Troops hate America

Disgrunted U.S. soldiers complained to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumself on Wednesday about the lack of armor for their vehicles and long deployments, drawing a blunt retort from the Pentagon chief.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense.

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

"You go to war with the Army you have," he said in a rare public airing of rank-and-file concerns among the troops.
_________________________________________________

How dare these troops question authority, they must hate our freedoms.

"60 Minutes" ran a story about this 3 weeks ago.

QUIT second guessing and doubting our mighty leader.

[ December 08, 2004, 07:05 AM: Message edited by: maxallen ]

Amid all these sarcastic "How dare yous..." etc, have these troops been punished for asking these questions? Not that I've heard of so far. It's great that we live in a country where troops can openly question their military leaders. In some places such troops would probably be executed or imprisoned. In Iraq under Saddam Hussein, for example, they would have - yet most of you guys who want to paint Rummy as some sort of fascist wanted Saddam to stay in power.

Dear Troops,

Quit your whining, Jesus will be your body armor.

Love,
Red States

Our Leader.

Funny, when liberals ask questions about how the war is being run, we're told to stop whining and to get over it, Bush won. (Not saying that's happened on this board, but on other boards and in print.)

I dont know. Since you were the biggest war cheerleader why dont you be a man, go sign up and then you can report back to us.

Oh, but Im sure you have some good excuse why you support others doing the fighting but not yourself.

Dear Raze,

Please make up your mind as to WHO is the biggest war cheerleader. We can't keep up with all of the flip-flops.

Always Yours,

The Other War Cheerleaders

[ December 08, 2004, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: PhillyFan ]

Aside from the partisan sniping about this, there is a real issue that, once again, the administration does not seem to be planning for. With the heavy use of the National Guard/Reserve troops, and the stop-loss orders for regular troops, how long until the Pentagon starts really losing the PR game and faces a problem recruiting new troops?

There has long been a trend in our nation of family members being dedicated to the military - sons following fathers, siblings following each other - that sort of thing. How exactly does the Pentagon plan to continue attracting new volunteers, never an easy task with the low pay and high sacrifices of a peace-time military, when the prospect of endless war in Iraq and elsewhere, and the chance that once in, you may not be able to get out (even when your time is up)? Certainly the word of mouth going home is not going to be very positive, if the troops are willing to grill the Secretary of Defense.

I know the military claims to be hitting their current recruitment numbers, but that is only satisfactory as long as the stop-loss orders are in place. Sooner or later the Pentagon is going to have to free up some of those troops, perhaps a lot of them, but we're already hearing 5 and 10 year predictions of massive troop levels in Iraq. What plan does our military have to ensure appropriate levels of troops? And are those plans better than their plans for winning the peace in Iraq?

On a more partisan note - this is the one silver lining of the election - the Bush administration will have to deal with the mess it has made, although in the end the American people may actually be the losers.

Re your first point, I don't really trust military claims that they're hitting recruitment numbers. They've probably set low figures and are hitting them, kind of like how the Soviet Union used to claim it's harvests or industrial production exceeded the figures in the latest 5 year plan by 200%. We all know where the Soviets ended up.

Re your second point, I agree. On Imus this morning, Sen. Joe Biden said he was in Iraq recently and a very high ranking military official in Iraq (probably a general since Biden described him as someone with stars on his uniform) waited for the noise of their helicopter's rotors to start up so others couldn't hear him say to Biden, "anyone who tells you we've got enough soldiers on the ground is full of b_ll sh_t."

I'd like to see one of the Bush twins enlist and volunteer to be sent to Iraq. FDR had sons who fought in WWII, and i beleive both Jenna and Barbara are now unemployed.

I cannot believe that people are on this telling the troops to stop whining...are you mad. How would you like it if you were out there fighting and did not have the proper protection? Having served myself, trust me it sucks and allot of the equipment that we had sucked as well.

It angers me when I hear things like this. Having my brother over in Falluja and my father just come back and tell me 'REAL' horror stories about what they face on a day to day is just horrific. People have the right and should exercise there right to free speech, if you honestly think we are doing a great job and have enough and adequate equipment over there then why not sign up yourselves?

I say whine, whine, till you come home, your country is behind you 100%, but your president let you and everyone down, cause he is an IDIOT!

Well, we all know Jen'nTonic and Barbara are not going to enlist.

Who Id like to see enlist:
The able bodied "men" who cheer for war on the sidelines, as long as their ass is not on the line. When asked why they dont stand up for what they believe in...the excuses flow like vomit.

I have a few good friends over there now and some of the supplies are very very hard to come by. Its a damn shame and no excuse for this at all.

I hope the guy is not in trouble for speaking out but I'm not so sure. I do admire the guy for speaking up!!

It took balls for that particular soldier to speak up. Good for him. Like gee, you'd think with the defense department sucking like what, 1/3 or more, of the U.S. budget that they could find enough things like armor and such for our troops? The buck stops at Shrub's desk.

[ December 08, 2004, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

And again, we're all lucky to live in a country in which complaints like this can be aired publicly by our troops without fear of death or imprisonment. Under Saddam Hussein, soldiers would most likely have been killed for saying something like this. Perhaps yall like it that way, since you wanted Saddam to stay in power.

Also, has anyone considered the fact this was orchestrated or at least known about in advance? I can't imagine a visit by the Secretary of Defense being too unscripted.

And again, William is lucky to live in a country where chickenhawks can wrap themselves in the flag and stand on the sidelines while real men (and women) do the actual fighting.

sorry, but someone's searching just a little too hard for this cloud's silver lining. america is a greater country than you give it credit for. we should not have to choose the hussein regime as a standard for comparison in order to look good or "feel lucky".

this is the greatest country in the history of the world, but that doesn't mean it and its leaders are beyond criticism. and when the emperor has no clothes, i applaud the person who has the courage stand up and say so! and i applaud this soldier.

but i can't sit back while someone points out how lucky this soldier is because he is treated so much better than the standard set by pre-war iraq.

no! america should be the standard which all others judge themselves against and aspire to. our soldiers should go into combat as the best trained and equipped in the world. there is no excuse for less!

no i don't feel lucky that this soldier is able to say things an iraqi soldier wouldn't have been allowed to say. i feel ashamed that this soldier has to say these things at all!

Oooooo. I have an idea.

Actually, it's a ressurected GOP idea from the late 1960's and early 1970's.

Why not take all the unemployed people, draft them, and then send them to where they are needed.

Just hink, the unemployement rate will drop, they'll learn a trade, the US will be able to meet it's troop levels, and the unemployment payouts will drop dramatically.

Oh, wait. Can't do that. Too many unemployed Bubba's would actually have to get off their fat asses and do something other that drink and spit.

Now we can't have good RED state men going to war can we?

//end sarcasm

Will,

I am not going to fall into you want "Saddam to stay in power" BS, what I will say is: when you put 'other' people in harms way, should you or should you NOT make damn sure that EVERYTHING is in place? If you are the president of the USA, you have people thinking for you all the time. You have a strategy to enter and to exit, and you have all your little advisors, advising you on what to do in case this happens and in the event of that happening. NONE was thought through.

Saddam was an EVIL man we all know that...did we want him in power. NO. To lie about it and blame everyone but yourself! Now that is UN-PATRIOTIC!

'Orchestrated' ? No my friend it was NOT 'orchestrated' those were PATRIOTIC, soldiers carrying out there duty, excursing there right to free speech! Hey they defend it, why not use it. Yes WILL, even soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors can sometimes disagree with there Commander In Chief!

Especially when they know he went out of his way not to walk in their shoes when he had the chance.

LKS, The plan you refer to was not GOP in origin but was another nasty by-product of LBJ's Great Society, much of which still dogs us. Once Nixon became President in '69, talk of ending the draft began in earnest, but for some of us it came too late. Not until 1973 did the Democratic-led Congress fail to reauthorize it, but by then I was already out of boot camp and at sea.

There is no excuse for an underequipped, underpaid, undermanned and unappreciated military. Shame on all those whose budget appropriations votes put the troops in the precarious position they are today! :mad:

I absolutely agree. Its criminal. Its Treasonous. It is reprehensible and morally unjustifiable.

The Commander who sent them into harms way underequipped, underpaid, undermanned, on a dubious mission without the support of our allies should be dismissed, striped of rank, or worse.

Unfortunately 51% of the American Public just voted for him.

I do not believe they (the troops)are underappreciatted. It is because of their service and personal sacrafice that I (and many others) am so angry at the current Administration for it's total disregard of 'objective reality' in its pandering to super corporations and its blind quest for ideological purity at the expense of the common citizen-soldier.

Sincerely,

One pissed off Vet.

Rob

P.S.> On another note - According to CNS A chaplain at the central US Army Hospital in Baghdad is desperately requesting used clothing for our soldiers there. They arrive straight from the battlefield with little or nothing. The Army won't issue clothing to them because its not their duty station or permanent destination or does not have the supplies to do so. Consequently these wounded soldiers often have nothing but sheets. Donations of Shoes, Loose fitting clothing (including sweats and t-shirts) and new underclothes are requested.

Father Robert Cannon, a U.S. military chaplain stationed in Iraq stated "they arrive just with the clothing that they are wearing, since often they are away from their gear and base when they are wounded or injured," he told Catholic News Service via e-mail. Father Cannon said clothing donations would help augment the few meager items of clothing the hospital already has in stock. He said that often the soldiers are in and out of the hospital so quickly and sent to medical facilities in Europe or the United States that they do not have time to retrieve their belongings."

You can not possibly imagine how ANGRY (how incredibly FURIOUS) and UPSET I am at having to write the above paragraph.

Donations may be sent to Father Robert Cannon C/o US Army Hospital, Baghdad.

The military is NOT meeting its recruitment goals, they are down across the board. They are only at 'non-emergency' levels through the stoppage of retirements and through lengthened tours. MANY who signed up for a nice four year stint will shortly be entering their sixth (6th) year of active duty soon.

Rob

Something like this predates both Nixon and LBJ.

Civilian Conservation Corps

A Brief History of the CCC

Hoover - underrated as always.

[ December 08, 2004, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

Because Hoover bowed to his republican corporate fat cat friends.

It took FDR to implement the program.

Which BTW the Rep's fought tooth and nail all the way.

Rob

Well, I can see I'm going to have to do this again.

[quote]twin58:
QUOTE]Well, I can see I'm going to have to do this again.[/URL]

...Rescuing children ... feeding the hungry, regardless of their politics ... these are accomplishments anyone could be proud of.[/quote][/QUOTE]

Oh - I agree. He is one of whose accomplishments are frequently overlooked. I even think that - like J Carter - he was a highly moral and trustworthy person. A great truly great American.


I just think he was hampered and hamstrung by a group of R Senators and a R Party that was - even then - increasingly the private preserve of the very wealthy. Something he himself noted and warned against; much as did Eisenhower a generation later when (in his farewell speech) he warned us of the dangers of the growth of a 'military industrial complex'.

It took a re-aligning election to allow FDR to institute the needed changes.

Rob

No, Ronald Raygun and W's daddy, George H.W., kept Saddam in power for 8 years as their proxy against Iran, which you and other GOPers seem to forget so conveniently. They armed him, funded him, supported him. HW even gave him tacit approval to march into Kuwait. They're the folks who "wanted Saddam to stay in power."

I doubt this event was scripted, since Rummy doesn't roll that way, unlike his boss. Rummy is such a disgrace it's not even funny, yet despite all his incompetence, he was recently renominated for his post. He should have been drummed out after those soldiers were prosecuted (persecuted?) for the Abu Ghraib scandal, as well as for the other torture episodes. Yet there's been zero accountability. Given that 51% put his boss back in office, I'm surprised he didn't just burst into laughter and mumble incomprehensibly when that poor soldier asked a question people have been asking for months. As Rummy showed, he DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN!

And if our poor fighting men and women r't among the more than 1,200 killed, this might be their fate, especially because of the poorly armed vehicles:

Yahoo! News: More US soldiers survive war wounds

FT, those who have actually watched tape of Rumsfeld in that Q&A session with the troops agree that he comes off as sincere, which he doesn't in the transcript.

Twin, good post on HHoover. He was a great man and a humanitarian who accomplished much, but the nation was ready for a new leader and he had to go.

Unlike the present situation. wink

i, too, agree that rummy comes across as sincere in the audio replays of his q+a with the troops. he also comes across as haughty, arrogant, paternalistic, and callous. it is the fact that he is so sincerely haughty, arrogant, paternalistic, and callous that is so disturbing. in this instance, i'd have preferred a scripted, insincere answer!

Well, I'm sure if yall were running things, everything would be perfect and nobody would have any complaints and we could all hold hands and sing Kumbaya or something. That's not the case. In any situation problems pop up in a number of ways and you address them. To expect perfection in a time of war is absurd, which is, I suspect, why you all are expecting perfection.

If our troops are lacking resources they need, it is due in no small part to the fact that the US military, as wonderful as it is, is still a very large, sprawling bureaucracy, much like the federal government, and there is an inherent inefficiency in such a system. It's still probably the best system, but an imperfect one nonetheless. The goal is to eliminate inefficiencies whenever possible, and this particular soldier did his part to meet that goal. Good for him.

Moreover, it is absolutely valid to compare the US to other countries and show how we are superior. We don't kill troops who dissent or raise questions. Other countries do or, in the case of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, did - and he still would be if the Democrats/leftists had their way and we had not taken him from power. That's not to say not executing troops is the highest standard of excellence or freedom but it is to say that this particular situation shows that America is a free, open nation in which people are free to raise questions, etc., and this is just one small example, among many, of why we're better than the rest of the world.

I agree with Fantomas that perhaps previous administrations were not sufficiently aggressive in removing Saddam from power. Nobody's perfect. I would also point out that if, say, 41 had attempted to finish things off by removing Saddam from power, the Democrats/leftists/UN fetishists would not have been happy, to say the least. At any rate, thank goodness we have a strong leader such as President Bush who is willing to go in and do what others wouldn't - liberate millions of people from tyranny and remove a despot who supported terrorism and thus threatened his neighbors and the rest of the world.

FIN

Thank you Senator Dodd.

I agree with Senator Dodd, 100%. I am still shocked that Rummy said what he did. Dems. in the Armed Services ought to jump all over this, for they have been handed a golden opportunity.

Guess again. As it turns out, a reporter from the Chattanooga Times Free Press named Edward Lee Pitts staged this whole thing.

(Source: ABC News, which picked this up late this morning.)

There was nothing wrong with the question itself. Instead, this staged theatrical event was the problem.

[ December 09, 2004, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Nobody is saying that war can be fought perfectly, but failing to plan adequately for the conflict, not to mention rushing troops into position and then into battle for political/personal ends, as the Bush administration did, is pure incompetence.

The question is, how long has it been since such problems have been identified, and would the military have done anything without this question being asked and the resulting furor beginning. Since the start of the invasion/occupation of Iraq we have heard of problems with pay, with equipment, with misinformation about lengths of service. Many of these issues were left to fester and worsen until the media stepped in, and I doubt they have all been corrected. All of this creates a horrible image of our military, and further degrades our ability to maintain it.

Well, let's take this to its logical conclusion - wouldn't this soldier actually be better off in a country that does not rush headlong into ill-planned and unnecessary wars? Certainly he is free to question why the war is going wrong by virtue of being American, but if he were Canadian, he wouldn't even have to worry about being in a killing zone. Are we really better than the rest of the world when we have a leadership that misleads us into war?

For the observations of someone who was at Secretary Rumsfeld's town hall, check out this soldier's blog.

Sgt Missick: A line in the sand.

Great post, PS! But what does this soldier know? After all, he was only there, witnessing the event as it happened. I wonder if those who claim to "support the troops, just not their leaders" will support THIS trooper?

You'd have thought the mainstream media might have learned something from this past election. It's now more painfully obvious than ever that they haven't learn a damn thing! Rathergate, UCC Closed Gate and now this. Still out there spinning negativity wherever they can - as long it's the President who's in range of their web.

I generally don't respond to you, but I must point out that everything you say here is premised on you being right about everything. I don't think that's the case, but I'm not really in the mood today to take on something as massive as your own sense of self-importance. I won't be addressing this any further.

And now Drudgereport says that a reporter "fed" the questions to the soldier, but if you read the link, you'll find that all the reporter did was make sure the guy pointing people to ask questions made sure that he knew where the reporters soldiers were. (the unit the reporter was travelling with).

Once again Drudge manages to make Rummy smell clean.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcp.htm

And what does that soldier know who was digging around in the trash for scrap metal? And all the soldiers who applauded his question? And the parents of soldiers who have had to send their kids flak jackets?

Put your head back in the sand gmg, you're probably alot more comfortable there.

And I don't like getting into personal sniping, but all I did was disagree that the latest SNAFUs in Iraq were to be expected, or that we should somehow let the military off the hook for this one because they have a massive buearacracy to deal with.

I have never stated that I believe I am "right about everything," nor do I believe that my posts indicate that either.

I am a deeply concerned American citizen who sees what appears to be an unstoppable failure happening in Iraq, a war that is draining our military and financial resources at a time when our country continues to be at great risk from our true enemies (who, as Tommy Thompson pointed out, have many many means to hurt us).

I cannot say for certain that things would have been better if the Bush administration had waited for the inspectors to do their jobs, or had not rushed our military into position for a war in early 2003, or had listened to many experts who cautioned that we had not thought out the complete set of implications of our invading and occupying a sovereign nation, but I have to believe they would not have been worse.

Given the situations in North Korea and, possibly, Iran, I would hate to see the same mistakes made in those countries.

I wonder gmginsfo - do you think the Army enlisted men of his own Platoon and Company, who everyone agrees applauded the questioner, were scripted to?

Regardless of this one incident - several others at the press conference also questioned Sec R regarding the shortage of materials. Were all of them scripted too?

When the MFg's of Body Armor state that sales are up by more than 280% over the last two years - primarily to servicemen; is that too scripted?

Tell me - I made a couple email enquiries.(ALGhanim Industries; 13003 Safat District, Kuwait)- assures me that I can go to GM/Hummer and have a new Hummer ordered- Mil version (not legal for street/road use in the US)- delivered in four weeks (two additional weeks for full body armoring - Total six weeks to delivery date). They will deliver to Kuwait City (My choice of color; Camoflage patterns are a custom paint job and require 72 hours). They are even willing to give me a fleet discount for orders of six or more. BTW - they have two in stock, armored, in desert camo.. The Rotating Pintle Receiver Hitch kit is however on 60 day backorder. So ummm... why can't the US government?

Just curious...

Maybe they should get their HV's through Mr Hamabi.

Rob

[ December 09, 2004, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

Perhaps it would have been more credible had that soldier actually been there, but it seems he was a plant of the reporter who just wanted to get his 15 minutes of fame.

Nice try, Lone Star Man. Come back tomorrow and play.

I wonder if they'll ever learn.

When the gay marriages in San Francisco were happening, for example, and its mayor was defying the law, I kept telling folks here that that wasn't the way to go about changing the law, that it would end up backfiring, setting it back years. Liberals derided me. Even a guy named Joe replied, screaming at the top of his lungs, that gays wouldn't wait anymore, that it was time to do this, the hell with what anyone thought!!! A "Damn the torpedoes!" attitude indeed.

What happened? Massachusetts, San Francisco, that little podunk town in New York State--all this awoke a sleeping giant, resulting in a devastating blow in 11 states on election day. One cannot change people's minds until you change their hearts first.

As usual (and to borrow from CPT, I guess), I was right.

Why do I mention this, gmg? Because they'll never learn.

Well, given that the number of attacks on our troops has increased in the past few months, we sure are changing the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

Unfortunately, it appears to be a change in the wrong direction.

Just my humble opinion, though.

:confused: Huh? Are we reading the same blog by Sgt. Missick and thinking of the same soldier who was both digging and questioning Rummy?* :confused:

Your rejoinder makes absolutely no sense, especially in light of my priors which have taken the brass to task for not supplying basic armor and protection for the troops. But that's understandable, and not just from Sgt. Missick's blog belying your initial "hateful" post on this thread; I'm the vet, you're not.
_____
*When Missick delved and C-span, who then was the gentleman?

Hey, gmg, clean out your PM box. It's kinda tough to reply when it's full.

Gee, I never realized there was a limit of 60, combined; thanks for advising. It's been cleansed of its detritus and is open for business.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!