Rumsfeld in Mosul
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,086
Likes: 0
From: St. Pete, Florida
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,590
Likes: 0
From: West Springfield MA
Like this is a surprise! I'm sure his audience was carefuly selected and reminded in no uncertain terms that any question with meat would result in very unpleasant consequences for the person asking the question.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,771
Likes: 0
From: Houston, TX
From the article:
That actually does not seem to have been the case after all if you read the soldier's own account, as detailed in the current issue of Time.
Full text: Click me!
It was disclosed later that a question about inadequate armor on some vehicles was arranged in advance by a reporter.
Wilson, of Ringgold, Ga., says he met and befriended Edward Lee Pitts, an embedded reporter from the Chattanooga Times Free Press, at California's Fort Irwin, where his unit trained. Later in Kuwait, after Pitts learned that only soldiers could ask questions at the upcoming Rumsfeld meeting, he urged Wilson to come up with, as Wilson recalls, some "intelligent questions." Wilson decided on one after his convoy arrived at Camp Arijan. The camp had hundreds of fully armored vehicles waiting for a unit scheduled to arrive in July. When Wilson asked if the 278th could use them in the meantime, the answer was no. Wilson then devised a question about the shortage of armor and showed it to Pitts. Even though the reporter "suggested a less brash way of asking the question," Wilson says, "I told him no, that I wanted to make my point very clear." Wilson says he also came up with three alternate questions on his own.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,762
Likes: 1
From: Sheridan
Does it really matter who asked the question or why?
Suppose Saddam Hussain asked the question from prison.
Suppose John Kerry asked the question from the Senate floor.
Suppose the mother os a slain American soldier asked the question from her child's grave side.
Suppose Rumsfeld's wife asked the question.
"You go to war with the army you have" might be true after Pearl Harbor. It might not be true for a war you chose to go to because you mistakenly believed that your enemy (a very, very evil enemy--but a man without a monopoly on evil) might use weapons of mass destruction that he might have against you or your allies in the future.
Given that President Bush was going to go to war against Saddam Hussain no matter what, wouldn't it have been smarter to finish the job in Afganistan, build up the military, raise taxes, train and armor new troops and prepare them for police work and urban combat. Heck, it even would have made political sense. He'd have been invading in March of '04 and landing on a carrier declaring "Mission Accomplished" right during the Democratic party's primaries.
The point is that President Bush sent our country's youth in harm's way without doing whatever it takes to protect them. Rumsfeld has to prove his point that a lighter, quicker, cheaper army was the army of the future.
That is fine if you define victory as overthrowing Saddam Hussain's government. It turns out to be a bit harder to maintain stability and peace and get to elections. Think about the talk about postponing our elections this past fall if there had been too much terror. Now look how silly it is to have elections before stability in Iraq.
Don't take my word for it. I opposed this President and this war for a long time.
Read this Washington Post Article by a U.S. Army historian who was on the ground in Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...?referrer=email
Registration may be required but is free.
Suppose Saddam Hussain asked the question from prison.
Suppose John Kerry asked the question from the Senate floor.
Suppose the mother os a slain American soldier asked the question from her child's grave side.
Suppose Rumsfeld's wife asked the question.
"You go to war with the army you have" might be true after Pearl Harbor. It might not be true for a war you chose to go to because you mistakenly believed that your enemy (a very, very evil enemy--but a man without a monopoly on evil) might use weapons of mass destruction that he might have against you or your allies in the future.
Given that President Bush was going to go to war against Saddam Hussain no matter what, wouldn't it have been smarter to finish the job in Afganistan, build up the military, raise taxes, train and armor new troops and prepare them for police work and urban combat. Heck, it even would have made political sense. He'd have been invading in March of '04 and landing on a carrier declaring "Mission Accomplished" right during the Democratic party's primaries.
The point is that President Bush sent our country's youth in harm's way without doing whatever it takes to protect them. Rumsfeld has to prove his point that a lighter, quicker, cheaper army was the army of the future.
That is fine if you define victory as overthrowing Saddam Hussain's government. It turns out to be a bit harder to maintain stability and peace and get to elections. Think about the talk about postponing our elections this past fall if there had been too much terror. Now look how silly it is to have elections before stability in Iraq.
Don't take my word for it. I opposed this President and this war for a long time.
Read this Washington Post Article by a U.S. Army historian who was on the ground in Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...?referrer=email
Registration may be required but is free.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 33,177
Likes: 1,641
From: Randolph, NJ
Originally Posted by Barry in Wyoming,Dec 25 2004, 07:26 AM
Does it really matter who asked the question or why?
Suppose Saddam Hussain asked the question from prison.
Suppose John Kerry asked the question from the Senate floor.
Suppose the mother os a slain American soldier asked the question from her child's grave side.
Suppose Rumsfeld's wife asked the question.
"You go to war with the army you have" might be true after Pearl Harbor. It might not be true for a war you chose to go to because you mistakenly believed that your enemy (a very, very evil enemy--but a man without a monopoly on evil) might use weapons of mass destruction that he might have against you or your allies in the future.
Given that President Bush was going to go to war against Saddam Hussain no matter what, wouldn't it have been smarter to finish the job in Afganistan, build up the military, raise taxes, train and armor new troops and prepare them for police work and urban combat. Heck, it even would have made political sense. He'd have been invading in March of '04 and landing on a carrier declaring "Mission Accomplished" right during the Democratic party's primaries.
The point is that President Bush sent our country's youth in harm's way without doing whatever it takes to protect them. Rumsfeld has to prove his point that a lighter, quicker, cheaper army was the army of the future.
That is fine if you define victory as overthrowing Saddam Hussain's government. It turns out to be a bit harder to maintain stability and peace and get to elections. Think about the talk about postponing our elections this past fall if there had been too much terror. Now look how silly it is to have elections before stability in Iraq.
Don't take my word for it. I opposed this President and this war for a long time.
Read this Washington Post Article by a U.S. Army historian who was on the ground in Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...?referrer=email
Registration may be required but is free.
Suppose Saddam Hussain asked the question from prison.
Suppose John Kerry asked the question from the Senate floor.
Suppose the mother os a slain American soldier asked the question from her child's grave side.
Suppose Rumsfeld's wife asked the question.
"You go to war with the army you have" might be true after Pearl Harbor. It might not be true for a war you chose to go to because you mistakenly believed that your enemy (a very, very evil enemy--but a man without a monopoly on evil) might use weapons of mass destruction that he might have against you or your allies in the future.
Given that President Bush was going to go to war against Saddam Hussain no matter what, wouldn't it have been smarter to finish the job in Afganistan, build up the military, raise taxes, train and armor new troops and prepare them for police work and urban combat. Heck, it even would have made political sense. He'd have been invading in March of '04 and landing on a carrier declaring "Mission Accomplished" right during the Democratic party's primaries.
The point is that President Bush sent our country's youth in harm's way without doing whatever it takes to protect them. Rumsfeld has to prove his point that a lighter, quicker, cheaper army was the army of the future.
That is fine if you define victory as overthrowing Saddam Hussain's government. It turns out to be a bit harder to maintain stability and peace and get to elections. Think about the talk about postponing our elections this past fall if there had been too much terror. Now look how silly it is to have elections before stability in Iraq.
Don't take my word for it. I opposed this President and this war for a long time.
Read this Washington Post Article by a U.S. Army historian who was on the ground in Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...?referrer=email
Registration may be required but is free.
Thanks for the link to the Washington Post article. Well worth reading.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mr. Eryozgatliyan
California - Southern California S2000 Owners
6
Mar 12, 2007 03:06 PM
charlie
S2000 Vintage Owners
60
Jan 18, 2004 03:14 AM