Posted on 12/12/2004 11:06:44 PM PST by weegee
In its latest editorial, the Chronicle's editorial board complains about unarmored vehicles in Iraq:
Military supply officers say the problem isn't money, but bottlenecks in the supply of vehicle armor and other equipment. Factories can only produce so much, but the Army's inability to equip 150,000 troops in the field with all the best and latest equipment should be cause for worry.
What? The constraints of time, space and the laws of physics are all Rumsfeld's fault? The editors also pass up an opportunity to salvage some semblance of ethics in journalism:
Reports that the soldiers' questions were prompted by an embedded news reporter make them no less relevant and deserving of an answer. If the soldiers didn't phrase the questions, the cheers of their comrades confirmed that the concerns they expressed were widespread among the ranks.
First of all, there were not soldiers asking about armor. It was one soldier. And more importantly, he was prompted by a spineless reporter who was worried that he might actually have to face danger! (In his bragging email, the reporter decided to plant the question "as soon as I found out I would be on an unarmored truck.")
But, as we know, the Chron doesn't care a whole lot about ethics or quality.
the reporter is a Pu$$Y....I drive around in and outside of camp (well I did up until July, I dont have too anymore Thank God!!) in an unarmored civilian vehicle.
It sucks, but you got to suck it up and do the job. NOt that I would expect that from the vulture press....
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.