vpFREE2 Forums

Just answer the question, Mr. Rumsfeld

Just answer the question, Mr. Rumsfeld

Published December 12, 2004

WASHINGTON -- If you don't like the message, knock the messenger, as
an old spin doctor's motto goes. That's how some people are reacting
to a soldier's question that knocked Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld off his game during a town hall session in Kuwait last week.

Spec. Thomas Wilson, a scout with a Tennessee National Guard unit,
asked Rumsfeld why soldiers still have to fortify their canvas-
covered Humvees with "hillbilly armor," scrap metal and ballistic-
resistant glass that they dig out of landfills for protection. After
a brief moment of stony silence, the comment brought a spontaneous
eruption of "hooahs" and applause from other troops.

It also brought a remarkably condescending response from Rumsfeld,
who may have become too accustomed to treating reporters like
annoyingly curious children to quickly shift to a tone appropriate
for the combat men and women under his command.

"You go to war with the Army you have," he said, "not the one you
might want or the one you might wish to have at a later time."

That was a curious comment, considering how much time President
Bush's Defense Department has had to build up to "the Army we might
want."

Rumsfeld deliberately held down the manpower and support for Iraq
against the strong advice of former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric
Shinseki and other generals who said more troops and equipment would
be needed. The Army we have is what Rumsfeld wanted, not what the
generals said we needed.

Now, Rumsfeld assured the troops, the Pentagon is pushing its
suppliers to produce armored vehicles as fast as possible. But his
claim brought swift dispute from some of the makers of armor and
Humvees. The factories have been running well below capacity,
spokesmen said, but the Pentagon had not taken them up on the offers
to produce more armored vehicles.

Meanwhile, explosive devices at Iraqi roadsides--against which our
troops could use more armor--have caused about half of America's war
casualties.

Yet Rumsfeld added what may be the world's least necessary
caveat: "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank; it can
[still] be blown up."

Gee, thank you, Mr. Secretary. And happy holidays to you.

Kinda make you look like an idiot, don't it Bobby??

Got no answer for this one, do ya Bobby?

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...>
wrote:

Just answer the question, Mr. Rumsfeld

Published December 12, 2004

WASHINGTON -- If you don't like the message, knock the messenger,

as

an old spin doctor's motto goes. That's how some people are

reacting

to a soldier's question that knocked Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld off his game during a town hall session in Kuwait last

week.

Spec. Thomas Wilson, a scout with a Tennessee National Guard unit,
asked Rumsfeld why soldiers still have to fortify their canvas-
covered Humvees with "hillbilly armor," scrap metal and ballistic-
resistant glass that they dig out of landfills for protection.

After

a brief moment of stony silence, the comment brought a spontaneous
eruption of "hooahs" and applause from other troops.

It also brought a remarkably condescending response from Rumsfeld,
who may have become too accustomed to treating reporters like
annoyingly curious children to quickly shift to a tone appropriate
for the combat men and women under his command.

"You go to war with the Army you have," he said, "not the one you
might want or the one you might wish to have at a later time."

That was a curious comment, considering how much time President
Bush's Defense Department has had to build up to "the Army we

might

want."

Rumsfeld deliberately held down the manpower and support for Iraq
against the strong advice of former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric
Shinseki and other generals who said more troops and equipment

would

be needed. The Army we have is what Rumsfeld wanted, not what the
generals said we needed.

Now, Rumsfeld assured the troops, the Pentagon is pushing its
suppliers to produce armored vehicles as fast as possible. But his
claim brought swift dispute from some of the makers of armor and
Humvees. The factories have been running well below capacity,
spokesmen said, but the Pentagon had not taken them up on the

offers

to produce more armored vehicles.

Meanwhile, explosive devices at Iraqi roadsides--against which our
troops could use more armor--have caused about half of America's

war

···

casualties.

Yet Rumsfeld added what may be the world's least necessary
caveat: "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank; it can
[still] be blown up."

Gee, thank you, Mr. Secretary. And happy holidays to you.

Kinda make you look like an idiot, don't it Bobby??

Got no answer for this one, do ya Bobby?

I didn't read it because I don't care what others write. I know the
man in charge burns your butt, I know we're all fine here, and that's
what's important. You keep on stewing over it all because that's
exactly what i like to know is going on. It really, truly warms my
heart to see you fools agonizing over it.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...>
wrote:
>
> Just answer the question, Mr. Rumsfeld
>
> Published December 12, 2004
>
> WASHINGTON -- If you don't like the message, knock the messenger,
as
> an old spin doctor's motto goes. That's how some people are
reacting
> to a soldier's question that knocked Defense Secretary Donald
> Rumsfeld off his game during a town hall session in Kuwait last
week.
>
> Spec. Thomas Wilson, a scout with a Tennessee National Guard

unit,

> asked Rumsfeld why soldiers still have to fortify their canvas-
> covered Humvees with "hillbilly armor," scrap metal and ballistic-
> resistant glass that they dig out of landfills for protection.
After
> a brief moment of stony silence, the comment brought a

spontaneous

> eruption of "hooahs" and applause from other troops.
>
> It also brought a remarkably condescending response from

Rumsfeld,

> who may have become too accustomed to treating reporters like
> annoyingly curious children to quickly shift to a tone

appropriate

> for the combat men and women under his command.
>
> "You go to war with the Army you have," he said, "not the one you
> might want or the one you might wish to have at a later time."
>
> That was a curious comment, considering how much time President
> Bush's Defense Department has had to build up to "the Army we
might
> want."
>
> Rumsfeld deliberately held down the manpower and support for Iraq
> against the strong advice of former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric
> Shinseki and other generals who said more troops and equipment
would
> be needed. The Army we have is what Rumsfeld wanted, not what the
> generals said we needed.
>
> Now, Rumsfeld assured the troops, the Pentagon is pushing its
> suppliers to produce armored vehicles as fast as possible. But

his

> claim brought swift dispute from some of the makers of armor and
> Humvees. The factories have been running well below capacity,
> spokesmen said, but the Pentagon had not taken them up on the
offers
> to produce more armored vehicles.
>
> Meanwhile, explosive devices at Iraqi roadsides--against which

our

> troops could use more armor--have caused about half of America's
war
> casualties.
>
> Yet Rumsfeld added what may be the world's least necessary
> caveat: "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank; it

can

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...> wrote:

> [still] be blown up."
>
> Gee, thank you, Mr. Secretary. And happy holidays to you.
>
> Kinda make you look like an idiot, don't it Bobby??

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...>

wrote:

>
> Got no answer for this one, do ya Bobby?

I didn't read it because I don't care what others write. I know

the

man in charge burns your butt, I know we're all fine here, and

that's

what's important. You keep on stewing over it all because that's
exactly what i like to know is going on. It really, truly warms my
heart to see you fools agonizing over it.
>

So, you got no answer for this one, do ya Bobby?

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

> > Got no answer for this one, do ya Bobby?
>
> I didn't read it because I don't care what others write. I know
the
> man in charge burns your butt, I know we're all fine here, and
that's
> what's important. You keep on stewing over it all because that's
> exactly what i like to know is going on. It really, truly warms

my

> heart to see you fools agonizing over it.
> >

So, you got no answer for this one, do ya Bobby?

Yeah. Read it again and weep.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...> wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...>

wrote:

>
> > > Got no answer for this one, do ya Bobby?
> >
> > I didn't read it because I don't care what others write. I

know

> the
> > man in charge burns your butt, I know we're all fine here, and
> that's
> > what's important. You keep on stewing over it all because

that's

> > exactly what i like to know is going on. It really, truly

warms

my
> > heart to see you fools agonizing over it.
> > >
>
> So, you got no answer for this one, do ya Bobby?

Yeah. Read it again and weep.

Fuck, you are stupid.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

Becoming unraveled only exacerbates the warmth I have in my heart for
your agony.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...> wrote:

> > > heart to see you fools agonizing over it.
> > > >
> >
> > So, you got no answer for this one, do ya Bobby?
>
> Yeah. Read it again and weep.

Fuck, you are stupid.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...>

wrote:

>
> > > > heart to see you fools agonizing over it.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > So, you got no answer for this one, do ya Bobby?
> >
> > Yeah. Read it again and weep.
>
> Fuck, you are stupid.

Becoming unraveled only exacerbates the warmth I have in my heart

for

your agony.

Not unraveled, just amazed at your obvious stupidity.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote: