posted December 12, 2004 02:09 PM              

CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait - In a rare public airing of grievances, disgruntled soldiers complained to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Wednesday about long deployments and a lack of armored vehicles and other equipment.

"You go to war with the Army you have," Rumsfeld replied, "not the Army you might want or wish to have."

Spc. Thomas Wilson had asked the defense secretary, "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?" Shouts of approval and applause arose from the estimated 2,300 soldiers who had assembled to see Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

"We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north," Wilson, 31, of Ringgold, Ga., concluded after asking again.

During the question-and-answer session, another soldier complained that active-duty Army units seem to get priority over National Guard and Reserve units for the best equipment used in Iraq.

Yet another soldier asked how much longer the Army would continue using its "stop loss" power to prevent soldiers from leaving the service who are otherwise eligible to retire or return to civilian life at the end of their enlistment. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&u=/ap/20041208/ap_on_re_mi_ea/rums feld&printer=1

***********

Les Payne
Pentagon adept at deflecting truth
December 12, 2004

The top military official in the richest nation on Earth did not reassure soldiers en route to fight - and possibly to die - in Iraq that they would have sufficient equipment for the battlefield.
Posing a problem clearly on the minds of his comrades, Spc. Thomas Wilson asked U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld why were they so poorly equipped with armor. "Why do us soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-arm our vehicles?" the Tennessee Guardsman asked. "And why don't we have those resources available to us?"

Rumsfeld asked Wilson to repeat the question. This tactic usually gains Rumsfeld an advantage when he uses it with the press. But Spc. Wilson, no matter who suggested wording for the first question, seized the advantage with even greater force.

"A lot of us are getting ready to move north relatively soon," the airplane mechanic said. "Our vehicles are not armored. We're digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass ... 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."

Daring not risk another Wilson escalation, Rumsfeld said that the Army is rapidly building as many armored vehicles as it could.

"It's not a matter of money or desire," Lt. Gen. R. Steven Whitcomb, commander of Persian Gulf forces, was quoted as saying. "It's a matter of the logistics of being able to produce it."

This issue of insufficiently equipped soldiers being sent into battle - and in insufficient numbers - was an issue John Kerry raised pointedly during the campaign. A leaked memo written by Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez in December 2003 informed top Army officials about a shortage of spare parts, lack of protective gear and poor readiness rates for Army weapons operating in Iraq. "I cannot continue to support sustained combat operations with (maintenance) rates this low," he wrote.

In response to Kerry's attack about "mismanagement" of the war, Bush largely ignored the Iraq issue and instead reminded voters of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. This fear factor helped win Bush the election and the American voters have only themselves to blame for Bush's mismanagement of the Iraq occupation and for Rumsfeld's callous contempt for the soldiers he sends into battle, possibly to die.

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vppay124081263dec12,0,1417569.c olumn?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

**************

Rumsfeld under fire for 'hillbilly armour' used to defend army
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
11 December 2004

The row over America's failure to send enough military vehicles to Iraq took a new twist yesterday when the company that manufactures them said it could deliver 1,200 more a year, but has had no request from the Pentagon

Nor will the controversy disappear quickly. Hours after President George Bush reiterated that soldiers in Iraq would get everything they needed, Congress released a report showing that only 6,000 of the near-20,000 Humvees in service in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait were fully protected.

The House Armed Services Committee said most of the transport trucks that carried fuel, food and ammunition to dangerous parts of Iraq were unarmoured. That shortcoming has been seized on the guerrillas who have killed more than 1,000 US soldiers and marines since Mr Bush prematurely declared an end to the conflict in May, 2003. Thousands more have been maimed and wounded.

A spokesman for Armor Holdings, which makes the fully protected Humvees, said: "We have always said, 'Tell us how much you want and we'll build them'." The company had even proposed setting up new assembly lines to produce more, he added.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=591996

****************

of course i fully expect the limbaugh and hannity parrots to swoop in and.......

*squaaawk* "that reporter was MAKING the news, not reporting it!!! *squaaaawk!!*

posted December 12, 2004 10:32 PM            

Right, John Heinz Kerry.

posted December 13, 2004 12:09 AM            

Something else to think about Petron. It's the left who endlessly babble on about every imagined flaw of the Bush administration, or the President himself. Usually long after it been proven the babblers were outright lying or simply couldn't find their $sses with both hands.

posted December 13, 2004 12:39 AM              

but i find this more amazing jwhop
president bush THREATENED TO VETO that 87$$billion that kerry offered before he decided to approve it.....lol

posted December 13, 2004 01:30 AM            

Let me break this to you gently Petron. Rumsfeld is here to stay or until he decides to quit. There isn't anything the left can do to cause a rift between Rumsfeld and the President so all this is just so much hot air.

Of course, you've also forgotten the Humvee was never intended to be an armored vehicle. Nevertheless approximately 2/3 have already been armored and the rest are being refitted as the armor is produced.

posted December 13, 2004 10:47 AM            

They also support the war in Iraq and the overall military plan to win there.

Subj: Fw: Battle of Fallujah (2/7 Cav)
Date: 12/13/2004 7:35:52 AM Eastern Standard Time

Battle of Fallujah (2/7 Cav)

A first-person account from the 2-7 Cavalry (Gary Owen Regiment) on the battle of Fallujah. Reads a bit like the accounts of the fighting in GermanyNT-FAMILY: Arial"> in late1944 / early 1945 as the Allies pushed across the Rhine. It also brings back memories of Tet ’68 and the battle for the Citadel in the city of Hue.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Well, Task Force 2-7 Cav made it back from Fallujah earlier than expected, mission accomplished. It feels so good to be back from a second successful mission that was as difficult as it was dangerous.

We left Camp Cooke on Nov 1 and staged at Camp ZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Fallujah for about a week. While there, we got the good news that George Bush was re-elected and we had busy days and nights of planning and rehearsals for the big attack. 2 days before "D Day" a 122 mm rocket impacted 50 meters away from our tents that sent everyone to the floor We staged there at a remote part of the post and it was obvious that a local national tipped off the "mujahadin" one soldier and 4 more were wounded. That attack gave the rest of the Task Force enough anger to last the whole fight.

After all the drills and rehearsals, the day for the attack finally came on Nov 8. Prime Minister Allawi gave the green light and Coalition and Iraqi forces went all the way. On Nov 7, a battalion of Marines seized the peninsula to the west of the city to prevent insurgents from fleeing. A brigade (4,000 soldiers) from the First Cav set up another cordon around the city to catch anyone fleeing. The plan was to make sure the insurgents would either surrender or fight and be killed. Intelligence estimates put the enemy between 3,000 - 5,000 strong, so we knew we had a tough fight ahead of us. One of the interesting factors to this fight was the weather. Although Iraq is unbelievably hot in the summer(up to 130 in Najaf), it was colder out in Fallujah than it was back in New York10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">. Temperatures were typically in the upper-30?s and low 40?s between 5 pm ? 8 am. The average temperature here has dropped about 30 degrees in the past month or so.

We moved all of our vehicles and soldiers from Camp Fallujah to a position about 1 mile north of the city. That's also where we set up our TF support area (re-fuel, re-arm) and where we set up the Tactical Operations Center. All day long while were setting up at that location, Air Force and Marine Corps aviators shaped the battlefield with laser-guided bombs and hellfire missiles. Although American forces had not been into the city since April, we had been collecting intelligence on the city for months through unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), human intelligence, and Special Forces. So we knew exactly where they stored their weapons and where they held meetings, and so on. All of these attacks from the air were precise and very effective in reducing the enemy's ability to fight us before the battle even started.

With each attack, secondary explosions of weapons/ammo blowing up were heard. The Coalition also threw the enemy a curveball by destroying all the vehicles that had been parked in the same location for more than 3 days---the enemy planned to use these as car bombs when we attacked. Again, almost every single vehicle the air assets attacked had huge secondary explosions. After 12 hours of massive air strikes, Task Force 2-7 got the green light and was the first unit to enter the city. There is a big train station on the city's northern limit, so the engineers cleared a path with some serious explosives and our tanks led the way.

While this was happening, my intelligence shop was flying our own UAV to determine where the enemy was.

It is a very small plane that is launched by being thrown into the air. We flew it for 6 hours and reported grids to the tanks and Bradleys of where we saw insurgents on the roof and moving in the street---so our soldiers knew where the enemy was, before they even got to the location. We crossed the train station just before midnight and led the way for the Marines by killing everything we could in our way. It took our tanks and brads until 10 am the next day to get 2 miles into the city. They killed about 200 insurgents in the process and softened the enemy for the Marines. 5 of our soldiers were wounded in this first 10 hours, but we accomplished our part of the plan.

The Marines' mission was to follow TF 2-7 and fight the enemy by clearing from building to building. A lot of the insurgents saw the armored vehicles and hid. They waited for the Marines to come and took their chances by fighting them since the Marines weren?t protected by armor like we were. In that first day of fighting, the Marines took 5 x KIA and many more wounded, but they also did their job very well. Along the way, they found HUGE caches of weapons, suicide vests, and many foreign fighters.

They also found unbelievable amounts of drugs, mostly heroin, speed, and cocaine. It turns out, the enemy drugged themselves up to give them the "courage" and stupidity to stay and fight. The enemy tried to fight us in "the city of mosques" as dirty as they could. They fired from the steeples of the mosques and the mosques themselves. They faked being hurt and them threw grenades at soldiers when they approached to give medical treatment. They waived surrender flags, only to shoot at our forces 20 seconds later when they approached to accept their surrender.

The next few days, TF 2-7 maintained our battle positions inside the city, coming out only for fuel and more ammo. We fought 24 hours a day and continued to support the Marines as they cleared from house to house. If they were taking heavy fire or RPG fire from a house, they would call on our tanks. Our guys would open up on the house with

120 mm main gun or .50 cal. After 5 minutes of suppressive fire, then the Marines would go into the building and clear it. There was rarely anyone left alive by that point. The problem is that we couldn’t be there to do that for all the Marines, and when we couldn't and they had to clear the building without our help, they took heavy casualties because the insurgents didn’t stop firing until the Marines got into the building and killed them.

After 3 days, half of the city had been cleared and Iraqi Forces followed the Marines to re-clear the buildings and clean up the caches.

Sometimes the insurgents who had managed to hide from the Marines would stand and fight the Iraqis, so they took some casualties as well. But they did a good job of securing the area and collecting the thousands of AK-47s, RPGs, mortars, and IED?s that were in these houses. All that ammo proved just how intensely the enemy planned to defend the city after all, Fallujah was the symbol of the resistance against the new Iraqi government. They wanted to keep their safe haven for terrorists like Zarqawi to behead innocent people. Since no Coalition Forces were allowed into the city, they were able to get away with those atrocious acts without much trouble.NT>

On day 3 of the fight, we had the most exciting moment for me personally when our Task Force Support Area and TOC came under attack. Insurgents fired mortars and rockets at us everyday, some landing as close as 30 meters from us. But on this day at 6 pm, just as it was getting dark, we took 3 rounds very close and then to the north 8-10 insurgents opened up with small arms fire on the TOC. Luckily, a tank platoon was back re-fueling and along with the scout platoon, laid down some serious firepower and killed them all in a matter of 5 minutes. But all of us in the TOC got to go out and be part of the fight, firing rounds and seeing the tanks unload on these insurgents. None of us were hurt, but it was an exciting 10 minutes.

THEN came the second push through the rest of the city. Although by day 4, the Coalition had already killed over a thousand, many of them fled to the southern portion of the city and took up positions there. Again, Task Force 2-7 led the push a little before midnight. Same mission, same purpose: To soften up enemy strong points and kill as many insurgents as possible to enable the Marines to follow us when the sun rose. The Marines from Regimental Combat Team 1 did just that for the next 5 days---fighting house to house, finding more weapons, more torture chambers, more ammunition, and more insurgents ready to fight to the death. One fighter came running out of a building that our tanks set on fire; he was on fire and still shooting at us. As our Sergeant Major said, "going up against tanks and brads with an AK-47, you have to admire their effort!"

Over the next 5 days, the Marines and our Task Force killed over 1,000 more insurgents.

In that time frame, over 900 more fighters made the decision to spend 30 years in prison rather than die. The Marines are still occupying the city and helping with the rebuilding process---they still meet some sporadic resistance, usually a group of 3-5, shooting from a mosque or faking surrender and then shooting at them. We were very disturbed to find one house with 5 foreigners with bullets in their heads, killed execution style. Marines also came upon a house where an Iraqi soldier in the Iraqi National Guard had been shackled to the wall for 11 days and was left there to die. These insurgents are some sick people and Fallujah proved that more than ever. 2 mosques were not being used for prayer, but rather for roadside bomb making. They were literally IED assembly line factories, with hundreds of IED?s complete or being built. They also had several houses with high-tech equipment where they conducted their meetings. In Fallujah, the enemy had a military-type planning system going on. Some of the fighters were wearing body armor and kevlars, just like we do. Soldiers took fire from heavy machine guns (.50 cal) and came across the dead bodies of fighters from ; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Chechnya, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Afghanistan, and so on. No, this was not just a city of ****** off Iraqis, mad at the Coalition for forcing Saddam out of power. It was a city full of people from all over the Middle East whose sole mission in life was to kill Americans. Problem for them is that they were in the wrong city in November 2004.

Now that it's over, there is a lot of things that people back home should know. First of all, every citizen of Fallujah (non-insurgent) is getting $2,500 USD (that's a lot over here) to fix up their house or buy new things that may have been destroyed in the fighting. Insurgents took up positions in residents' houses so we were forced to destroy a lot of buildings. There is over $100 million dollars ready to be spent to re-build the city. This may seem like a lot of money, but I can assure you that it is a small price to pay for the amount of evil people no longer alive, contemplating how to kill more Americans. The intelligence value alone is already paying huge dividends. Some of the 900 detainees are telling everything they know about other insurgents. And the enemy never expected such a large or powerful attack and they were so overwhelmed that they left behind all kinds of things, including books with names of other foreign fighters, where their money and weapons come from, etc?

I went into the city 3 times, but after a lot of the fighting had been done. It was amazing to see how the American military had brought the world's most evil city to its knees. I have an awful lot of pictures that I am going to upload to my webshots site?. It will blow your mind to see what the insurgents forced us to do to win this fight. And seeing the pictures of what I saw firsthand will make you very happy to be an American and know that our country has this might if evildoers force us to use it. Our mission in Iraq is to help the Iraqi Security Forces become stable enough to keep this country safe and once in a while fight with our full might to give these security forces a fair chance. When we need to go after the enemy with all we've got, the results have been amazing.

l>In the fight for Fallujah, our military lost over 50 soldiers and Marines including a sergeant major, company commander, and 8 platoon leaders, along with 40 kids, typically between 19 and 23 years old. I can't even tell you how proud I was to be part of this fight and know these soldiers who were going from building to building to take the fight to the enemy.

My Task Force lost 2 more soldiers after the rocket attack at Camp Fallujah, 1 of them that I knew pretty well. It was hard on the unit to deal with these losses, to go along with the 16 soldiers from 2-7 who were wounded. But this was a fight we knew would be dangerous…but worth the risk based on the good that would come out of it. Anyone back home who thinks the world is a safe place needs to come here for a day and learn real fast that there are an awful lot of people out there who hate Americans so much that they risk their lives to try to kill us. We cannot live peacefully back at home right now unless we continue to stay on the offensive against our enemies and fight them in their backyards. Remember, radical Arabs started this war.and they continue to fight it, proving to America over and over that they need to be fought.

I am hopeful that most Americans understand that you have to accept death to defeat evil; all of us soldiers accepted that the day we signed up. There are some things worth fighting and dying for, and making the world and especially America"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">, a safer place, is one of them. For every Mom out there that you read about who turns into a peace protestor when her son is killed in action, there are 99 Moms you don?t hear about who are proud and believe in this mission even more.

It sure is good to be back to Taji after our second "field trip." We have an officers vs. enlisted football game tomorrow where I am the quarterback, so I am excited about that. We also have a Task Force Thanksgiving dinner tomorrow. Despite the fact we have upcoming Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years away from family, friends, and Fun, all of our soldiers are thankful to be back after this big fight and to have played such an important role in the successful mission.

I received some nice letters out there that were very supportive, so thank you to all of you who did that for me. Thanks for all your prayers and support, and I wish everyone back home a Happy Thanksgiving and some quality time spent with family and friends.

Mike

posted December 13, 2004 10:01 PM              

and im not interested in bush jr's forewarned pr response about the humvees

i think its more funny that the troops laughed at Rummys weak initial response to the armor question

``It's essentially a matter of physics, not a matter of money. It isn’t a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It’s a matter of production and capability of doing it. As you know,you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe – it’s a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment.'' -Rumsfeld

******************
Humvee makers dispute Rumsfeld remarks
More armored vehicles could readily be built, two companies say

By GEORGE EDMONSON
COX NEWS SERVICE

posted December 14, 2004 11:48 AM            

For your information, the Humvee replaced the lowly Jeep...which was an open vehicle with no armor.

For your information, special forces personnel run around in the desert in un-armored dune buggies.

For your information, the armor fitted to Humvees will not protect against an RPG or armor piercing ammo.

I know how desperate you on the left are for an issue so run with this one until a legitimate one comes along.

But please stop pretending you give a damn about American casualties in a war you consider an illegal war where you consider the US to be the aggressor.

posted December 15, 2004 11:06 AM            

BTW, the Bradley weights 67,000 pounds loaded for combat and is a tracked armored vehicle which WILL NOT stop IED's or rocket propelled grenades. The kind of armor on a Bradley would flatten all four tires on a Humvee and it still wouldn't protect troops against much more than ordinary rifle fire and hand thrown grenades.

posted December 15, 2004 08:58 PM              

second be serious, i KNOW that if YOUR DOOR gets hit with an rpg or landmine there wont be much of you left, but its not nescassary for the fragmentation to go thru every vehicle in the convoy, regular steel is not armor but it will still protect.....how bout some real ceramic composite armor? as long as our troops have to patrol around in combat zones? even body armor stops fragmentation from rpg's landmines and ied's
just not the impact point of a shaped charge....

so youre saying YOU want the troops to go into battle naked with pitchforks for weapons becausse theyre gonna die anyway huh?

tell it to the nearly 10,000 injured troops, many of them maimed and crippled so far in this war (and many still alive because of ARMOR)

*****
Blaming the shortage on a lack of production capacity, as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld did Wednesday, is "just not true," said Bayh. He said he had told the Pentagon as early as April that more armored Humvees could be built.
"It's essentially a matter of physics," Rumsfeld told the soldiers in his reply on Wednesday. "It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it."
But Bayh, in a telephone conference call with reporters, said the problem was another indication of the administration's underestimation of the risks and demands in Iraq.
"It borders on the naďve," Bayh added. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/203200_armor10.html
*********

thirdly almost evry single 1 of my responses to YOUR posts have been to YOUR ridiculous sourceless assertions that the u.s. WASNT involved in ANY of these allegations lol you sound like my freind who has never even HEARD OF half these incidents because all he listens to is limbaugh and hannity....he also thought we found enough wmds in iraq to kill 100000 + people, that we found a "secret" nuclear facility with barrels of yellowcake, and that CAP WEINBURGER "checked out" allegations of arms sales to iraq hahahahahahahahahah!!

i have never stated this war was illegal,just stupid(and aimed at the least threat we actually face!!), ive never even heard ANYONE say til after we invaded that there were NO WMD'S!!! "apparently" the justification was "distorted" worse than a micheal moore movie....
you havnt "summarized" my posts .....your over there spouting "for my information" things ive already pointed out to you in earlier posts(1 in 3 rifle rounds used by insurgents in iraq is an armor piercer wich CAN penetrate vehicle armour, but vehicle armor CAN stop armor piercers too) so i dont believe you even REMEMBER anything ive posted!!let alone does it appear you know anything about the last 60 years of history......

you didnt say any of that crap you said i was PRETENDING TO GIVE A DAMN ABOUT AMERICAN CASUALTIES!!!
so are you going to link me to this so called "source" you mention that says I DONT GIVE A DAMN about people I KNOW who are in danger of being blown to bits?? OR IS THAT JUST MORE OF YOUR MADE UP ON THE SPOT SOURCELESS DRIVEL?

posted December 16, 2004 04:11 PM              

if you take that as a criticism of AMERICA then you are completely out of tune with reality and must identify your whole being with this bush administration
even bush didnt stammer out a bunch of excuses like rush limbaugh... but thats what youre doing....
i'll bet you still havnt read thru the soldier stats i posted...ive done it several times before as well...

and YOU accuse ME of not "giving a damn" about lives being lost.....pathetic...

posted December 16, 2004 06:58 PM            

I sometimes wonder if anyone on the left really knows how our government works. When the roadside bombs began going off, the military started ordering armored Humvees and armored replacement panels for those already in the field. I know this is just an excuse to you but ALL spending bills originate on the House of Representative and military budgets are set by Congress...usually a year ahead of time.

Now, the Republicrat McCain is ripping Rumsfeld but it was Clinton, Kerry, McCain, Kennedy and the rest of the duds who cut the military budgets, cut troop strengths, cut military equipment and damned near gutted the military in the 90's. Now these same people are howling that we need more troops but these same twits reduced the army from 18 divisions down to 12 in the 90's and at a time when the United States was being bombed, both at home and abroad.

So, these jerks and those who support them need to have a seat while the military is built back up to what would be normal levels...including equipment.

I can't imagine someone like you giving much of a damn except as a means to slander the Bush administration...given you would have preferred to have Saddam still in power in Iraq.

posted December 16, 2004 07:36 PM              

it never occurred to me bush sr's administration would ever be back in place lol

posted December 16, 2004 07:52 PM              

Let me explain. For this fiscal year, 2005, Rummy & Co. asked for $25.7 million to secure its fleet of trucks. And Congress granted the request, when it passed the Pentagon's budget in July.

But by November 19th, the Pentagon brass realized they had screwed up, Defense Department documents show. There was no way $25.7 million could pay for armoring the M915 trucks, Medium Tactical Vehicles, and other vehicles hauling supplies through Iraq; to do the job right, more like $580 million would be needed. The chiefs had under budgeted, more than twenty-fold.

The problem was, the Defense Department's budget for the year was already passed. And it was too early, yet, for a second, "supplemental" funding bill. So, instead, the Pentagon's eyeshades decided to "reprogram" money, from one military project into another.

Now, the accountants could have taken money from hulking, multi-billion dollar items, like the F-22 fighter or the creaky missile defense program. But no. Instead, the cash – along with about a billion dollars in other funds -- was taken from the Army's payroll. From the accounts to pay soldiers in the field.

With that money gone, there's now only enough cash left in the register to keep paying soldiers until May or so. If a "supplemental" budget bill – rumored to be $75 billion or more -- isn't passed by then, there will be no paychecks for G.I.s.

Congress will never let that happen, of course. No politician in his right mind is going to keep soldiers from getting paid. So, in the end, G.I.s will get the money they've been promised.

But, still, wouldn't it have been better to get this armor money together in the first place? The war has been going on since last March. Planning for it started in 2002. And only on November 19th did the Pentagon realize it needed more money to armor up its trucks?
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001269.html

posted December 16, 2004 08:22 PM            

Armor is not going to be funded with GI paychecks but of course, this jerk doesn't get around to admitting it till deep into the article. Lying headlines are a staple of the radical left.

This is the kind of crap that makes normal people just tune the radical left out. Lies, lies and more lies.

Hopefully though y'all will keep it up. With every election cycle, the left loses more seats in Congress, more governorships, more state legislatures and forget all about the Presidency.

Here's one for you.

posted December 17, 2004 12:00 PM            

Friday, Dec. 17, 2004 10:41 a.m. EST
Iraq Vet: McCain Snubbed the Troops

An Iraq war veteran who was part of the original invasion force went public yesterday with allegations that Sen. John McCain snubbed the troops when he visited the front lines during the early days of the occupation - while noting that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld routinely met with GIs during repeated visits to the war zone.

Identified only by his first name, Iraq GI Dan described the McCain visit during an unsolicited call to Sean Hannity's ABC Radio Network broadcast - saying he was upset that the Arizona Republican was accusing Rumsfeld of being oblivious to the concerns of troops on the ground.

"I had to let you know about this because I really don't think too many people know," the GI caller told Hannity. "McCain comes over and we do this whole big reception thing. It's 140-something degrees out. Soldiers are standing at attention outside, waiting for this guy to come."
The Iraq vet said that when McCain finally arrived, he "[didn't] say a single word to any of the soldiers."

Instead, said GI Dan, McCain spent "about five minutes at our safehouse there. And then he leaves - he didn't talk to a single soldier that was actually there . . . He didn't ask a single one of us anything."

The Iraq GI said it's much different when Rumsfeld visits Iraq.

"Every time [he] has gone over there - whether it's Afghanistan, Iraq, wherever - he's always made a point of talking to as many soldiers as he can; from a private, a low-ranking soldier, all the way up [the chain of command]."

Here's a full transcript of GI Dan's eye-opening comments to Sean Hannity:

I had to let you know about this because I really don't think too many people know about this.

I just got out of the army a little while ago. I was in Northern Iraq when we first jumped in, in March of 2003. Northern Iraq is probably a third of Iraq's oil.

John McCain comes over - and this is the thing that's killing me with him right now - McCain comes over and we do this whole big reception thing. It's 140-something degrees out. Soldiers are standing at attention outside, waiting for this guy to come.

He comes in - doesn't say a single word to any of the soldiers. He spends about five minutes at our safehouse there. And then he leaves - he didn't talk to a single soldier that was actually there.

All he wanted to see were the reports from the Northern Oil company there and how the company was going to deal with terrorist attacks on the pipeline leaving there . . .

Every time Rumsfeld has gone over there - whether it's Afghanistan, Iraq, wherever - he's always made a point of talking to as many soldiers as he can; from a private, a low-ranking soldier all the way up. McCain goes over there and he didn't find out anything from my soldiers, which were in a completely unique position.

We held the area that the Northern Oil Company was located in. We dealt with all the problems with terrorist attacks there. And he didn't ask a single one of us anything.

posted December 17, 2004 03:06 PM              

so some1 called sean hannity and said that huh?
isnt this the 3rd sourceless "testimony from iraq" piece youve posted?
heres some more sourceless propoganda
****
Many soldiers, same letter
Newspapers around U.S. get identical missives from Iraq http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20031011/frontpage/121390_Printer.shtml

*****
do you have a subscription to rush limbaugh.com ?
if you do get his transcript from yesterdays show were he talked about the battle of the bulge in wwii
he repeatedly COMPARED iraq....and the battle of the bulge...he even compared the battle of the bulge to a "quagmire" and said "hmmmm sound familiar?"
i take it he was admitting iraq is a quagmire....

but to compare what is the largest epic heroic and justified landbattles in history where over a million men clashed with dozens of heavy armored divisions for a month and a half to the QUAGMIRE in IRAQ is ludicrous!!
because bush jr didnt HAVE TO invade iraq
the sincerity of individual troops is not in question, its the scope and sincerity of the mission and its planners

posted December 18, 2004 09:06 PM              

Hello. This is Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois.

If this holiday season finds you at a post office, take a look at the people in line with you. Most of them are mailing packages across the state and across the country, but many are sending packages to their soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Inside many of those boxes headed for the war zones you'll find gifts like homemade cookies and family photos, but you'll also find expensive items no military family should ever have to buy like body armor and Kevlar vests.

Just over a year ago, I made my first visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center to meet with wounded soldiers from Iraq.

The first soldier I met with was 28 years old, out of the Army National Guard in Ohio. He lost a leg in Iraq. I asked him, Is there anything I can do for you? And he said, Senator, make those Humvees safer so other soldiers won't have to go through what I did.

That was over a year ago.

Now, Congress has given this administration every penny that it's requested for Iraq and Afghanistan, yet today, 21 months after the invasion of Iraq we still have 3,500 Humvees without protective armor, making these vehicles and our soldiers in them prime targets for road- side bombs and rocket-propelled grenades.

The Department of Defense estimates almost 1 in 5 of the lives lost in Iraq were in Humvees.

And the Humvees aren't the only problem. About 80 percent of the other vehicles our troops are using in Iraq are also unarmored.

When Secretary Rumsfeld met with those soldiers in Kuwait, he invited them to ask tough questions. Well, they sure did. Now he owes them, and all Americans, some straight answers.

How in the world can the Pentagon have billions of dollars for no-bid contracts for companies like Halliburton, but not enough money to provide basic protective equipment for our troops?

Why did we discontinue the production of armor plating before all of our Humvees in Iraq were protected?

We can, and we should, armor every Humvee and every truck our troops use in Iraq and Afghanistan. No more excuses, no more delays. We can save hundreds of lives and prevent thousands of serious injuries.

Our fighting men and women have accepted the responsibility to risk their lives for America. Shouldn't their government accept the responsibility to protect them?

The Tennessee soldier who confronted Secretary Rumsfeld about the shortage of armored Humvees told the New York Times the other day, and I quote, I'm a soldier. I'll do this thing on a bicycle if I have to, but we need help. He's right.

Secretary Rumsfeld,we have the Army we want; now let's give them the equipment they need.

In this holiday season, as we pray for peace on Earth, let's do everything in our power to bring peace of mind to our service men and women and bring them home safely.

posted December 19, 2004 01:12 PM              

The AP is reporting that "of more than 9,100 heavy military haulers in Iraq, Afghanistan and nearby countries, just over 1,100 have received upgraded protection... By comparison, the military has decided it needs almost 22,000 armored Humvees in the war area. It has 15,334; an additional 4,400 await armor add-ons and the rest have not been delivered to the region."

But getting those additional Hummers could take a long, long time, if current production plans hold. According to this Bloomberg article (via Sullivan), "Armor Holdings Inc., the sole supplier of protective plates for the Humvee military vehicles used in Iraq, said it could increase output by as much as 22 percent per month with no investment and is awaiting an order from the Army.

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday the Army was working as fast as it can and supply is dictated by "a matter of physics, not a matter of money.'' A Pentagon spokeswoman declined comment.

Jacksonville, Florida-based Armor Holdings last month told the Army it could add armor to as many as 550 of the trucks a month, up from 450 vehicles now, Robert Mecredy, president of the company's aerospace and defense group, said in an interview today.

"We're prepared to build 50 to 100 vehicles more per month,'' Mecredy said in the telephone interview. "I've told the customer that and I stand ready to do that.

Why the hold-up? My guess -- and I'm checkng up on this now -- is that money for armor (especially truck armor) wasn't even in the Pentagon's budget in the first place. Rather, Rummy & Co. decided to put off funding for such projects into a second, "supplemental" bill for Congress to pass.

Manehwile, the Times gangs up on the armor issue, and gives us some great color from Kuwait:

At the transit camps in Kuwait, Army and Marine Corps drivers weld antishrapnel collars onto the hoods of their trucks, to deflect exploding debris while maintaining visibility. Sandbags are laid on the floors of Humvees, trimming the skimpy legroom from economy class to steerage. On the battlefield, there is an air of resigned acquiescence about the lack of armor, rather than bitter complaints. Among units that lack armored Humvees, the mood 20 months into the war tends more to black jokes than to recrimination.

"If they i.e.d. you in this thing, there won't be enough of you left to package up and send home," a Marine sergeant said earlier this week, as he showed embedded reporters to one of three open-backed Humvees assigned to a raid on a suspected rebel stronghold raid south of Baghdad. Among troops in Iraq, i.e.d., for improvised explosive device, is shorthand for the roadside bombs that have killed about two-thirds of Americans who have died in combat.

At briefings, commanders resort often to an old Marine adage, "Improvise, adjust, overcome," and are dismissive of complaints.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001268.html

posted December 19, 2004 03:08 PM              

the more stable elements among conservatives have no trouble admitting that "post major combat operations" were not particularly brilliantly planned ...

*************

U.S. military deserve a better defense secretary
BY WILLIAM KRISTOL www.weeklystandard.com

``As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.''

-- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in a Dec. 8 town-hall meeting with soldiers at Camp Buehring in Kuwait.

Actually, we have a pretty terrific Army. It has performed a lot better in this war than the secretary of defense has. President Bush has nonetheless decided to stick for now with the defense secretary we have, perhaps because Bush doesn't want to make a change before the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections.But surely Don Rumsfeld is not the defense secretary Bush should want to have for the remainder of his second term.

Contrast the magnificent performance of our soldiers with the arrogant buck-passing of Rumsfeld. Begin with the rest of his answer to Spec. Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee Army National Guard:

``Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe -- it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment. I can assure you that Gen. Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly Gen. Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they're working at it at a good clip.''

So the Army is in charge. ''They'' are working at it. Rumsfeld? He happens to hang out in the same building: ''I've talked a great deal about this with a team of people who've been working on it hard at the Pentagon. . . . And that is what the Army has been working on.'' Not ''that is what we have been working on.'' Rather, ''that is what the Army has been working on.'' The buck stops with the Army.

At least the topic of those conversations isn't boring. Indeed, Rumsfeld assured the troops who have been cobbling together their own armor, ''It's interesting.'' In fact, ''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.'' Good point. Why have armor at all?

Incidentally, can you imagine if John Kerry had made such a statement a couple of months ago? It would have been (rightly) a topic of scorn and derision among my fellow conservatives, and not just among conservatives.

Perhaps Rumsfeld simply had a bad day. But then, what about his statement earlier last week, when asked about troop levels? ''The big debate about the number of troops is one of those things that's really out of my control.'' Really? Well, ``the number of troops we had for the invasion was the number of troops that Gen. Franks and Gen. Abizaid wanted.''

Leave aside these facts:

• The issue is not ''the number of troops we had for the invasion'' but rather the number of troops we have had for postwar stabilization.

• Gen. Tommy Franks had projected that he would need a 250,000 troops on the ground for that task -- and that his civilian superiors had mistakenly promised him that tens of thousands of international troops would be available.

• Rumsfeld has only grudgingly and belatedly been willing to adjust even a little bit to realities on the ground since April 2003.

• If our generals have been under pressure not to request more troops in Iraq for fear of stretching the military too thin, this is a consequence of Rumsfeld's refusal to increase the size of the military after Sept. 11.

In any case, decisions on troop levels in the American system of government are not made by any general or set of generals but by the civilian leadership of the war effort. Rumsfeld acknowledged this last week, after a fashion: ''I mean, everyone likes to assign responsibility to the top person, and I guess that's fine.'' Except that he fails to take responsibility.

All defense secretaries in wartime have, needless to say, made misjudgments. Some have stubbornly persisted in their misjudgments. But have any so breezily dodged responsibility and so glibly passed the buck?

In last Sunday's New York Times, John F. Burns quoted from the weekly letter to the families of his troops by Lt. Col. Mark A. Smith, an Indiana state trooper who now commands the 2nd Battalion, 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, stationed just south of Baghdad:

''Ask yourself, how in a land of extremes, during times of insanity, constantly barraged by violence, and living in conditions comparable to the stone ages, your Marines can maintain their positive attitude, their high spirit, and their abundance of compassion?'' Col. Smith's answer: ``They defend a nation unique in all of history: One of principle, not personality; one of the rule of law, not landed gentry; one where rights matter, not privilege or religion or color or creed. . . . They are United States Marines, representing all that is best in soldierly virtues.''

These soldiers deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have.

William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard.

©2004 The Washington Post