RUMSFELD SET UP; REPORTER PLANTED QUESTIONS WITH SOLDIER (DRUDGE SIREN)

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 media hates Rumsfeld. Interesting this guys emphasis on the NYtimes. This is what Rumsfeld has said about the NY times in the past:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/rumsfeld.htm

Q What are your expectations for the donors' conference? I mean, why this bit of optimism that the Gulf states are going to come through?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I haven't expressed any optimism. Have I? Or pessimism, either one. Have I?

Q There were some unnamed officials in The New York Times today who were --

SEC. RUMSFELD: Ohhh, those folks again! (Laughter.)

Q Yes.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Ahhh, they're busy little beavers! (Laughter.)

-------

Q: Mr. Secretary, the Bush administration has repeatedly stated it does not want a draft, but there are repeated claims that there are plans in the works to draft certain specialties like doctors, language specialists and computer experts. Do you need and, sir, would you support some sort of selective military draft?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Absolutely not. This is a mischievous political effort that’s being made to frighten young men and women. The truth is we do not need a draft. We’re not going to have a draft. There is a law that exists on the books passed by Congress that requires that there be a selective service system and that it requires that they make assessments from time to time about various skill sets. But there is not a draft. There will not be a draft. I was one of the first people that opposed the draft back in the 1960s when I recommended we move to an all-volunteer service when I was a congressman from the state of Illinois and introduced legislation to achieve what we finally achieved in 1969 and 1970. We’ve got 295 million people in this country. We have 1.4 million on active duty and another 865,000 in the Guard and Reserve. And it is not a problem at all attracting and retaining the people we need to serve in the armed forces. Every one of them is a volunteer.

I just looked at the recruiting numbers here. The Army and the Navy are at 100 percent of their targets in goal; the Marine Corps is at 100 percent and the Air Force is at 101 percent. So the idea that we need a draft is false and mischievous and, in my view, nothing better than a scare technique.

Q: So, sir, you would not even support a selective draft of, say, doctors, which is what came up today in The New York Times?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Look, go back and read that article carefully and then check it for facts. You’ll find we do not have a draft. We do not intend to have a draft. There is no intention to draft doctors or dentists or veterinarians or anything else I can think of…

Q: Mr. Secretary…

SEC. RUMSFELD: … not withstanding what The New York Times may have written.

Q: Back to Iraq, sir, there have been estimates, as you know, the U.S. troops will be required to remain in-country for up to 10 years before that country is able to stand on its own. What’s your best guess of the length of time our active duty component will need to remain in Iraq?

SEC. RUMSFELD: You know, you say “there have been estimates.” Who in the world estimated 10 years? I don’t remember hearing that myself, but do you know, offhand?

Q: It’s been bandied about. It’s been one of the numbers that’s been floated on the campaign trail and by others like that, saying up to 10 years may be a possibility. I take it, by your response, that you’re saying far less than that?

SEC. RUMSFELD: It’s probably the same people who were talking about a draft.

------

MATTHEWS: Colin Powell has called this a second government. In fact, he’s called Feith’s operation a Gestapo –

RUMSFELD: You don’t know that.

MATTHEWS: Well, this is what Bob Woodward has reported in his book.

RUMSFELD: I’m correct when I said you don’t know that. I’ve talked to Colin about it and I think that you ought to ask Colin what he –

MATTHEWS: He has said on the record – I can only get what he’s said on the record. We haven’t gotten to him yet. But he has said that’s something he doesn’t recall saying, so then that’s his cover –

RUMSFELD: And why would you say he said it?

MATTHEWS: Because he says he doesn’t recall saying it.

RUMSFELD: No, but why would you say he said it?

MATTHEWS: Because if he didn’t say it, he would have said I didn’t say that.

RUMSFELD: I see. Is that the code in Washington, DC? Is that the insider code?

MATTHEWS: That would be – that would be – I would think that would be – that (wouldn’t ?) be what I would call a clear-cut denial, Mr. Secretary. So would you. That would be a clear-cut denial. Let me move on here because – it’s just –

RUMSFELD: Listen, the – any thought that that’s a second government is utter nonsense.

MATTHEWS: Separate government. There isn’t a separate –

RUMSFELD: It’s nonsense.

MATTHEWS: And there’s no traffic in intel from the Iraqi National Congress pushing – intel that would support the connection between al Qaeda and Iraq didn’t find its way through these various – these people working here in the Defense Department to the vice –

RUMSFELD: This is the conspiratorial view of the world.

MATTHEWS: No, it’s just – this is in the New York Times yesterday front page.

RUMSFELD: Does that make it so?

Sounds to me like it's not a lack of making the up-armored Humvees but a lack of getting them into the theater.

So to me this just begs the question:

HOW MANY TRANSPORT VEHICLES / VESSELS WERE DECOMMISSIONED DURING THE CLINTON YEARS AND ARE NOT HERE NOW WHEN WE NEED THEM?

Sounds to me like there is much too much finger pointing, blaming going on. We've got our men and woman (only 1 so far) being blown up on a daily basis. And we are sqabbling over whose fault it is.

Rummy, Clinton, Kerry will retire and live happily ever after and die of old age while we have our troops being blown up by IEDs and what not.

I know for a fact that it has been since last year that I watched the hearing on C-Span about inadequate plating for the vehicles. As of last night I understand that they are being updated and shipped in intervals, great.

I would hope that this soldier did not let himself be used by this reporter, I am pleased that the soldier spoke out.

Whew, where to begin? First, if the question was planted, thats completely pathetic on the part of the reporter. But either way, it's a fairly legitimate question. So, let me add my two cents:

There were armored jeeps in WWII, some fairly famous pictures in the Battle of the Bulge. But, as many other FReepers have commented, armor severely slows down your mobility and seriously tasks the engines, which were not designed for that weight. As also commented, Hummers weren't designed to withstand roadside bombs, they were designed for mobility on the battlefield where they are needed in many environments. After the Task Force Ranger battle in Somalia, a recognized need was for a limited number of up-armored Hummers for urban combat.

Now, here's the interesting piece which virtually no one understands. The primary vehicles used by our Special Operations troops did NOT have any armor because they are needed for fast response. These are among the best equipped and best trained and THEY did not initially have these vehicles. Remember the initial Afghanistan ops, the guys were on horseback, with, wait, wait for it...NO ARMOR! Now there's a scandal!

I served in Iraq last year and my vehicle was a Toyota Pickup truck, bought after the 9-11 attacks since they are common in the Arab world. I never felt concerned about an IED since the tactic at the time was the RPG and I drove like hell! As the battle changed from the major combat operations, the emerging insurgents chose the IED as weapon of choice. W have to also change tactics and equipment as well. Did we not have enough, no we did not. Is the system working as hard as it can, I believe so.

Was it a legitimate question, yes. But, I really can't stand the hysteria focused on this SECDEF. IMHO, he's doing an outstanding job.

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.