the necessary equipment?

P.S. Stop being a prick and try and check your ego before you attempt to "debate." Going "I'm right, you're wrong" is a sure way to be viewed as a dipshit.

You just dont get it!
Of course a soldier has a right to do anything he wants. You cant deny that the soldier and the reporter acted inappropriately. If you arent willing to accept that then I'll shut up now, content in knowing that I am right and you are wrong.
I support Rummsfeld in his task to decide how to best protect all our troops. If it really is the case that the majority are sent to war with sub par equipment then thats a real problem, but I dont think that is the case.

[Lueda Alia]

Hmmm, well... take a look:

Why he popped the question
By ANNE BERRYMAN
Monday, December 20, 2004 Posted: 12:47 PM EST (1747 GMT)

If this is my 15 minutes of fame, I hope it saves a life," says Thomas "Jerry" Wilson, the National Guard specialist who unnerved Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in a public forum by asking why soldiers have to scrounge for scrap metal to arm their vehicles before heading into Iraq.

Wilson, 31, who joined the National Guard a few days after Sept. 11, has kept a low profile since the Dec. 8 town-hall meeting in Kuwait, even as his question--and a reporter's later account of his role in preparing it--became a hot topic.

But in an interview with TIME last week, the soldier from Tennessee's 278th Regiment gave his first public account of the incident, saying he came up with the pointed question himself.

Wilson, of Ringgold, Ga., says he met and befriended Edward Lee Pitts, an embedded reporter from 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 Rumsfeld meeting, he urged Wilson to come up with, as Wilson recalls, some "intelligent questions." Wilson decided on one after his convoy arrived at Camp Arijan. The camp had hundreds of fully armored vehicles waiting for a unit scheduled to arrive in July. When Wilson asked if the 278th could use them in the meantime, the answer was no. Wilson then devised a question about the shortage of armor and showed it to Pitts.

Even though the reporter "suggested a less brash way of asking the question," Wilson says, "I told him no, that I wanted to make my point very clear." Wilson says he also came up with three alternate questions on his own.

As for Rumsfeld's brusque response--that even a fully armored vehicle "can be blown up"--Wilson says, "Personally, I didn't like that answer."

But as a George W. Bush supporter, he adds, "I hope I didn't do any damage to Secretary Rumsfeld."

After the meeting, Wilson told Rumsfeld he did not intend to put him "on the spot" or show disrespect, and the two shook hands.

While most soldiers were "overwhelmingly positive" afterward, one officer suggested Wilson should have asked the question in a more "proper forum."

Says Wilson: "My response was, 'What would the proper forum be?' If it costs me my career to save another soldier, I'll give it."


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/20/question.tm/

[Poopy]

Hmmm, well... take a look:




http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/20/question.tm/

I guess I would agree with that one officer who thought that the question should be asked in a more proper forum. But based on that story it seems the reporter had much less of a role in concocting the question. I guess you always gotta check more than one source for info.

[UndefinedBoy]

You just dont get it!
Of course a soldier has a right to do anything he wants. You cant deny that the soldier and the reporter acted inappropriately. If you arent willing to accept that then I'll shut up now, content in knowing that I am right and you are wrong.
I support Rummsfeld in his task to decide how to best protect all our troops. If it really is the case that the majority are sent to war with sub par equipment then thats a real problem, but I dont think that is the case.

I can too deny it was inappropriate. You can see it as inappropriate, that's your opinion, but seriously, stop saying I "don't get it" or that you're right and I'm wrong. No longer do I think you just look like a dipshit, cause its pretty clear you are.

I'm not even going to bother trying to "debate" with you, because you obviously don't understand the basic concepts...

[_astheruinfalls]

Rumsfeld needs to go.

[scitsofreaky]

Agreed. Too many scandals. But, it is funny that it happened to the only cabinet member Bush stood behind.