TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Soldiers nail Rumsfeld
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Soldiers nail Rumsfeld

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
Did you see that wonderful soldier who asked Rumsfeld, when he was addressing the troops in Kuwait, why the heck his tanks aren't armored properly. Why aren't they? if HE Rumsfeld was going, they would be.... Yeah and they support the troops, what a jerk.

And another asked about stop loss program.

Rummy is such a souless wonder, he got stumped and didnt' have the decency to not start up his spin when troops are getting ready to go over there in a very dangerous way. He launched right into this schtick, when he hesitated on an answer and someone laughed he said "I am an old man and it's early in the morning" to be all folksy. Well you aren't too old to send them over there.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ops/index.html
post #2 of 28
Yeah.... I saw that on our local news.... Rumsfeld was pretty comical and his reply to the Marine who asked the question about the tanks not being armored stunk to high heaven .
post #3 of 28
They should be properly armored! There's no excuse.
post #4 of 28
Thread Starter 
Rumsfeld should have been fired. I mean if I did my job the way he does his I would have been.

It's so shameless that he can stand there, in front of a bunch of honorable men and women who are going to his war and isn't doing everything in his power to get them protected properly he said "you go with the army you have" What a total jerk.

I really thought about it, I would be ok with Bush as Pres IF he got rid of Rumsfeld. (and Cheney but that might be hoping for too much)
post #5 of 28
Actually this was also done with prior presidents, including Clinton when I was in the service. Clinton had cut the budget for the military so bad that some equipment was badly maintained in the 90’s and buildings un-kept (some rusted shut due to budget problems. Secretary William Perry and many others in the Clinton Cabinet, including Gore (who the group commander, a 2 star general cornered btw), were also asked about this and essentially brushed off and said live with it. It became bad when equipment had to be transferred back and forth to other bases just to get things working, which is BS when each base should have its own equipment, including mission essential equipment.

And btw, this isn’t the first time when the military in wartime has had its problems with supply, armor, ammunition, personal or what have you. All wars, Police/UN actions, and other skirmishes that we have had in the past encountered, democrat and republican administrations have all had problems with supply. 2 good real examples are Korea and WWII (Africa and Battle of the Buldge ring bells?) even Somalia from what I have been told.

Again, this is the press putting a spin on things, again. Oh btw, it wasn’t about tanks being armored (the Abrams Tank is very heavily armored btw), it was all about the Humvees that originally never had the armor that originally never had it, because it never needed it since it was never put in a position in this way before until going to Iraq. Sure there are some before going over there, that were armored but a vast majority weren’t, they never needed it until now. You can be an armchair general and blast the Sec. of Defense all you want or whomever, but I do tend to agree, you go to war with what you have. As one analyst said earlier, this isn’t a air, sea or even ground war, this is a terrorist war.

One I can relate to equipment problems and huge losses in the past history, like we are currently seeing, were the B-17 Bombers. Huge problems, guns kept getting frozen, at times, couldn’t even drop bombs and on top of that, they were nearly defenseless to air attacks by the German Air Force. After several losses by the British RAF and untold amounts of research, that plane became the most deadly plane in the sky over Europe.
post #6 of 28
Thread Starter 
Clinton, Gore and Perry weren't sending troops into harms way in an unilateral way, because "God told him to go to war".
And I don't tend to put present day in with wars from 50/60 years ago.

I think you are being way too nice to this incompetent jerk. I would bet if his mistakes caused the death of a friend of yours your tune would change.

Also you can't pin this on the "media" cause I saw the tape of the entire incident. Without comments or anything, just the tape running on Leher.
post #7 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
Clinton, Gore and Perry weren't sending troops into harms way in an unilateral way, because "God told him to go to war".
And I don't tend to put present day in with wars from 50/60 years ago.

I think you are being way too nice to this incompetent jerk. I would bet if his mistakes caused the death of a friend of yours your tune would change.

Also you can't pin this on the "media" cause I saw the tape of the entire incident. Without comments or anything, just the tape running on Leher.
Want something technological that had problems with a war situation today, I know that the Blackhawk helicopters had a hard time adapting to sand in the first gulf war which caused deaths initally until it was fixed. It was also the same way with the Apache Helicopters and how about the Weapons they carry. Same thing.

As for that quote, show me when and where Bush (who I am assuming you are saying) said "God told me to goto war." Sounds like a Joan of Arc thing to me. Oh btw, would somalia ring bells? It may have been a UN sanctioaned event but stupidity caused many deaths. And no my tune wouldn't change if a friend of mine, which I know 5 over there thankyouverymuch. Don't assume what I would think. Don't give me that bull. People who enter the military raise their hands to an oath. They follow it. If there are concerns, then so be it. There are no buts in the oath of enlistment or in the UCMJ.

And btw, I can pin this on the press, its the top 10 thing on the news becasue 2 military personal asked questions that I would have even asked.
Hey imagine that...
post #8 of 28
Thread Starter 
First remember how Bush said he went to God instead of his Father when looking for guidance about the war, remember he said that in Woodwards book? He said his Father wasn't someone he went to "for strength"

Remember he also told Pat Robertson there would be no casualties.

Also I found this quote that is from an Israeli paper, he said it to Sharon during a summit and the transcript was given to the paper:

"Here are Bush's exact words, quoted by Haaretz: "God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me, I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

He is driven by divinity, not be facts. I mean some people seem to like that, I just don't. I don't think he pays attention to details, just goes for his gut. Which as I said, some people like, I don't approve.
post #9 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
First remember how Bush said he went to God instead of his Father when looking for guidance about the war, remember he said that in Woodwards book? He said his Father wasn't someone he went to "for strength"

Remember he also told Pat Robertson there would be no casualties.

Also I found this quote that is from an Israeli paper, he said it to Sharon during a summit and the transcript was given to the paper:

"Here are Bush's exact words, quoted by Haaretz: "God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me, I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

He is driven by divinity, not be facts. I mean some people seem to like that, I just don't. I don't think he pays attention to details, just goes for his gut. Which as I said, some people like, I don't approve.

And Clinton or any other president didn't bring religion into the white house? Please. He may have said that but I really doubt he totally relied on every decision on religion or the word of god. But then yet again, may Bush is the only president is the only one who has stated this publicly since he believes in his faith so much? Ever think of that? I’m done with this banter, since that’s all this is turning into for the most part. I get the point you don’t like Bush or Rumsfield or anyone for the most part in this administration. I see that in every post you have to say. I think I get the point. But no one is ever right or in the shoes of these people who make these decisions. And oh btw, I never had read that Bob Woodward book, nor do I choose too.
post #10 of 28
Thread Starter 
I don't understand why anyone wants to defend these guys so much. I JUST saw a returned soldier on the news, just 3 minutes ago who was saying how he didn't have a bullet proof vest nor other simple protection devices. And how most of the soldiers he met were (and I quote him) "afraid to speak up"
This guy wrote a letter to a local paper about how messed up it is for soldiers over there.

You know you can love your country and still think this is a quagmire you know. You can love your country and still think we are in there for bad reasons....
post #11 of 28
Thread Starter 
And yes Clinton brough religion into the WH but not to the degree Bush does. I know Clinton used his ample intellect first and relgion was for faith, fact mattered to him too.
post #12 of 28
In my opinion, there are four ways to examine Rumsfeld. 1) The political hawk 2) "Command and Control" 3) Military Reformer 4) Strategic Planner

1) Political Hawk
His political stance, that of being a hawk does not really affect him leading the defence department. Any criticism relating to hawks should be directed more at the administration as a whole and their policies rather than one's managment of the department. [NA]

2) Command and Control
As the person appointed to control the military, his failure to prevent or his complicity in creating a situation that resulted in the prisoner abuse results in him getting low marks in this category. But some marks could be given for an investigation was carried out. [C]

3) Military Reformer
But as a military reformer he is doing quite a good job. He has cancelled several large projects notably the crusader artillery system (if I recall correctly) because he predict and was to a certain extent correct in realising that future wars are not likely to be against well armed conventional forces. In my opinion he was merely carrying on the reform started by Clinton following the end of the cold war. First by reducing the dead weight military weapons platform that is not going to be useful against guerilla warfare and by also making the armed forces more mobile. The only blotch is that his move for a lighter, smaller armed forces may have contributed to some problems in post war Iraq. [A-]

4) Strategic Planner
The final way to look at him is as a strategic planner. That specifically relating to going to war in Iraq. The failure to anticipate the collapse of control in Iraq and the requirement of over 6000 soft skin vehicles over the 600 planned shows a lack of insight into future problems. The failure to anticipate the number of troops needed and the stop loss program are all evidence of either failure to anticipate despite warnings given or a deliberate attempt to deceive. [D+]

Finally, the whole going to war thing because God told him so, is kind of scary. Only question relates to the validity of it since it was a translation from English to Hebrew and back again although there has been no denial of this statement. It would be very scary if I was religious because it may mean that one particular book on Bush being the antichrist could be true. Just do a google search for the word "antichrist" and it should be one of the top few hits.
post #13 of 28
Bush is not the antichrist.
post #14 of 28
Hmm, now this is interesting. Perhaps the press had more to do with it than originally thought?

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcp.htm
post #15 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
Hmm, now this is interesting. Perhaps the press had more to do with it than originally thought?

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


Methinks this story is not over yet
post #16 of 28
Thread Starter 
Good for them, remember democracy isn't about being "good" and Rummy won't let the press ask him questions. And from what what this local guy here said after returning
from Iraq that the troops are afraid to speak up.

The press isn't evil you know, it's part of the process of democracy.
post #17 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
Good for them, remember democracy isn't about being "good" and Rummy won't let the press ask him questions. And from what what this local guy here said after returning
from Iraq that the troops are afraid to speak up.

The press isn't evil you know, it's part of the process of democracy.
Hmmm, when I see Rumsfield having press conferences at the Pentagon or otherwise, I see no problems with the press asking him questions unless the water I am drinking is making me believe other wise or wait... the men in black just told me to deny everything. Whatever. And I'm sure that the serviceman that you saw on the news that came back from Iraq spoke for every single service man and woman that’s serving over there right now. Sure... And if everyone was afraid to speak up, this solider or the one that asked about her extended time would have never asked the question. And oh, did you see when the senior officer asks Rumsfield about going to Disneyland? I guess not... But I guess a reporter planting a question with a serviceman is perfectly ethical... yeah sure... There's some real reporting... Just ask Dan Rather...

And btw, depending on the party system you believe in or choose to follow, the press is always evil; just ask Ford, Carter, Bush Sr. or Clinton. It goes both ways you know.



Oh and did you hear about the on Iraqi veteran tell a high school, that was reported in their local paper about shooting a 10 year old boy that was shooting at serviceman and had a bomb strapped to him, but later found out the story was entirely fabricated? hmmm .... things that make you go hmmmmm...
post #18 of 28
Thread Starter 
At *this* particular meeting Rummy wouldn't let the press ask questions, that is what got this started.

Sure those in power don't like the press, but *we* aren't suppose to hate them. They are part of checks and balances you know.
post #19 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
At *this* particular meeting Rummy wouldn't let the press ask questions, that is what got this started.

Sure those in power don't like the press, but *we* aren't suppose to hate them. They are part of checks and balances you know.
So? The President now and then have done that before. He was there for the troops not the press, is he not allowed to do that?

Oh and you rcomment about we aren't supposed to hate them, I know several people who hate the AP, Rueters, CNN and FoxNews... along with every single network... I guess those people are flawed.
post #20 of 28
Thread Starter 
I am choosy about what *network* press I watch, never watch any of those you mention. However the press itself, as an entity is something we need and we have to keep supporting the good ones. Like Leher hour for instance.

Did you see the movie "Broadcast news" It forsaw all this network news problems. Funny, it's a fairly old movie now but sort of predicted all of this, also the movie "Network".

Doesn't sound to ME like Rumsfeld was there for the troops. Do you know he was asked the SAME question 6 months ago by a troops member (it didn't get much media cause it was right after Abu Garab and so his "I am a survivor" line got the attention...) and he said the SAME thing, that the armor was "on it's way", checks in the mail boys!

I still just don't know why you support this guy, he is shamless, another guy who didn't go to war sending off people without basic security, a local vet here spoke up here. He said he wasn't properly protected.
post #21 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
I am choosy about what *network* press I watch, never watch any of those you mention. However the press itself, as an entity is something we need and we have to keep supporting the good ones. Like Leher hour for instance.
Sorry I lost all respect for PBS... The only thing I watch on their is maybe Dr. Who, if its on. And btw, did you watch the entire speech? I didn't know PBS did. Or did you just watch excerpts? Sounded to me like he was there for the troops.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
I still just don't know why you support this guy, he is shamless, another guy who didn't go to war sending off people without basic security, a local vet here spoke up here. He said he wasn't properly protected.
Well I couldn't understand why (well I could since your a far left democrat) of supporting Kerry but I never questioned you about it. But as for the protection thing, I think thats a cop out (and press spin). The way the press is playing this, (which they really aren't anymore if you watch the news since something more sensational has happened), our troops are so poorly protected that they are getting killed left and right becasue our humvees are not armored. yeah... right...

One other thing, Rumsfield has stated that they are getting these vehicles from all over the world, most aren't armored. If they weren't needed to be armored and were armored before hand and just used for transportation or any non-combat releated duties, wouldn't that be a waste of tax payers money and over spending?

However, I get your point, you hate "rummy" as you call him, like every other post in here. I think we get the point. I am also done with this banter... and thats all its turning into.
post #22 of 28
Thread Starter 
You keep not addressing that troops, not just press, are saying they aren't protected.

Also the far left wasn't thrilled with Kerry. Thought he was too mainstream, they wanted Kucinich, or Green party. I am pretty conservative. I admire many far lefties for their passion but I am too old and disillusioned to be that far left anymore.

But I am not gung ho about war as you tell. It has always bothered me that Bush told his biographer that he wanted to be a war president. And that then Rummy got us into this unprepared. This isn't the concept of what I see and love about my country. And when I hear that the troops arent' treated well, from *their own mouths* yes, I am bothered.
post #23 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
You keep not addressing that troops, not just press, are saying they aren't protected.

Also the far left wasn't thrilled with Kerry. Thought he was too mainstream, they wanted Kucinich, or Green party. I am pretty conservative. I admire many far lefties for their passion but I am too old and disillusioned to be that far left anymore.

But I am not gung ho about war as you tell. It has always bothered me that Bush told his biographer that he wanted to be a war president. And that then Rummy got us into this unprepared. This isn't the concept of what I see and love about my country. And when I hear that the troops arent' treated well, from *their own mouths* yes, I am bothered.
I find interesting that most of these troops are mostly "Clintons Army" as you like to call them, that are fighting over there, who were btw, under funded during the Clinton Administration (which btw, they were forcing out people left and right and giving early retirements to 10 and 15 year serviceman) which *I* saw with my own eyes that *I* experienced... And if you want to blame someone about the budgets for the military and not being prepared, blame Congress overall. I'm done with this conversation since I am talking to someone who has no idea what it is to be in the military and just relies on second and third hand accounts. I don't have my head in the clouds.
post #24 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
You keep not addressing that troops, not just press, are saying they aren't protected.
As mentioned earlier, these are humvees, not tanks. The armored vehicles (Bradley fighting vehicles, tanks, etc.) are some of the best in the world. The Humvee is the modern replacement for the Jeep and was never intended to be an armored vehicle. They are now being armored to protect against terrorist attacks (as earlier mentioned) with the upgraded vehicles being produced and provided to the troops as quickly as possible. For the troops in the field yesterday is not soon enough, and I can understand that. The production is not nearly as fast as for an un-armored vehicle and the production centers have had to do some pretty major re-tooling to produce the modified vehicles.

My nephew fought over there during the invasion and was one of only two in his squad that survived. They were on the very front lines and in combat almost daily. He absolutely did have body armor, as did everyone around him. While the press tends to try to make it look otherwise, the current issue has more to do with behind the lines personnel who would not normally have been expected to need this type of protection. With the concern for terrorist attacks their is an increased need for support personnel to have additional protection, and it is being produced (though, again, not as fast as many would like.)

And, No, these types of ongoing attacks were absolutely not forseeable. It's easy to look back on something and say this or that should have been done different or should have been expected. It's quite ahnother to try to forsee every possible issue that might arise. As another poster mentioned about the B-17s in WWII, the original design seemed exceptional, but when it actually got in combat many weaknesses became apparent. This is a constant pattern in warfare: plan, act, adjust.

But, then again, in Somalia the reason so many were killed, particularly in the "Black Hawk Down" incident, is because Clinton refused to send the armored vehicles (Bradlies) that the ground commanders had repeatedly requested.

As for the press: while a free press is important, a press that's so driven to a particular politically agenda that they don't care what they have to do to twist a story their way is no better than any other propaganda machine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
I am pretty conservative.
Based on what you have stated here and in other posts, not even in the wildest exageration are you conservative. I've seen the way you call every Republican names, call everyone that ever voted for a Republican stupid (or worse), and make comments about how you won't respond to those that disagree with you. You've clearly demonstrated both your liberal bent and your complete lack of willingness to listen to any facts that disagree with your personal private view of the world.
post #25 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharmsDad
As mentioned earlier, these are humvees, not tanks. The armored vehicles (Bradley fighting vehicles, tanks, etc.) are some of the best in the world. The Humvee is the modern replacement for the Jeep and was never intended to be an armored vehicle. They are now being armored to protect against terrorist attacks (as earlier mentioned) with the upgraded vehicles being produced and provided to the troops as quickly as possible. For the troops in the field yesterday is not soon enough, and I can understand that. The production is not nearly as fast as for an un-armored vehicle and the production centers have had to do some pretty major re-tooling to produce the modified vehicles.

My nephew fought over there during the invasion and was one of only two in his squad that survived. They were on the very front lines and in combat almost daily. He absolutely did have body armor, as did everyone around him. While the press tends to try to make it look otherwise, the current issue has more to do with behind the lines personnel who would not normally have been expected to need this type of protection. With the concern for terrorist attacks their is an increased need for support personnel to have additional protection, and it is being produced (though, again, not as fast as many would like.)

And, No, these types of ongoing attacks were absolutely not forseeable. It's easy to look back on something and say this or that should have been done different or should have been expected. It's quite ahnother to try to forsee every possible issue that might arise. As another poster mentioned about the B-17s in WWII, the original design seemed exceptional, but when it actually got in combat many weaknesses became apparent. This is a constant pattern in warfare: plan, act, adjust.

But, then again, in Somalia the reason so many were killed, particularly in the "Black Hawk Down" incident, is because Clinton refused to send the armored vehicles (Bradlies) that the ground commanders had repeatedly requested.

As for the press: while a free press is important, a press that's so driven to a particular politically agenda that they don't care what they have to do to twist a story their way is no better than any other propaganda machine.

Based on what you have stated here and in other posts, not even in the wildest exageration are you conservative. I've seen the way you call every Republican names, call everyone that ever voted for a Republican stupid (or worse), and make comments about how you won't respond to those that disagree with you. You've clearly demonstrated both your liberal bent and your complete lack of willingness to listen to any facts that disagree with your personal private view of the world.
I don't doubt there is more to the story than we might know, but a local vet here where i live was the first one I listened to about all of this. So am I not suppose to listen to him?

I choose not to respond to your personal attacks. I have better things to do than respond to a put down like that. This environment, the internet, while really expansive, also makes it too easy to attack others cause you can do it way too easily and without resonsiblity.
post #26 of 28
On the positive side, Kevlar body armor and well-trained MASH units and their support personnel mean that more soldiers are surviving their wounds than ever before, according to a CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/12/09....ap/index.html
post #27 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharmsDad
As mentioned earlier, these are humvees, not tanks. The armored vehicles (Bradley fighting vehicles, tanks, etc.) are some of the best in the world. The Humvee is the modern replacement for the Jeep and was never intended to be an armored vehicle. They are now being armored to protect against terrorist attacks (as earlier mentioned) with the upgraded vehicles being produced and provided to the troops as quickly as possible. For the troops in the field yesterday is not soon enough, and I can understand that. The production is not nearly as fast as for an un-armored vehicle and the production centers have had to do some pretty major re-tooling to produce the modified vehicles.

My nephew fought over there during the invasion and was one of only two in his squad that survived. They were on the very front lines and in combat almost daily. He absolutely did have body armor, as did everyone around him. While the press tends to try to make it look otherwise, the current issue has more to do with behind the lines personnel who would not normally have been expected to need this type of protection. With the concern for terrorist attacks their is an increased need for support personnel to have additional protection, and it is being produced (though, again, not as fast as many would like.)

And, No, these types of ongoing attacks were absolutely not forseeable. It's easy to look back on something and say this or that should have been done different or should have been expected. It's quite ahnother to try to forsee every possible issue that might arise. As another poster mentioned about the B-17s in WWII, the original design seemed exceptional, but when it actually got in combat many weaknesses became apparent. This is a constant pattern in warfare: plan, act, adjust.

But, then again, in Somalia the reason so many were killed, particularly in the "Black Hawk Down" incident, is because Clinton refused to send the armored vehicles (Bradlies) that the ground commanders had repeatedly requested.

As for the press: while a free press is important, a press that's so driven to a particular politically agenda that they don't care what they have to do to twist a story their way is no better than any other propaganda machine.

Based on what you have stated here and in other posts, not even in the wildest exageration are you conservative. I've seen the way you call every Republican names, call everyone that ever voted for a Republican stupid (or worse), and make comments about how you won't respond to those that disagree with you. You've clearly demonstrated both your liberal bent and your complete lack of willingness to listen to any facts that disagree with your personal private view of the world.
More important than petty bickering, I want to thank you nephew for his service from the bottom of my heart.
post #28 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
On the positive side, Kevlar body armor and well-trained MASH units and their support personnel mean that more soldiers are surviving their wounds than ever before, according to a CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/12/09....ap/index.html
It's hard for me to take that as a positive, it also makes clear just how many *seriously* injured soldiers are returning. I also read an article about how many vets from Iraq are ending up in homeless shelters.

I mean hate *me* or love me, but I am sorry, I can't just space all this out as much as I try.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Soldiers nail Rumsfeld