We're waiting to hear who the reporter was who set this up.
It might be handy to have the exchange posted here for easy reference. I found it here at The Corner:
Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. My question is more logistical. We’ve had troops in Iraq for coming up on three years and we’ve always staged here out of Kuwait. Now why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromise ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles and why don’t we have those resources readily available to us? [Applause]
SEC. RUMSFELD: I missed the first part of your question. And could you repeat it for me?
Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. Our soldiers have been fighting in Iraq for coming up on three years. A lot of us are getting ready to move north relatively soon. Our vehicles are not armored. We’re digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that’s already been shot up, dropped, busted, 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.
SEC. RUMSFELD: I talked to the General coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they’re not needed, to a place here where they are needed. I’m told that they are being – the Army is – I think it’s something like 400 a month are being done. And it’s essentially a matter of physics. 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.
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.
I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General 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. It’s interesting, I’ve talked a great deal about this with a team of people who’ve been working on it hard at the Pentagon. And 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. And you can go down and, the vehicle, the goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops. And that is what the Army has been working on.
And General Whitcomb, is there anything you’d want to add to that?
GEN. WHITCOMB: Nothing. [Laughter] Mr. Secretary, I’d be happy to. That is a focus on what we do here in Kuwait and what is done up in the theater, both in Iraq and also in Afghanistan. As the secretary has said, it’s not a matter of money or desire; it is a matter of the logistics of being able to produce it. The 699th, the team that we’ve got here in Kuwait has done [Cheers] a tremendous effort to take that steel that they have and cut it, prefab it and put it on vehicles. But there is nobody from the president on down that is not aware that this is a challenge for us and this is a desire for us to accomplish.
SEC. RUMSFELD: The other day, after there was a big threat alert in Washington, D.C. in connection with the elections, as I recall, I looked outside the Pentagon and there were six or eight up-armored humvees. They’re not there anymore. [Cheers] [Applause] They’re en route out here, I can assure you. Next. Way in the back. Yes.
Full transcript
You'd think the media would learn a lesson from ALL the other times they've been caught
Thanks for posting the full transcript. After reading the question and the response, I have no problem with either. I thought the question was appropriate (whether pushed by a reporter or not) as was Mr. Rumsfield's response. The problem I see is in the presentation by the national press. The spin is "abandoned, disheartened soldiers" and "cavalier Rumsfield". The full response in context shows neither.
It's not enough that he's bragging about invalidating a Q&A with the Secretary of Defense. He can't even brag about it in his native language. No shame. But then, you have to be willing to admit there is such as thing as right and wrong before you can be ashamed of anything, no? That disqualifies leftists.
Reminds me of the WWII worthless Sherman tanks that were constantly breaking down, needing off-the-cuff & creative repairs. Not that it's desirable or even happening now, but the soldiers at that time did what they had to do and didn't whine to the press about it like these guys.
there were six or eight up-armored humvees. They’re not there anymore.
and that's supposed to be a good thing.
This jerk is just trying to cover his A$$. His jubilation at having come through with a Gotcha moment far outweighs his feigned concern for the troops safety. Note: He didn't ask the question himself but had his nominees expose themselves to potential problems so he could get his Scoop. Embeds are a BAD idea, just ask the Marine who shot the Terrorist rather than expose himself AND his Embedded snitch to a possible suicide bombing. Barf!
Now, I see absolutely nothing wrong with troops wishing to have this problem addressed conferring with a professional wordsmith to best put together their question prior to the Q&A.
In other words, the soldiers involved knew that asking their embedded reporter how best to compose the question maximized the chances of it being publicized. They perceive a problem, they want to get the word out, they want results.
What in the world is wrong with any of this? Judging by the transcript, the question was posed tactfully, the answer given fully and honestly.
This is not "insubordination", it's an honest plea that, I'd imagine, these soldiers have been making for months on end. The journalist did not "plant" these soldiers, only helped them better refine their question; to suggest otherwise is to suggest this reporter acted as some sort of puppetmaster, pulling the strings of some idiot soldier who can't think for himself.
Many of you Dittoheads get angry when liberals accuse you of being "mind-numbed robots"; suggesting this soldier was just some patsy incapable of independent thought is no less insulting.
good post cyn.
hope all is well.
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.
Above is the NEWS it received.
Below is the first paragraph of the answer left out from the beginning.
SEC. RUMSFELD: I talked to the General coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they’re not needed, to a place here where they are needed. I’m told that they are being – the Army is – I think it’s something like 400 a month are being done. And it’s essentially a matter of physics. 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.
Man I'm pi$$-off big time again at these jerks in the MSM.
Anyone hear on the Chris Core Show WMAL that the company that made this armor could make more, but was not asked to do so? If it's not a matter of money or desire but of "logistics" -- and if the company has been able to make more but not doing so because they haven't been asked to do so -- than someone at the Pentagon needs to figure out the "logistics" of ordering it.