Rumsfeld gets his due...

Parabeagle · December 2004

Nice to see Rumsfeld raked over the coals for a change, rather than watching him do the raking of some poor schmuck journalist.

Loved seeing our noble soldiers putting him on the spot about the lack of armored vehicles, very disappointed at the dismissive, condescending tone of Rumsfeld's answers.

The upside is that this should be a reminder to all of us that our citizen-soldiers are not just a bunch of strong backs and weak minds blindly following orders - they can think, too, and question authority when appropriate.

Finished my rant. Going back to my cell.

mwild31 · December 2004

Ditto - Rumsfeld should have been one of the first from the cabinet to resign...

Don D · December 2004

It's interesting to see the two of you, both veterans, ridicule the man whose politics you regularly oppose, outspokenly, in writing on the Forum. Let me ask you both this: If you had been at the podium, or advising the man, what do you feel his response should have been when blindsided by that question? I'm not asking about your philosophy or your love or hate of the man; I'm asking you what you would have replied to the soldier or what you felt should have been said in the best interest of the country.

I'm sure the clip will play well in Faluja.

mwild31 · December 2004

In the context of what it was â€“ a question & answer session â€“ I think he should have been prepared for the question. This is an issue thatâ€™s been on the news & what these military folks are experiencing right now in Iraq. His response of â€œYou go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might wish to haveâ€ was ridiculous. Itâ€™s not a stretch to want/wish for appropriate armor of the very vehicles that are supposed to be built to protect you while you are protecting America. â€œYouâ€™re absolutely rightâ€ comes to mind as an appropriate response. Blindsided â€“ hardly â€“ ignorant of the soldierâ€™s life & world â€“ more accurate.

sonny · December 2004

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 12-09-04 AT 07:49AM (CST)[/font][br][br]I was not asked but another possible response. . which he moved toward today. . could have been, "I don't have all the facts on that, but I assure you it will be looked into." I, too found his tone and response to be inappropriate.

Parabeagle · December 2004

Rumsfeld wasn't prepared to adequately respond to the question because he's accustomed to softball Q&A from soldiers when he conducts these town hall type affairs. According to the AP story I read this morning, he usually gets general policy questions or gripes about low pay and things of that nature.

If I were advising him how to answer I would do exactly what my speech coach in college taught us to do when faced with a similar situation. Be honest and admit you don't have all the facts to be able to answer the question, but would be happy to check into it and get back to you.

Whatever · December 2004

This was very disturbing in several areas.
First, Rumsfeld was unprepared. Either he doesn't care or he isn't be told what is happening.
Second, sending soldiers into a war zone not properly protected is a wrong-headed policy. During WWII, the government needed supplies to support the troops and they got manufacturers to stop producing for the public. You couldn't get a car, you couldn't get tires etc. etc. Therefore, why isn't the manufacturer of the humvee being told to stop producing for the wealthy who buy it and start producing for the military that needs it.

ritaanz · December 2004

Whatever, if you think about your question for a sec, you'll know the answer. It's greed.

Whatever · December 2004

I always thought companies made more money by dealing with the military (like hammers for the navy etc. etc. etc. etc.).

Shadowfax · December 2004

If the government were to tell the manfacturer of humvees to stop producing for the wealthy - we'd be in a vastly different country. Not that those powers might not be welcome at times, but not now.And, regrettably, I think Rumsfield's answer was correct - as it has always been. In a war area, even if you have the material you can't always get it where it is needed, and unfortunately, the grunts just have to make the best of it. Admittedly, not being able to deliv er is a different sin than not providing it, but to the boots on the ground it makes no difference whatever.

ritaanz · December 2004

Perhaps you are right, Whatever. But I was thinking volume. Thousands of sales instead of hundreds to the army.

Parabeagle · December 2004

One positive note in all this: Newspaper reports that production of armored Humvees is now 405 a month instead of 30 a month. x:-)

Don D · December 2004

I would have been the first guy to be drummed out of the military if questioning authority were the criteria. I remember being a green state employee many moons ago and an old codger, much like Rumsfeld, stood at the podium in a room of hundreds, fielding questions from the masses. My question was totally honest, but I reckon I was a fool for asking and am surprised they didn't fire me. The question was, "Knowing what you know about how the State Personnel System works, what do you think are the benefits of us organizing a union?" He refused to answer and am sure he got my name. Kudos to the soldier who asked the question. I guess it's correct that the man was ill prepared or that he would not suspect a question that straightforward.

Don D · December 2004

Those of you who listen to the noon news or talk radio now have learned that questions were restricted to only soldiers, no news reporters were allowed to ask them. So, one reporter is bragging today about the fact that he convinced the soldier, who was his escort, to read the question the reporter had written. And the ones who hooted and rooted hooah were in on it too. There was an obvious attempt to embarass. The libs love it.

System · December 2004

I didn't see anything wrong with the answer or his tone of voice. I certainly did not read 'condescending' in it. Personally, I dislike the preformatted 'I'll look into it' or 'I'm working on it' replies. Talk about evasive and condescending! His reply was an honest assessment of the truth of the matter. It's good that the question was asked and some media exposure was brought to the issue. Now it will get looked into.

Don D · December 2004

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 12-10-04 AT 08:03AM (CST)[/font][br][br][font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 12-09-04 AT 04:15Â PM (CST)[/font]

I'm still trying to understand the logic of saying he should have been better prepared and should have anticipated that question but should have answered that he would look into it. If he were to anticipate the question but say he didn't have the answer but would get back to them on it, he would be a liar. I listened to a Humvee and armament expert on the radio today who described the various types of vehicles that are combat equipped today and those that are not AND WON'T BE. He reminded us that most of the humvees have vinyl doors (much like a cheap CJ-7 with a rag top) and these are the ones some cowboy soldiers are trying to retrofit with sheets of steel. Somebody has watched one too many Eastwood movies.

It's never a good idea to upstage or embarass your boss in public. Talk about picking one's battles!

(edit, edit) Nancy Pelosi was having orgasms on television last night over Rumsfeld's embarassment, demanding his resignation as incompetent. She's still crying the 'Blues' over the 'Red' states.

Rumsfeld gets his due...

Comments