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...
Do you realy think that Kerry will allow an open forum?Especially now?
I don't.
cyn, we all wish the ratmedia would check out the facts. But that takes REAL journalism. And as we know. They will never let a fact get in the way of a good anti-American story.
The complaints need to stay within the family and should not be aired to the fifth columnists within the press
And you come across, though I'm sure it's unintentional, as an apologist for the fourth estate.
From yesterday's Star-Telegram:
Marines in Iraq say armor is fine
By Katarina Kratovac
The Associated PressNEAR FALLUJAH, Iraq - Marines patrolling the former insurgent stronghold of Fallujah -- some in open Humvees -- say they've had some close calls but "get by well" with the vehicle and body armor they have.
"I think the armor we have for the vehicles is getting better, and our body armor is OK; I have nothing against it," Sgt. Aaron D'Amico said Wednesday.
Told about complaints from soldiers who told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld earlier Wednesday that they lacked armored vehicles and other equipment, D'Amico said, "I'd definitely opt for higher production of armor, but the Marines get by well with what we have."
D'Amico, 24, of Cleveland, Ohio, said his unit, the 1st Battalion of the 8th Marine Regiment, received new, upgraded vehicle armor a year ago, with Kevlar-protected seats. D'Amico's only complaint is that the open-roof Humvee provides no protection at the back.
The armor the Marines receive is "usually leftovers from the Army; the Army usually gets the better stuff," he said.
Capt. Joe Winslow, 36, of Dallas said the lifesaver has been not so much the armor but the tactics of the Marines.
"It's the aggressive convoy procedures, paying attention to the basics, vigilance by the gunner and the driver," Winslow said.
Winslow said he had just seen on television footage of the soldiers' exchange with Rumsfeld and was "surprised" because the armor we have is "top notch."
"I don't know why they said what they said. I can't speak for another person," he said.
Cpl. Adam Golden, 21, of New York agreed that the armor they have is serving them well, but said he would prefer "castled-in armor," especially armor over the Humvee's open canopy.
"Our body armor stops appropriate rounds, and it works great to save lives," Golden said.
Cpl. Joshua Munns said it isn't easy to make the best armor.
"It has to be tested against the heaviest weapons infantry would encounter," said Munns, 21, of Redding, Calif.
Oh, so YOU haven't heard complaints....I see...YOU know what is going on in Iraq...YOU have the inside scoop, eh?
And guess what? Those who can get steel plates don't tend to complain, those that don't do. Not all. Not all the time.
And you also have to realize that there is generally a lot of denial of mortality in theater. A lot. A shrug of the shoulders, "hey, if it's my time, it's my time" is what most say.
But I'm sure you already know that.
Oh, BTW, your view of things is so skewed and knee jerk that you haven't an objective bone in your body left. You are part of the collective groupthink on FR.
The complaints need to stay within the family and should not be aired to the fifth columnists within the press.
Guess what?
THE PRESS ALREADY KNOWS!!!
They've had inbred and embeds since day one. They've seen more than YOU.
Rumsfield opened the floor. The question was righteous and unclassified and been a topic of discussion for about a year and a half now. No secrets; no new news.
I think Rumsfeld was a bit emabarrased or at least caught off guard and that is what bothers you more than anything else!
To me, the reaction was pretty significant. We don't serve any purpose denying that.
Nobody is denying some applauded, so how am I "denying it"?
I am not hyping it into the characterizations that were erroneously described here along the lines of "everyone erupted" and "they all cheered" and so on.
Again, it is fine that the question was asked, but why do you say it "had to be"? From *the answer* and *the facts* it is an issue Rumsfeld and the DoD and the generals were aware of and have been in the process of addressing.
By framing it as "it had to be asked", you imply "or else it would be ignored" and that is the problem many of us had with the way the topic is being handled.
Really?
How do you come up with that deduction when he starts off the reply saying he'd just been discussing the issue before coming out to take questions?! That demonstrates he was
a) aware of the issue
and
b) fully prepared to address it which he proceeded to do in a lengthy, thoughtful and detailed answer.
I fail to detect "embarrasment" except the media's mischaracterization of his answer and there is zero evidence he was "caught off guard".
I realize that the story about insufficient armor on Humvees has been previously reported, but for the reservist to ask a question on the subject in front of a biased media is naive at best. The news media is not the friend it once was. This type of reporting would not have been allowed during World War Two, and is a direct by-product of the 1960s anti-American media.
It is simple. If there was no need, there would be no questions.
And if everyone believed that they were getting the best there was in a timely fashion there would be few questions.
IMO, the real problem is that not enough really believe that the issues are being addressed adequately.
There isn't much bitching about stop losses and LAST YEAR I met reservists who were on their second rotation and some who were getting extended by some loopholes via switched UIC's. But they didn't gripe much because they beleived that there were no other options.
But with the armor and the HUMVEEs, there is enough doubt that the best effort is being expended to support the troops that these questions rise to the surface.
So stop asking how dare he ask the question and go to WHY the question was even possible to raise.
Your fierce defense of Rumsfeld only verifies my earlier remarks.
Do you really believe that he expected that question from the troops? I don't. He's good on his feet, but even the best can be surprised.
A few things have changed since WWII. Among them are different attitudes.
These open forums often get questions about housing, rotations, replacement parts, general logistics, etc. IMO, this was a question that a lot of troops wished that they cold have asked but didn't.
Yeah, sure, there's one in every crowd. But I'll bet that there is more emphasis put on armor now than if the question was not asked.
Want to take me up on that bet?
Here's the issue: Was there popular support for the soldiers question? Is the premise of his question widely held amongst the rank and file? Yes on both counts.
the facts...
I have underscored I have no problem with the question.
That you ignore facts in favor of pursuing your agenda speaks volumes.
I'll admit you probably spend a lot more time watching TV than I do. Heck, I don't even get much radio. So you've probably seen the replays over and over and over.
I haven't. About all I get is an infrequent brief radio news update and what I get off of FR.
So I'm not ignoring any facts. You have your opinions which are strongly colored with a pro-Rumsfeld bias and there's nothing wrong with that until you get to the denial stage you are in now.
The question was valid, was and is on the minds of a lot of troops, and seems to have surprised Rumsfeld. I don't think he expected it, there for making it "unexpected". Something that is unexpected is usually called a "surprise".
But you still seem more interested in Rumsfeld's defense than the troop's defense.
Are they getting the best America has or just enough to get by for now?
IMO, there are plenty of troops who really believe in the latter.
You might know that if you ate you meals with them.
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.