Fucking Rumsfeld (nsr)

[natty dread]

Sorry to post this with all the snow flying but:
How dare this arrogant asshole speak to our troops this way when they ask legitmate questions? He actually implies that because armor may not protect a vehicle from being blown up by an IED, we shouldn't be worrying about the lack of properly armored vehicles in Iraq. This is like Laura Bush going around the country saying that because stem cell research may not work, we shouldn't worry about Shrub's restrictions on it. And shrub pledges our troops have all the equipment they need--bullshit. The unit of the soldier who had the gall to ask a straightforward question of rummy has only 5% of its vehicles properly armored!

Iraq-Bound Troops Confront Rumsfeld Over Lack of Armor

December 8, 2004
By ERIC SCHMITT

CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait, Dec. 8 - In an extraordinary
exchange at this remote desert camp, Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld found himself on the defensive today,
fielding pointed questions from Iraq-bound troops who
complained that they were being sent into combat with
insufficient protection and aging equipment.

Specialist Thomas Wilson, a scout with a Tennessee National
Guard unit scheduled to roll into Iraq this week, said
soldiers had to scrounge through local landfills here for
pieces of rusty scrap metal and bulletproof glass - what
they called "hillbilly armor" - to bolt on to their trucks
for protection against roadside bombs in Iraq.

"Why don't we have those resources readily available to
us?" Specialist Wilson asked Mr. Rumsfeld, drawing cheers
and applause from many of the 2,300 troops assembled in a
cavernous hangar here to meet the secretary. Mr. Rumsfeld
responded that the military was producing extra armor for
Humvees and trucks as fast as possible.

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

Mr. Rumsfeld seemed taken aback by the question and a
murmur began spreading through the ranks before he silenced
them. "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."

He said all organizations had equipment, materials and
spare parts of different vintages, but he expressed
confidence that Army leaders were assigning the newest and
best equipment to the troops headed for combat who needed
it most.

Nonetheless, he warned that equipment shortages would
probably continue to bedevil some American forces entering
combat zones like Iraq. "You go to war with the army you
have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a
later time," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

Moreover, he said, adding more armor to trucks and battle
equipment did not 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."

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 Mr. Rumfeld's remarks and the
question period. A senior officer in Specialist Wilson's
unit, Col. John Zimmerman, said later that 95 percent of
the unit's more than 300 trucks had insufficient armor.

Senior Army generals here 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. R. Steven Whitcomb, the
commander of Army forces in the Persian Gulf, told the
troops after Mr. Rumsfeld asked him to address Specialist
Wilson's question. "It's a matter of the logistics of being
able to produce it."

But the complaints voiced by the soldiers here are likely
to reinvigorate the debate that the Bush administration
failed to anticipate the kind of tenacious insurgency now
facing troops in Iraq, and that the Pentagon is still
struggling to provide enough such basic supplies as body
armor and fortified Humvees and other vehicles.

In October, members of an Army Reserve unit disobeyed
orders to deliver fuel to a base in Iraq, complaining that
their vehicles had not been properly outfitted. Earlier
this month, the Army raised its goal for replacing regular
Humvee utility vehicles in Iraq with armored versions, to
8,000 vehicles from 4,000.

The soldiers' concerns here may also rekindle deep-held
suspicions among many National Guard and Reserve troops
that they are receiving equipment inferior to what their
active-duty counterparts get, despite assurances from
senior Army officials that all Army troops are treated
equitably.

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

That some soldiers would dare confront Mr. Rumsfeld
directly on the readiness and equipment issue in such a
public setting was highly unusual. In his town-hall style
meetings with troops, Mr. Rumsfeld usually gets general
policy questions or very specific complaints about pay or
benefits.

But in interviews afterward, the equipment issue resonated
with many soldiers and commanders here. Specialist Blaze
Crook, 24, from Cleveland, Tenn., said he and other members
of his Tennessee National Guard felt shorthanded going into
their mission in Iraq. "I don't think we have enough troops
going in to do the job," said Specialist Crook, who is a
truck driver.

In an interview, Specialist Wilson said the question he
asked Mr. Rumsfeld was one that had 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 Specialist 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, and then re-enlisting in the National
Guard after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Col. John Zimmerman, the staff judge advocate for the 278th
combat team, said in an interview that the unit's Humvees
were sufficiently armored, but that most of its heavy
trucks were not. He said that Army supply officials had
given the unit 70 tons of steel plates to attach to their
vehicles, but that it was not enough.

Colonel Zimmerman suggested that the Army would not have
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."

When asked about the soldiers' complaints, General
Whitcomb's deputy, Maj. Gen. Gary Speer, acknowledged in an
interview that many vehicles would head north from here
into Iraq without the bulletproof windshields or the Kevlar
flooring that protect against bombs exploding underneath
Humvees or trucks. General Speer said many vehicles were
not armored because they would be assigned duties inside
headquarters compounds where there was virtually no threat
of roadside bombs.

General Speer said a special unit here at Camp Buehring
removes the extra armor on vehicles that have left Iraq and
re-attaches it to vehicles going into the country. "We've
got a lot of work to do," he said. "There's a lot of people
working around the clock to meet the concerns those
soldiers raised."

Colonel Zimmerman said he appreciated the efforts by Army
supply officials here, but he and his troops said they
could not help but fume at the sight of the fully
"up-armored" Humvees and heavy trucks set out on display
here for Mr. Rumsfeld's visit.

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

[splat]

(Wall Street) Every living relative of loyal career politicians are reported to have purchased all available stock in weapons and armor manufacturuer 'Guns R Us' just ahead of announcement of a no-bid contract award to the manufacturer of miltary action apparel.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Gotta love that he's telling this guy who's ass is on the line that he should calm down about not being properly equipped.
Fuck Bush, too.
He should be impeached and imprisoned for recklessly endangering and killing thousands of Americans--sending them into war with no plan, the wrong equipment, and against all rational advice. Not everyone had their daddy around to keep them from getting shot at.

[Viva]

Did any of the soldiers ask if they get to go home before their mariages break up?

Oh, and Mrs. bUsh, I've got news for you on the stem cell front.

[skiergirl]

Natty-
Do you have a link to that article? The 116th is my step-brothers unit...

I'll do a search.

[up an down]

Gotta love that he's telling this guy who's ass is on the line that he should calm down about not being properly equipped.

yeah, instead of enlisting, those soldiers should have decided to become draft dodging chicken hawks, if they had they could have been very important assholes in the republican party right now.

[Trackhead]

They should put Rumsfeld in one of those ill equipped Humvees send him on a tour of Fallujah on a saturday evening. Then see if he wants more armor.

I'd be livid if I had an 18 year old son serving and Rumsfeld was talking that shit. They should have bum rushed the stage.

I'm glad the soldiers finally had the sack to speak up against this bullshit. They deserve more.

[Ripzalot]

try reading an unspun version of the story by a soldier who was there...

http://www.missick.com/

Almost immediately after returning to camp yesterday after the visit by the SECDEF, I did a google news search and read the AP Wire article and noted that, although the piece was fairly accurate, there was definitely a sense of exaggeration in the tone that presented the townhall meeting as a gripe session. As one of the soldiers in the audience, I felt that presenting the morning in such a fashion was misleading, and with such negative connotations, I wondered how long it may be before the MSM ran with the story and turned a pleasant morning with the Secretary of Defense into a scenario that resembled a defendant being cross-examined by the prosecution in a court room. I knew the story was generating heavy circulation when I saw it headlined on Drudge today (click here for story).

....

One more thing I would like to add is this, not one soldier present asked questions about why we were here, or expressed the sort of anti-war sentiment that Michael Moore led some to believe was prevalent in the military. Rather, the concern was about ensuring we would be supplied with all necessary equipment to accomplish the mission and return home safely. Let there be no doubt, this was not a hostile crowd eager to catch the Secretary of Defense off guard by grilling him with questions he has never had to answer. This was a group of truly admirable American's and patriots, receiving confirmation from the man who controls the Department of Defense, that we have the full fledged moral, financial and logistical support, to accomplish the mission.

[skiergirl]

So another view. First, I'm a complete military jong. But my step-brother Alex is the head of his unit. All I know is he is the head of 86 guys and ladies that will be over there. While they are a support unit (for an engineer group I believe) they will still be going into Iraq. Only thing that gives the fam. a bit of the mental break is he's going into the northern Kurdish region (supposedly "safer"). However, he is the ONLY one in his unit that will be in an armored vehicle.

I live in S. Bend where Hummers are built. The guys on the military side are pulling looonnnngggg shifts. However, I'm sure that H2 side hasn't slowed much (completely different line I know).

[Dexter Rutecki]

try reading an unspun version of the story by a soldier who was there...

http://www.missick.com/

Yeah, that's unspun. Right.
The guy even acknowledges that the substance of the news stories was accurate. To even try to spin that session into a positive, where you have an enlisted guy questioning the Sec. of Defense in that way, is ridiculous.

[Ripzalot]

Yeah, that's unspun. Right.
The guy even acknowledges that the substance of the news stories was accurate. To even try to spin that session into a positive, where you have an enlisted guy questioning the Sec. of Defense in that way, is ridiculous.

"although the piece was fairly accurate, there was definitely a sense of exaggeration in the tone that presented the townhall meeting as a gripe session. As one of the soldiers in the audience, I felt that presenting the morning in such a fashion was misleading, and with such negative connotations, I wondered how long it may be before the MSM ran with the story and turned a pleasant morning with the Secretary of Defense into a scenario that resembled a defendant being cross-examined by the prosecution in a court room. "

his words were "fairly accurate" not "accurate" as you spun it.

and which of the rest of that paragraph do you not understand?

[Dexter Rutecki]

C'mon, don't read just for what you want to see. He acknowledged the substance as being accurate, which is what I noted. You just confirmed it again. If it hadn't been factually accurate, you don't think a guy with that agenda would have mentioned it?
It's sort of ridiculous that you're choosing this obviously partisan account as the single believable source.

[cj001f]

and which of the rest of that paragraph do you not understand?

Aside from almost barfing when I read "This was a group of truly admirable American's and patriots, receiving confirmation from the man who controls the Department of Defense, that we have the full fledged moral, financial and logistical support, to accomplish the mission." in an unspun article

I also wondered how you have fullfledged financial and logistical support with inadequate equipment.

[Dexter Rutecki]

I also wondered how you have fullfledged financial and logistical support with inadequate equipment.

Because they say, 'we support you. And anyone who disagrees is unpatriotic.'

Same old song and dance. Wins elections, though (sort of).

[mr_gyptian]

The problem is that no amount of armor can protect from every attack. You can see that the Bradley's and even the mighty Abrahams have been modified to protect against both mines, roadsides, and RPG's.

Ask any soldier in history about preparedness in any battle. It's war, you're being shot at. I really don't think it is humanly possible to have a perfectly satisfactory situation.

You look back at Patton running out of gas in WWII. to Tony Lake denying troops access to Armored Fighting Vehicles and AC-130's in Somalia. Rumsfeld is not denying the troops anything. These factories have upped their armored Humvee production from about 15 per month to 450. But as previously stated even a tank can get blown up. So armoring a tank to the point of not being able to drive it will not solve the problem.

But thanks for noticing the fact that Falluja is no longer a base for Zarqawi and his insurgents.

That Hamid Karzai is the first elected president in Afghanistan.

Ukraine's parliament and people rejected the Kremlin backed ruling party's stealing of it's recent election.

1.3 million palestinians are registered to vote for someone who will not be terror in chief.

Oh and 14 million Iraqi's have registered to vote for 156 parties for their January 30th election.

Democracy is on the march. open your fucking eyes.

[Ripzalot]

C'mon, don't read just for what you want to see. He acknowledged the substance as being accurate, which is what I noted. You just confirmed it again. If it hadn't been factually accurate, you don't think a guy with that agenda would have mentioned it?
It's sort of ridiculous that you're choosing this obviously partisan account as the single believable source.

i would take his word over any MSM report anyday. who seems more likely to be credible to produce an accurate account? a reporter from MSM viewing the event from the outside, or an actual participant, thoroughly aware of the nuances of the situation?

besides, i thought after the election the liberal propaganda posting here would die off. you guys are killing the stoke.

[up an down]

another unspun perspective:::

LOUISVILLE, December 9th, 2004) -- They're risking their lives for our country, and Wednesday angry U.S. soldiers in Iraq told Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld a lack of equipment is making their job even more dangerous. Meanwhile, the family of a local soldier who first made safety complaints in October says he's being punished for speaking out. WAVE 3 Investigator Eric Flack reports.

In a rare public airing of grievances, disgruntled soldiers complained to Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld about a lack of armored vehicles and other equipment problems.

"We're digging pieces of rusted scrap metal, compromised ballistic glass that's already been shot up to put on our vehicles," Specialist Thomas Wilson told Rumsfeld in front of about 2,300 fellow soldiers. "We do not have proper armament on our vehicles to carry with us north."

"As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have," Rumseld replied.

Harold Casey Senior knows that all to well. "They're not fighting this war with proper equipment."

His grandson, Justin Rodgers, was part of an Army Reserve unit that refused a supply mission in October.

Rodgers said the fuel he was asked to deliver was contaminated, and the vehicle they were to deliver it in didn't have proper armor.

"He tells it like it is, he won't lie," Casey said.

Rodgers now says he is paying the price for speaking out. He was transfered from his unit, has been getting extra duty and received a reduction in rank.

But in an e-mail just days ago, the solider told his grandfather it was worth it, because fuel is now being tested, and extra protection has been added to vehicles.

It was a hard-fought victory in what some U.S. soldiers say is the new battle: the battle to get proper equipment from the government that sent them into harm's way.

"They're going to have to answer to the man upstairs when it comes their time," Casey said. "And I want to see their faces when they do."

Rumsfeld told the troops the Army is sparing no expense acquiring the proper equipment and vehicles needed by the soldiers, but said manufacturers have not been able to keep up with demand.

As for Specialist Rodgers, his family does not know when he will be home.

He has already been in Iraq about a year, but the unit he's been transferred to arrived just months ago.

So Rodgers could be fighting on the front lines long after his original reserve unit returns home.

[cj001f]

i would take his word over any MSM report anyday. who seems more likely to be credible to produce an accurate account? a reporter from MSM viewing the event from the outside, or an actual participant, thoroughly aware of the nuances of the situation?

Do you believe DOD's transcript?
"Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. My question is more logistical. We’ve had troops in Iraq for coming up on three years and we’ve always staged here out of Kuwait. Now why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromise ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles and why don’t we have those resources readily available to us? [Applause]"

or the final question:
"Q: Good morning, sir. Staff Sergeant Latazinsky (sp), 1st COSCOM (sp), Fort Bragg, [Cheers] North Carolina. Yes, sir. My husband and myself, we both joined a volunteer Army. Currently, I’m serving under the Stop Loss Program. I would like to know how much longer do you foresee the military using this program?"

http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2004/...ecdef1761.html

[up an down]

and again another unspun view::::::

CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday faced open criticism from his own U.S. troops, who complained about inadequate armor for Iraq and questioned a policy that stops them from leaving the military when their voluntary term ends.

The unusually blunt public exchange came at a town hall-style session with American soldiers at this camp 12 miles south of the border with Iraq, where more than 1,200 U.S. troops have died since the March 2003 invasion.

Hundreds of troops applauded a comrade who complained to Rumsfeld that U.S. forces were being forced to dig up scrap metal to protect their vehicles in Iraq because of a shortage of armored ones.

"Now why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles? And why don't we have those resources readily available to us?" the soldier asked.

Rumsfeld asked the soldier to repeat the question.

The soldier said, "A lot of us are getting ready to move north (into Iraq) relatively soon. Our vehicles are not armored. We're digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that's already been shot up, dropped, busted -- picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat."

"We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us north."

Rumsfeld conceded that "not every vehicle has the degree of armor that it would be desirable for it to have," and said the Army was hurrying to provide more armored vehicles, adding 400 per month.

But Rumsfeld added, "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

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

Rumsfeld also faced other questions about equipment shortages and the U.S. role in Iraq after elections scheduled for Jan. 30.
"Now settle down, settle down. Hell, I'm an old man, and it's early in the morning. I'm just gathering my thoughts here," the 72-year-old Rumsfeld said lightheartedly at one point.
"UTTERLY UNACCEPTABLE"

In Washington, Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut called Rumsfeld's comments about the armor "stunning," and said in a letter to the secretary, "Your response -- 'You go to war with the Army you have' -- is utterly unacceptable."

The Army has acknowledged problems in supplying sufficient numbers of the armored Humvee, a light vehicle that without extra armor can be especially vulnerable to attacks by insurgents using roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades.

At the Pentagon, chief spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said U.S. Central Command, responsible for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, had asked for 21,000 Humvees with extra armor, and about 19,000 had been provided.

Bush administration officials, in particular Rumsfeld, have repeatedly rejected charges that insufficient forces were sent to Iraq after last year's invasion to stabilize the country, which is now in the grip of a bloody insurrection.

Another soldier asked Rumsfeld what the Pentagon was doing "to address shortages and antiquated equipment that National Guard soldiers ... are going to roll into Iraq with?" The soldier was referring to allegations that regular Army units have been given better equipment than reservists.

"No way I can prove it, but I'm told that the Army is breaking its neck to see that there is not a differentiation" in the quality of equipment, Rumsfeld said.

Another soldier asked Rumsfeld about the Army's "stop-loss" policy that has prevented thousands of troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan from leaving the military when their volunteer service commitment ends.

Rumsfeld said it was a fact of life for troops during war because it helped maintain "cohesion" for units needed on the battlefield.

"It's basically a sound principle, it's nothing new, it's been well understood" by soldiers, he said. "My guess is it will continue to be used as little as possible, but that it will continue to be used."

In Washington, Republican Senator John McCain criticized that approach. "We've got to expand the size of the military in order to handle a situation we're going to be in for many years, and stop-loss is a terrible thing for morale," he told CNN.

Rumsfeld later flew to India for talks with Indian officials at the end of a trip that took him to Kabul to see Karzai sworn in on Tuesday. (Additional reporting by Charles Aldinger and Will Dunham at the Pentagon)

[tuffy109]

Democracy is on the march. open your fucking eyes.

seeing as how the most recent month that ended marks the highest casualties since the war started (or ended, whichever way you want to look at it), and you have fucking tools such as yourself, nice and safe at home, criticizing soldiers who are asking for a piece of fucking medal, i'd say our eyes are wide open.

i'm sure there's somewhere right down the street you can enlist if you feel so strong about fighting for democracy.

[mr_gyptian]

out of curiosity how many Secretary's of Defense have had an open and unscreened Q&A with troops?


more accurately, how many Secretary's of Defense have had the balls to do so?

just asking.

[shamrockpow]

1.3 million palestinians are registered to vote for someone who will not be terror in chief.

I might wanna wait to see if they vote for the leading candidate, a man serving 5 life sentances for terrorism, but then again "Democracy is on the march!" so who am I to question anything the Bush administration does? Honestly, some of these slogans sound more canned than Starship Troopers...

[snow_slider]

But thanks for noticing the fact that Falluja is no longer a base for Zarqawi and his insurgents.

That Hamid Karzai is the first elected president in Afghanistan.

Ukraine's parliament and people rejected the Kremlin backed ruling party's stealing of it's recent election.

1.3 million palestinians are registered to vote for someone who will not be terror in chief.

Oh and 14 million Iraqi's have registered to vote for 156 parties for their January 30th election.

Democracy is on the march. open your fucking eyes.

Let's be perfectly clear about your statements. True Falluja is no longer an insurgent stronghold. Why? Because, for all intensive purposes, it's completely FLATTENED. Watch the BBC footage of that (former)city and you'll see the same thing I've seen. The place is leveled. However, are all the insurgents gone? Are their numbers reduced even? NOPE!

Don't kid yourself, Karzai is only the president of Kabul. His power dosen't extend beyond hte borders of that city. The rest of Afghanistah is controlled by the same warlords as before we attacked.

Democracy on the march?!? Open YOUR fucking eyes. Putin is returning to a cold war Soviet mentality (e.g. the propping up of Russia friendly Yanukovych, and his decision to end the election of govenors by popular vote). Democracy is on the plunge there and Bush is doing nothing about it because Putin is his "buddy".

Now let's see...we attacked Iraq because they posed a immanent threat to the US and because we want to spread democracy, but we'll let Putin remove democracy in Russia and risk another cold war?!? Now which country, Iraq or Russia, has nukes, has ICBMs, has a huge standing military, has a credible air force, has a blue water navy, is currently developing ICBMs that can defeat our "missile shield"? Which one again is more of a threat? Which one are we doing something about? Hypocracy at it's best.

[mr_gyptian]

seeing as how the most recent month that ended marks the highest casualties since the war started (or ended, whichever way you want to look at it), and you have fucking tools such as yourself, nice and safe at home, criticizing soldiers who are asking for a piece of fucking medal, i'd say our eyes are wide open.

i'm sure there's somewhere right down the street you can enlist if you feel so strong about fighting for democracy.

donkey ass, I was not criticizing them at all.

but nice argument, you hump.

[mr_gyptian]

I might wanna wait to see if they vote for the leading candidate, a man serving 5 life sentances for terrorism, but then again "Democracy is on the march!" so who am I to question anything the Bush administration does? Honestly, some of these slogans sound more canned than Starship Troopers...

I'm sure they will vote for him. their self genocide has not been completed yet. but the fact is they will get to decide that.

yeah, falluja is flattened just like Jenin was three years ago.

Ummh. that was my point about the Ukraine. Putin got rebuked.

President of Kabul? Bullshit. I read reports from all over Afghanistan. that is not the case at all. There are still pockets of resistance. Extremists are still there. there is no doubt about that. did they have an election that UN overseers declared valid? yes. did women get to vote? yes. Is it a better place than before October 2001? my guess, snowslider, is that you'd say no.