Text 6425, 93 rader
Skriven 2004-12-19 18:31:00 av ED HULETT (1:275/311)
     Kommentar till en text av JOHN HULL
Ärende: Rumsfeld vs. the troo
=============================
-=> JOHN HULL wrote to DARRYL PERRY <=-


 JH>  EH>>  AH> l=bal-pe-opinion
 JH>  EH>>  AH> 
 JH>  EH>>  AH> Rumsfeld's response leaves questions unanswered
 JH> 
 JH>  EH>> IOW, this entire teepot tempest is just left-media hype in an 
 JH>  EH>> attempt to b Rumsfeldt and the Bush administration.
 JH> 
 JH>  DP> GWB said publicly that it was a valid question.  Also, Rummy's
response sure
 JH>  DP> tells of his character and were it heart and mind is at WRT the
 JH>  DP> troops.
 JH> 
 JH>  DP> And that's a typical right-wing response; If you can't fight the 
 JH>  DP> message, fight the messenger.
 JH> 
 JH> I'd like to know just what was wrong with what Rumsfeld said.  Whether or
not
 JH> the question is valid has nothing to do with it.  In fact, the reporter
tried
 JH> to sandbag Rumsfeld and duped some poor GI into being his Judas Goat.  Now
that
 JH> we know the facts about those Humvees and the state of their armor, that
fact
 JH> is clear as crystal.

What Rumsfledt said was "insensitive" to the "concerns" of the plantH^H^H^H
poor
soldier who asked the question at the urging of the idiot reporter.

The fact that there is an ongoing program to up-armor vehicles and of the 800+
for
that very unit only 20 had yet to be up-armored and were completed the next day
escapes the soldier, his coach (the reporter) and our new found friend Darryl.
 
 JH> With regard to his response, just what is he supposed to say?  NO army is
 JH> completely ready when it has to go to war.  There is always some part of
it
 JH> that is short of gear, not trained well enough, not up to full strength,
 JH> whatever.  That is the nature of the beast.  An army that is worth a damn
tries
 JH> to be as prepared as it can be, while recognizing that is has some
 JH> shortcomings, and that a mechanism is in place to react to situations that
 JH> arise to correct problems before they become disasters.  That is exactly
the
 JH> case with the Humvees and the armor.  The situation was already known and
steps
 JH> had been taken to correct it.  In fact, the fix was only 24 hours from
 JH> completion when that sergeant stood up and asked Rumsfeld his question. 
The
 JH> entire situation is another case of the media trying to make the military
look
 JH> bad and to damage the Bush administration any way it can.

The fact that the lowly Jeep was used in WWII as an anti-tank platform with a
105 recoilless mounted in the back with no armor whatsoever may surprise many
of these people from the left who have become concerned with our troops all
of a sudden.

The main problem with up-armoring the Humvee is that the armored glass required
by the military is 4 inches thick. The framing has to be reinforced for such
heavy glass to be installed.

It is just a matter of physics that it takes time to install more armor on
the vehicles. And, as Rumsfledt said, you can be inside a well armored tank
and STILL get blown up. 

The US Abrams and British Challenger tanks are the two best armored tanks on
earth with top secret ballistic armor and there have still been a few of both
being taken out.

It is only since the "insurgents" have started relying on IED (improvised
explosive devices) and ambushes that our troops have been requesting more
armor on their Humvees and other lightly armored vehicles.
 
 JH> Personally, I thought the answer he gave that soldier was perfect because
it
 JH> was the truth, and he wasn't trying to sugarcoat anything. It would be
great if
 JH> the left side of the aisle (and their media sycophants) had as much
integrity
 JH> as Rumsfeld has.

His answer was correct. The left like to point at only part of the answer out
of context -- like they do everything else said by anyone in the Bush admin.
-- and show how "insensitive" Rumsfeldt was after being blindsided with that
question.

Ed
--- blueMail/Win32 0.11
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:275/311)