Posted on 12/09/2004 9:22:17 AM PST by Nascardude
Edited on 12/09/2004 10:05:10 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
RUMSFELD SET UP; REPORTER PLANTED QUESTIONS WITH SOLIDER
Thu Dec 09 2004 11:49:38 ET
Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter Edward Lee Pitts is embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team, now in Kuwait preparing to enter Iraq, and is filing articles for his newspaper. Pitts claims in a purported email that he coached soldiers to ask Defense Secretary Rumsfeld questions!
From: EDWARD LEE PITTS, Chattanooga Times Free Press military reporter
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2004 4:44 PM
To: Staffers
Subject: RE: Way to go
I just had one of my best days as a journalist today. As luck would have it, our journey North was delayed just long enough see I could attend a visit today here by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. I was told yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions so I brought two of them along with me as my escorts. Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have. While waiting for the VIP, I went and found the Sgt. in charge of the microphone for the question and answer session and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd.
So during the Q&A session, one of my guys was the second person called on. When he asked Rumsfeld why after two years here soldiers are still having to dig through trash bins to find rusted scrap metal and cracked ballistic windows for their Humvees, the place erupted in cheers so loud that Rumsfeld had to ask the guy to repeat his question. Then Rumsfeld answered something about it being "not a lack of desire or money but a logistics/physics problem." He said he recently saw about 8 of the special up-armored Humvees guarding Washington, DC, and he promised that they would no longer be used for that and that he would send them over here. Then he asked a three star general standing behind him, the commander of all ground forces here, to also answer the question. The general said it was a problem he is working on.
The great part was that after the event was over the throng of national media following Rumsfeld- The New York Times, AP, all the major networks -- swarmed to the two soldiers I brought from the unit I am embedded with. Out of the 1,000 or so troops at the event there were only a handful of guys from my unit b/c the rest were too busy prepping for our trip north. The national media asked if they were the guys with the armor problem and then stuck cameras in their faces. The NY Times reporter asked me to email him the stories I had already done on it, but I said he could search for them himself on the Internet and he better not steal any of my lines. I have been trying to get this story out for weeks- as soon as I foud out I would be on an unarmored truck- and my paper published two stories on it. But it felt good to hand it off to the national press. I believe lives are at stake with so many soldiers going across the border riding with scrap metal as protection. It may be to late for the unit I am with, but hopefully not for those who come after.
The press officer in charge of my regiment, the 278th, came up to me afterwords and asked if my story would be positive. I replied that I would write the truth. Then I pointed at the horde of national media pointing cameras and mics at the 278th guys and said he had bigger problems on his hands than the Chattanooga Times Free Press. This is what this job is all about - people need to know. The solider who asked the question said he felt good b/c he took his complaints to the top. When he got back to his unit most of the guys patted him on the back but a few of the officers were upset b/c they thought it would make them look bad. From what I understand this is all over the news back home.
Thanks,
Lee
EDWARD LEE PITTS FILED STORY ABOUT THE TROOPS BEFORE THE POW-WOW WITH RUMSFELD
Developing...
Domestic enemy Pitt's pre-meditated IED (Internal Enemies Device) ties directly to foreign enemies IEDs.
Please don't crucify me for asking this, but was it a legitimate question, regardless of who asked it and why?
I believe he was giving a honest question but at the same time he was giving off information about our vulnerablities. Now the enemy knows to attack National Guard Humvees at certain areas because they lacked armor. What happen in WWII? What was production liked? Did our troops have everything after being downsized after WWI? No, they have to produce it. All our industies went into war effort. Can we do this today with current labor laws and union rules?
I'm sure all through history our fighting men did not have everything they needed. I'm sure the Flying Fortresses were not armored. The guys who sat in the domes underneath these planes didn't have any protection except guts and he didn't announce it to the world about how vulnerable he was.
Could the question/concern have been transmitted on a piece of paper to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld? We are at war.
I have to say that when I was in the Army, we discussed the non-existent door and back protection on that slow as molasses
humvee. Even the old blazers at least had some sheet metal between you and small arms fire. In the humvee you can forget making a hasty exit; you basically became a very slow moving sitting duck. They would have been better off giving the old blazers some real off road tires and polycarbonate windows and
armor plated doors. I believe the company that produced the humvee was the same one that came up with such unforgettable classics as the AMC pacer and the gremlin. I'm all for american companies getting the business of the armed services but surely they could have found something faster-stronger-lighter than that slow diesel humvee (and did I mention they break down alot?).
Let's look at some vehicles that are better- GM duramax turbodiesel with allison 5-speed (with perf. chip) crew cab 4x4 truck. (Fast, reliable,comfortable,pull anything,uses off the shelf parts).
Nissan Titan crew cab 4x4. 305 hp, reliable, fast comfortable.
Ford powerstroke diesel in 4x4 crew cab.
Any other suggestions?
I am interested in protecting the troops, but if anyone believes this reporter gives a rat's rear end about protecting our troops, I have a bridge to sell you. Rumsfield opening himself up for questions - I give him credit for that, and I believe it's a legitimate issue raised. And I don't fault the Guardsman for asking the question - it's how he asked it I have a problem with - the disrepect he showed - and it's that disrespect the media loves.
The media and the terrorists have less than two months to derail the elections in Iraq and that is what this is about - undermining the war effort - period. The guardsman allowed himself to be used so the reporter could have a "gotcha moment" against Rumsfield. I haven't read all the 1000 replies before mine, but if in the end our troops are more protected, then that is the bottom line and will be a good thing. The bad thing is how this was carried out as it seems to me, we have just emphasized even more to our enemies what our weaknesses are and this might even endanger our troops more and it may create the impression of dissension in our troops against Rumsfield and against the war, which might embolden our enemies more.
But then isn't that really what the reporter wants anyway, and if that sounds a bit cynical, well, just look how the media relishes reporting deaths of our troops. Our media is our enemy, and they aren't even trying to hide it anymore as they've given us plenty of reason to question their motives and agenda. And whether to undermine our war effort and aid and abet our enemy - or whether purely for self-serving reasons - the reporter's damage has been done - but if in the end this helps our troops to be more protected, then that is what matters most. But the way this has gone down was intended, by the reporter, to undermine Rumsfield and undermine our war effort. But, in the end, this just might backfire on the reporter as hopefully our troops will become more protected, which will help the war effort by maybe helping the morale of the troops and by reducing troop casualties.
The law of unintended consequences, Mr. Reporter - careful what you wish for.
I am not an Islamofascist lover as apparently you are. I don't ascribe humanity to people that saw off peoples heads. attack women and children in marketplaces trying to by a little food. No I don't think the terrorists are human.
I suspected that to. He was just to smooth. Most soldiers would have said. Where is our armor?
There was some applause, as I've noted. I'll not hype or under-report the response.
I'm being real.
That means your comprehension skills need tweaking.
"So I take it by your statement you support government control of the media in certain cases. Yep, that's a conservative position..."
It's not about government control of the media. It's about media not using common sense which they seem to have little use for.
It's also about reporters who are actually supporting an antiwar agenda and a left wing bias in their reporting.
I don't think we should control these reporters, I think we should shoot them.
The answer to that is probably yes. Let's assume for a moment that the reporter didn't feed the question and the enlisted man asks it on his own, does this violate the chain of command?
We are at war and Rummy showing up in a war zone and asking for feedback wasn't exactly the best move. I love Rummy and think he is doing a fantastic job. However, saying that, he opened himself up to this and knowing that some reporter will probably try this, still let it happen.
I had this thought last night about WW2 - thanks for posting it. Although there is not a one of us who doesn't want our guys to have absolutely any and every thing to keep them safe - it is impossible to put them in a bubble. Maybe one day technology will do just that - but yet and not in this war. God bless and keep our fighting men/women.
The issue was legitimate. I have not criticized it, though I correctly and accurately noted from day one (that would be the day before yesterday; the day before the reporter's role in forming and framing the question---and making sure it got on mike, which strikes me as unfair to other troops with questions, but I disgress), that the media was grossly mischaracterizing Rumsfeld's response.
Some with standing (in the service, over there, etc) have noted the soldier's phrasing bordered on disrepectful and antagonistic and I think that is a fair assessment, but my point has always been that the media has focused on "the question" and completely ignored "the answer" as well as looking into facts surrounding that answer.
Huh? Rummy going to the troops to ask questions is what a Defense Sec. does.
Stop making excuses for the reporter who tried to mainpulate the honest questions to push his anti-America agenda.
That I do not know. I do know that if I were a young soldier given the opportunity to speak to the Secretary of Defense, I would not have asked that question. It would be a little bit of intimidation but mostly out of respect.
I do appreciate YOUR questions however.
How's that koolaid taste? I haven't had mine yet.
How's that koolaid taste? I haven't had mine yet.
I don't drink kool-aid.
I am accurate and honest and perceptive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.