Yep, it's a troll...
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...
The source DOES invalidate the question.
The STORY of 'we need more armor' has been there for a long time. Its been the top complaint for a few months, much earlier kevlar (now all up) but now for the vehicles.
The NEW thing here is that a solder was 'so mad' that he would publically 'dis' the Sec of Defense in a global televised Q&A. Its THAT part that was engineered by the reporter.
He found a soldier that was willing to 'go that far' and brought him to the Q&A that the reporter wanted to get into. He talked with the solder about the issue, and what points he 'might' like to make. He then talked to the NGO in charge of picking out soldiers for questions to make sure 'his guy' got called. Then he reported on all of it as if it was some 'boiling point' blowup that he had nothing to do with.
Again, what is new here? The 'we need more armor' complaint has been around, the story this time is how Rummy is getting it handed to his face by GI's that are so mad at him they will 'dis' him to his face. Without the reporter setting it all up, the chances of it happening 'naturally' are much lower. Thus by setting it up he distorts reality of the troops level of 'disgust' with the armor situion.
Don't be like those fuggen' libs who feel the HOW of a story doesn't matter if it brings up a good point, or furthers some alterior goal in some indirect way. (IE "Who cares if the reporter set it up, it brings up a good issie"
When you're ready to drive through Iraq in unarmored vehicles come see me. Until then....
Stop mischaracterizing my statements and position on this matter.
Sounds like someone needs a hug. :>
I did comment.
Why do you refuse to accept it?
Or do you not understand what I've said?
Talking to one's self is a sign of impending mental collapse.
"Huh? Rummy going to the troops to ask questions is what a Defense Sec. does."
And Rummy got a question. In my opinion a valid one.
"Stop making excuses for the reporter who tried to mainpulate the honest questions to push his anti-America agenda."
I am not making excuses for the reporter. The reporter was flat out wrong for setting the SecDef up. What I am saying is Rummy knew that could happen. To think otherwise wouldn't be prudent, wouldn't be wise.
There is no excuse for someone, especially a member of the American press to enter a war zone as an embed and show his gratitude by slamming the SecDef.
"I do appreciate YOUR questions however."
Thank you. I also wouldn't have asked that question. I wasn't trying to be facetious here. I haven't read much about the story. From my perspective, any question is a valid question as long as it was asked with respect.
I don't know how the soldier asked the question. I don't know much about a reporter encouraging a soldier to ask it. The only thing I heard was on the radio and that played back the question and the SecDefs response.
The guy was reading the question from a piece of paper.
The reporter sent a memo to his bosses bragging about setting it up.
But facts don't matter when you want to slam those in uniform, or just a convient target like Rumsfeld.
;-)
"So stop asking how dare he ask the question and go to WHY the question was even possible to raise."
Because after Somalia, questions were raised about teh Humvee and teh Clinton brass didn't have teh cojones to change anything.
Clinton cut back on our industrial ability to even armor Humvees I.E. there's only ONE factory capable of producing the armor grade steel used.
And instead of making a vehicle designed for the job, they are taking a two and a half ton light utility truck and asking it to do things it was never meant to do to begin with.
ON TOP OF THAT the reporter set it up.
That's the WHY of it.
Heaven knows this has only been said 900 times to the 'Nth' degree throughout this thread.
Yep, it's a troll...
You're missing the point. This is a unit integrity issue.
I don't think you can point out any slams I made on those in uniform or on Rumsfeld on this issue. But it may be that like many freepers, you will view solid disagreement of the 'party line' as a slam or as bashing. I cannot help your perceptions and inferences.
But I think that if you want to accuse me of slamming the troops you might want to consider where you are and where I am. My job is to support the troops. I don't just talk about it and fly a ribbon on my car or sport a bumpersticker.
My FRiend, I have something at stake in this arguement.
After you've made the drive through Baghdad without armor I might have more regard for your opinion.
I would not be surprised if you have had significantly more tv exposure on this than I have.
But I think that if you saw the vehicles on the road in Iraq you'd think a tad bit differently about it all.
Yep, it looks, sounds and smells like a Hate GW troll.
Well, let's just say this. We worry about our guys in armor, what about the iraqi terorists that are shooting our guys with out it. I can see them laughing at us because our concern now is our armour isn't thick enough to stop them. I firmly believe in making sure that you have as much protection as you can,but nobody was worried about putting armor on the trusty jeep, which the HumVee replaced. We have armoured troop carriers. Besides, from training we would Armour our transports with sandbags. Sure, there would be damage to the vehicle, but on the other side of the sandbag meant a piece of shrapnel didn't get to you
Oh the "It was good enough for our troops 60 years ago, it's good enough for them today" defense?
I think that the troops believe that America can do better.
Do you believe that America can do absolutely no better?
(btw, I don't really think that the AIF really give a dam about what is on the American or world media systems.)
Heck, they've been all over the thread!
*chuckle*
Are you sure anyone has said we CAN'T do better?
Can you provide exact quotes of that?
Really?
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.