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....