tough Questions for Rumsfeld

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Forum' started by Falstaff, Dec 9, 2004.

  1. Falstaff

    Falstaff Old Codger

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Messages:
    20,553
    Likes Received:
    311
    Trophy Points:
    123
    I recently sat impassively as Sec. Rumsfeld aswered questions from the media regarding his tenure with the Bush administration and any change in the direction the present occupation of IRAQ is going. Some political objectives were attained by prominently placed IRAQI citizens and politicians but I was dumfounded by the response by Donald Rumsfeld recently, to a very direct question by one of our own soldiers in the field. Amid growing concern for proper equipment and weapons for our troops the foremost interest had to be in getting armoured vehicles for patrols and convoys for the occupation forces. I was appalled to learn that our own troops are digging scrap metal out of dumps, harvesting armour from soviet made equipment and even acquiring ballistic glass and kevlar outside of normal army channels to ensure that when they are struck by insurgents they can respond with a greater chance of survival. Mr. Rumsfelds response was edited for the left wing media that exist in Europe and America, so I waited for the entire question and response and dialogue to emerge after the intial dismay of the American public. I dont care for Rumsfeld, but his response to the soldiers question was IMO very inadequate considering the impact of the soldiers question. My own brother, a veteran of IRAQ and another conflict during his career is deeply concerned about the lack of armour on our own Bradleys and HUMMERs and the current policy of waiting for something to happen before we begin a cascade response to insurgent threats. Rumsfeld would like to shift the focus to the field commanders and somehow make them the target of the media inquisition but my rifle and scope is leveled right back at the real threat to our soldiers in IRAQ, The honorable Donald Rumsfeld. I compare him to McNamara of the Vietnam war era, although clearly they are diffferent men, I see that matters of grave concern to our own countrymen serving in the field never seem to make it to the Ivory Tower within the Bush Administration. As someone who voted for Bush both times, I am dismayed that Rumsfeld persists in this tactic of saying little and comforting very few concerning the matter of stabilizing IRAQ. We should be talking about building hospitals and schools, feeding IRAQI people and reinforcing the infrastructure of the occupied nation. Instead we are forced to hear statements from our own troops voicing concerns to Rumsfeld and then having those concerns deflected away from the primary focus of our own men and women serving honorably in IRAQ. Donald Rumsfeld is way behind the power curve, and yet he is one of the most powerful men in the Bush cabinet. I am disgusted with the mans performance for the past 20 years and equally distrustful as my brothers and sisters now serving in uniform. If Secretary Rumsfeld wants to do us a favor, give us the armour, weapons, and latitude to prosecute the war against the insurgents to the level it should be. Does anyone wonder why we cannot effectively deal with the insurgent threat? I will tell you it all boils down to money, equipment and leadership. Our men and women in combat are starting to taste the fruits of Rumsfelds garden of deceit and ineffective leadership. The matter sits squarely on the shoulders of the very man that ignored a CIA memo reqarding the mistreatment of prisoners, the lack of supplies for our troops and the extended enlistments of men and women who have served far long in the field than anyone that volunteered in Vietnam...and I remember the futility of that war so well. I hope my president can reassess the situation and bend Donalds ear a little and save more lives in IRAQ, because it see the situation getting considerably worse for our troops.
     
  2. Warpy

    Warpy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,762
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nice post d00d, perhaps break it up so its easier to read. :)
     
  3. Falstaff

    Falstaff Old Codger

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Messages:
    20,553
    Likes Received:
    311
    Trophy Points:
    123
  4. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Yeah man, I agree- That is complete BULLSHIT. I also Voted for Bush twice and I think the troops need all the armor they can get. I think that at least 300 or more soldiers lives could have been saved if the proper armor would have been given to the troops.


    Today Rumsfeld lost any credibility and sounded like an idiot. Where are all the damn tanks!?!?! They need more tanks and more heavily armored Hum-vees and more body armor.

    We ask the soldiers to give their lives and we can't give them proper equipment?
    Obviously production is not the problem, it was planning.

    It just more BS- give the soldiers who are giving their lives some freaking ARMOR! WTF!? It is an outrage. Not as bad as the UN oil for food scandal, but damn that answer pissed me off too.
     
  5. digerati

    digerati Everyones life has worth

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,768
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's pork barrel legislation. Congress has taken millions of dollars out of military expenses in sections such as armorment and repair equipment to pay for pork barrel legislation >.<
     
  6. ToshiroOC

    ToshiroOC Unbiased.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2002
    Messages:
    4,812
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2845:

    S.2845
    9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act (Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by House)

    SEC. 5011. DIGITAL TELEVISION CONVERSION DEADLINE.

    (a) Findings- The Congress finds the following:

    (1) Congress granted television broadcasters additional 6 MHz blocks of spectrum to transmit digital broadcasts simultaneously with the analog broadcasts they transmit on their original 6 megahertz blocks of spectrum.

    (2) Section 309(j)(14) of the Communications Act of 1934 requires each television broadcaster to cease analog transmissions and return 6 megahertz of spectrum by December 31, 2006, or once just over 85 percent of the television households in that broadcaster's market can view digital broadcast television channels using a digital television, a digital-to-analog-converter box, cable service, or satellite service, whichever is later.

    (3) Twenty-four megahertz of spectrum currently occupied by the television broadcasters has been earmarked for use by first responders once the television broadcasters return the spectrum broadcasters currently use to provide analog transmissions.

    (4) This spectrum would be ideal to provide first responders with interoperable communications channels.

    (5) Large parts of the vacated spectrum could be auctioned for advanced commercial services, such as wireless broadband.

    (6) The `85-percent penetration test' could delay the termination of analog television broadcasts and the return of spectrum well beyond 2007, hindering the use of that spectrum for these important public-safety and advanced commercial uses.

    (7) Proposals to require broadcasters to return, on a date certain, just the spectrum earmarked for future public-safety use would not adequately resolve the identified need for improved public-safety communications interoperability. Broadcasters estimate that the public-safety only approach would dislocate as many as 75 stations, including some in major markets, airing major network programming, sometimes even in digital form. Unless broadcasters are required to return concurrently all the spectrum currently used for analog transmissions, it will be exceedingly difficult to relocate these 75 stations, which also serve a critical public safety function by broadcasting weather, traffic, disaster, and other safety alerts.

    (8) Proposals to require broadcasters to return, on a date certain, just the spectrum earmarked for future public-safety use also would neither address the digital television transition in a comprehensive fashion nor free valuable spectrum for advanced commercial services.

    (b) Sense of Congress- Now, therefore, it is the sense of Congress that section 309(j)(14) of the Communications Act of 1934 should be amended to eliminate the 85-percent penetration test and to require broadcasters to cease analog transmissions at the close of December 31, 2006, so that the spectrum can be returned and repurposed for important public-safety and advanced commercial uses.


    The above is an interesting example of how random and blatantly commercial some things can get in unrelated bills. This is part of the new intelligence reform bill, and it basically just authorizes Congress to resell parts of the spectrum.
     
  7. Falstaff

    Falstaff Old Codger

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Messages:
    20,553
    Likes Received:
    311
    Trophy Points:
    123
    bullseye...
    the beast has awakened....
    the world is being changed a bill at a time right here at home...
    pay heed, those that give unto Ceasar what is Ceasars....
     
  8. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That bill seems to do more than that. It seems to be saying that a large proportion of the aviable spectrum can be realocated without notice at any time, pretty much exclusively excusively for government use. The US government however appear anxious not to step on too many toes (as in their many corporate sponsors) so they are trying to force the pace of adoption of digital TV services (DVB) so that they can have a large part of the spectrum - while still allowing other commercial services to continue to run.

    GJ
     
  9. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh and as to the question of should Rumsfeld go... Well he has been up to his kneck in some pretty dirty stuff through the years... But hey, why should the buck stop just with him?

    GJ
     
  10. Falstaff

    Falstaff Old Codger

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Messages:
    20,553
    Likes Received:
    311
    Trophy Points:
    123
    its politics so it makes strange bedfellows, it is the province of politicians to serve the people and themselves at all times, but I dont think Rumsfeld will take one for the team should any criticism follow him after the end of the Bush Administration, in fact I imagine, just as in the Reagan years, he will come away unscathed and honored, I am not saying I agree, merely that it is typical, and like I mentioned prior to the election President Bush will triumph and he will be remembered as a great leader, and his judge will be history...no the press, or the narrow minded critics that attempt to chip away at his administration...but Rumsfeld....my God, he really believes the bullshit he says, that is the scariest part. having spoken to senior officers who have seen combat and my own brother they feel our time in IRAQ is over...like the last garrisons on Hadrians wall sooner or later we will be assimilated or we will have to leave..only a matter of time.
     
  11. Frodo301

    Frodo301 Outraged

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    584
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This was the same type of stuff that went on in Somalia, not enough armoured vehicles for the troops involved in the conflict. It's a pity our leaders did not learn from that dirty little "police action".
     
  12. TJ-

    TJ- New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3,679
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    cheap asses, profits seem to always come first...
     
  13. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    73
    profits? What does that have to do with body armor. They aren't running a retail store they are running the military.

    They don't make money, they spend it.
     
  14. Falstaff

    Falstaff Old Codger

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Messages:
    20,553
    Likes Received:
    311
    Trophy Points:
    123
    It has more to do with appropriations really, especially after Pres. Bush has asked and recieved more money to fund the efforts in IRAQ. Mr. Rumsfeld and his contemporaries in the political demogogary the military have steadfastly attempted to save a nickel here and there all over the place. The Haliburton scandel is actually a symptom of a greater problem, no oversite within the bowels of the companies that enjoy our public trust. They say the are following procedure, and identifying overspending and nullifying it, but in fact, millions are funnelled all over the broad sprectrum of the wartime mission in IRAQ and Afghanistan. Beans and Bullets, that is what it is all about, and it has plagued the armies of Alexander, Ceasar and Napolean, but in these times when the problem stares at us like a dead dog in the road, you would think that even Donald would have come up with a better answer than he did. I think that he was shocked and couldnt find it on his list of answers and that made him nervous, or at least it seemed to.
     

Share This Page

visited