Drudges site is ontop of most news stories. Reports this embedded press guy Edward Lee Pitts ( a Greenville-SC journalist ) was coaxing the troops to ask questions so he could be the reporter on site with the juicy story, which makes him look good, Bush look bad, and he wins in the end. Or so he would hope.

Still the question was a valid one.

I hope the link doesn't go down or change soon.

Direct Link > [url]http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcp.htm[/url]

If the link has died, go to the source > [url]http://www.drudgereport.com/[/url]

[url]http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041209/D86S7I381.html[/url]

Thousands of miles away, President Bush echoed Rumsfeld's sentiments.

"The concerns expressed are being addressed and that is - we expect our troops to have the best possible equipment," Bush said at the White House. "If I were a soldier overseas wanting to defend my country I'd want to ask the secretary of defense the same question. And that is, 'Are we getting the best we can get us?' And they deserve the best.''

And Pitts newspaper: [url]http://www.greene.xtn.net/index.php?table=news&template=news.view.subscriber&newsid=117612[/url]

He was recognized for a job well done.

[url]http://www.whnt19.com/Global/story.asp?S=2672925[/url]

Even if those people were told to ask him those questions, Rumsfeld did have some very disturbing answers that would not make me feel comfortable if I were in Iraq.

Doesn't really matter if he was coached on a question or not, imo. It is hard for me to believe that the soldier would be stupid enough to ask a question (fed or not) that he didn't believe in and genuinely want an answer to. If he was completely unaware that scavenging was going on he would've told the reporter to go fuck himself.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that a reporter put that solidier up to asking that question about the vehicle armor. On the other hand, the reaction of the other solidiers that were present suggests that it is a question that was on a lot of people's minds, and a question that probably needed to be asked, so I don't know that I am too upset about that in the greater scheme of things.

As much as I dislike Rumsfeld and his cronies, however, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt on this and assume that they are doing what they can to keep our guys safe, and that it is a matter of logistics. Surely, we wouldn't hold stuff back from our folks that was available...

As an aside, although it is obviously a right-leaning site, I find Drudge to be pretty impartial about how they report information. The problem I have with Drudge's site is that it seems to post everything -- whether it is postive or negative -- carte blanche without any evaluation of the veracity of the story with a "developing..." tag at the end. Accordingly, you'll often see something on Drudge that you never hear anywhere else because it is ultimately determined to be BS, so I typically cast a somewhat jaundiced eye at things that are only reported on Drudge, just as a general matter -- the same motivation that drives this reporter to push a story in the direction he wants it to go also motivates Drudge to be the first or only site to report on something, whether it is from a credible source or not.

I'm not saying it's like this, but maybe we are overlooking the fact that there might have been agreed on a financial ceiling on the expenses for this war, and in combination with that a calculated accepable loss as a result of the budgetary 'cuts'...?

U.S. Central Command has added armor to 22,000 of its 30,000 fleet

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM Friday, December 10, 2004 The United States has satisfied about 70 percent of the military's combat armored vehicle requirements in the Middle East and surrounding regions.

Officials said that over the last year the U.S. Army has vastly increased the number of combat and support military vehicles that received armor. They said the aim was to armor every vehicle deployed by the U.S. military in the Middle East, Persian Gulf, South Asia and Central Asia regions.

Officials and soldiers said the accelerated rate of production has been insufficient to achieve the army's goal to armor its entire vehicle fleet in Iraq. They said the result has been a significant shortage of armored vehicles particularly among transport and support units, which has affected supplies to U.S. troops in Iraq.

At the same time, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld echoed the Pentagon assessment that armored vehicles don't guarantee troop safety. He cited the destruction of U.S. main battle tanks from mines, and other officials said 120 up-armored Humvees were destroyed by insurgency attacks in Iraq, Middle East Newsline reported.

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up," Rumsfeld said.

Re: RUMSFELD SET UP; REPORTER PLANTED QUESTIONS WITH SOLIDER

the reporter also coached the soldiers to cheer after the question was asked

The reporter is a scumbag in my opinion.

Though it was a question they all were thinking and wanting to ask, to keep the moral of men 'high' for what they SEE and DO everyday, a reporter should simply do his 'f...ing' job and not persuade anything like that. After the war, after troops don't have to 'point and squeeze', or 'duck and dodge', then he should have the mindset to do or ask anything. He obviously wasn't thinking about the ramifications and fallout among troops for pulling this sort of stunt to prop himself up.

To me thats what most (not all) reporters are, blood-thirsty dogs scraping up whatever dirt they can find - for whatever reasons. And yes - we do need them!

Btw, I have also heard the same news on the amount now armored, but why did they start with only 400 armored. Is it because the vehicle is sort of like the jeep of Vietnam, or is it supposed to be some kind of protection fighting machine - like a tank.

OK, let me throw a wrench in to your thoughts.

During the Clinton 2 terms. The military was scaled down considerably. Is it possible, this is another one of the areas Clinton took money from to balance the budget? We know he got the money from somewhere, and military and intelligence suffered alot from Clintons legacy. I have heard the CIA needs another 5 years to get back to where they were prior to Lewinsky's roam thru the oval office with good ole Clinton.

^If Bush did not give his tax cuts he'd have the money for the military. Clinton did not give tax cuts, so that's where his money came from.

[quote=DaStottman]^If Bush did not give his tax cuts he'd have the money for the military. Clinton did not give tax cuts, so that's where his money came from.[/quote]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[quote=robprunzit]After the war, after troops don't have to 'point and squeeze', or 'duck and dodge', then he should have the mindset to do or ask anything. [/quote]

Not a bad point about morale. I would note, though, that it may be too late after the war for some of these solidiers to complain about anything. I'd rather see the hard questions asked -- regardless of who raises them -- at a time when something can be done about it.

Re: RUMSFELD SET UP; REPORTER PLANTED QUESTIONS WITH SOLIDER

Scumbag or not (the reporter, that is), FWIW I have several relatives and friends who are there or recently returned from being there, including one who is a Marine who got his arm blown off by an RPG in Fallujah, and they basically pretty much say that morale over there is comparable to Vietnam levels. I.e., people are highly disenchanted with just about everything about the effort, from supply messes to leadership. :?

Is anyone really supprised by this? I also have a friend that just returned and will be going back soon who said it's a big joke and nobody wants to be there. The amount of amputees from this war is beyon belief.

[url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C3-1397131%2C00.html[/url]

and

[url]http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121104A.shtml[/url]

Both of those are GREAT articles.. :idea: