[Shadow_Group] Just answer the question, Mr. Rumsfeld

[shadowgroup-l at lists.resist.ca]

Clarence Page  
Just answer the question, Mr. Rumsfeld
Published December 12, 2004

FROM:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0412120228dec12,1,6950166.column?coll=chi-news-col<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0412120228dec12,1,6950166.column?coll=chi-news-col>
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.

I don't know when Rumsfeld will take questions from
soldiers again, but the day after you-know-what
freezes over sounds about right.

Yet hard as it may be to criticize Spec. Wilson for
asking a question that undoubtedly weighs on the mind
of many soldiers in Iraq, some people are finding ways
to criticize the combat newspaper correspondent who,
it turns out, had a hand in Wilson's question.

Edward Lee Pitts, a Chattanooga Times Free Press
reporter who is embedded with Wilson's Tennessee
National Guard unit, took credit in an e-mail that was
later leaked to Internet sites. In his e-mail, Pitts
said that after he learned reporters would not have a
chance to question Rumsfeld, he worked on questions in
advance of the meeting with two soldiers from the
unit.

In a letter to readers, Pitts' newspaper acknowledged
that the reporter should have mentioned his role in
his reporting, but otherwise, his editors supported
him, as they should. He did not deceive anyone. No one
forced Wilson to ask the question, which President
Bush later agreed was a legitimate question to ask.

Yet some partisan critics, apparently unable to defend
Rumsfeld, attacked Pitts. "He created news in order to
cover it," said conservative political commentator
Rush Limbaugh. "... We found out the whole thing ...
is a setup." Setup to do what? Tell the truth?

A Pentagon spokesman, huffed that the meeting was
"intended for soldiers to have dialogue with the
secretary" and that no one should have "interfered
with that opportunity, whatever the intention." Hey,
you want dialogue? You got dialogue!

Here's a bigger question: Why should reporters have to
resort to asking questions through soldiers in order
to get an answer and, one hopes, some action from the
Bush administration on a problem like vehicle armor?

Our soldiers in Iraq are not whining about this. They
courageously take on dangerous missions every day.
Afterward they want to get home safe. The rest of us
should support them with something more substantive
than flag-waving. That's not too much to ask.

----------
E-mail: cptime at aol.com<mailto:cptime at aol.com>

Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune


=====




 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/shadowgroup-l/attachments/20041213/520d2ffb/attachment.html>