Well, Pat, I always thought of the Big O more as an echo chamber than a counterbalence.

Well I PROMISE Kari, One last time.

Called a close relation in the Army, he has been in Iraq 3 times.....in on the very first advance into the country, in and out 2 times more, and going back in Jan. 05.

The thing he says is the following:

THE SHORTAGE OF BODY ARMOR."its BS! we all had armor, maybe not the most current at first, but no one went without it.

The so-called poor armored Humvee's.

 The majority never had real armor to begin with, but in 12 yrs in service(lets see, do the math, which president was that????) they never were ordered with anything special anyway. How does he know? He is maintainece supervisor working on Humvees and light trucks.

Supply issues: The best friend of mine, retired combat Marine and supply officer in Nam, said the same thing, ''combat priorities are,"AMMO, WATER, FOOD!" no one was short in Iraq.PERIOD!

The guy I know in Iraq was pissed when some whinning resevist wrote his mom had said, they were short of water>"BS, they didn't have bottled water for about 2 weeks, but used river water in plenty of supply, but the Mommy's "boy" didn't like putting the tablets in the canteens as we did in NAM.

The guy I know in Iraq also is tired of the reservist who for some have done Hero work, but those like the WHINNERS to Mommy, and too Rummy, need to SHUT UP an do the damn job they were sent too do, that to kill the bastards that try to kill them and break things these badguys use.

The older Humvees ,breakdown with over plated with armor weight piled on, the new ones have more suspension and power, but will never totally save a life if hit.

Finally, Lars had some retired Col.on his show yesterday, Bitching his grandson was going to the "sandpile" in Jan. "if Bush didn't get more armor there ,"he would raise Hell in DC.

May I remind the Lib s-- That if he was there for 20 yrs, the army and Marines are not training for beach assualts anymore and gave that up alongtime ago, it's been urban warfare for over ten years plus for training and equipment purchases.

So if the lib retired Col. is worried about armor for his lib granson now, "why the hell didn't he worry about my kid when he was in Kosovo, Afganistan and Iraq. To busy I GUESS!

Well I PROMISE Kari, One last time.

Called a close relation in the Army, he has been in Iraq 3 times.....in on the very first advance into the country, in and out 2 times more, and going back in Jan. 05.

The thing he says is the following:

THE SHORTAGE OF BODY ARMOR."its BS! we all had armor, maybe not the most current at first, but no one went without it.

The so-called poor armored Humvee's.

 The majority never had real armor to begin with, but in 12 yrs in service(lets see, do the math, which president was that????) they never were ordered with anything special anyway. How does he know? He is maintainece supervisor working on Humvees and light trucks.

Supply issues: The best friend of mine, retired combat Marine and supply officer in Nam, said the same thing, ''combat priorities are,"AMMO, WATER, FOOD!" no one was short in Iraq.PERIOD!

The guy I know in Iraq was pissed when some whinning resevist wrote his mom had said, they were short of water>"BS, they didn't have bottled water for about 2 weeks, but used river water in plenty of supply, but the Mommy's "boy" didn't like putting the tablets in the canteens as we did in NAM.

The guy I know in Iraq also is tired of the reservist who for some have done Hero work, but those like the WHINNERS to Mommy, and too Rummy, need to SHUT UP an do the damn job they were sent too do, that to kill the bastards that try to kill them and break things these badguys use.

The older Humvees ,breakdown with over plated with armor weight piled on, the new ones have more suspension and power, but will never totally save a life if hit.

Finally, Lars had some retired Col.on his show yesterday, Bitching his grandson was going to the "sandpile" in Jan. "if Bush didn't get more armor there ,"he would raise Hell in DC.

May I remind the Lib s-- That if he was there for 20 yrs, the army and Marines are not training for beach assualts anymore and gave that up alongtime ago, it's been urban warfare for over ten years plus for training and equipment purchases.

So if the lib retired Col. is worried about armor for his lib granson now, "why the hell didn't he worry about my kid when he was in Kosovo, Afganistan and Iraq. To busy I GUESS!

Come on, Jack.. No double-clicking on 'Post' buttons.

War, no matter how worthy, is brutal and ugly. That's why we all sober up pretty quick when we think about the price paid for our freedom. LIke Jack said, soldiers need to be tough and deal with the situation they're in. I don't have a problem with these facts when a war is justified. But I do have a very big problem with Iraq. I have never believed that we are there for legitimate reasons, so rather than feeling that the sacrifice we are making - and that the Iraqi people are making - is worthwhile and therefore tolerable, I get more and more angry with each death and each wounding, specifically because I value and support our troops. If there is one thing I want right now, more than anything material, it is to understand why we are there. I don't mean all the BS we're given about how important it was to get rid of that bastard Saddam and his torture chambers and nonexistant WMDs. I mean why was this any of our business, above all the other far more legitimate threats to our safety and all the other legitimate humanitarian needs out there? Why can't the Oregonian find out the answer to that and tell us why this sacrifice our families are making is worthwhile?

Jack: My wife got a serious awakening the other day. There was a group of Navy Swift boat guys and some other Navy vets at a victory party. We did a tour of a Vietnam PTF nasty class boat and she saw where the bridge had been hit by machine gun fire----not a good thing---- it is 1/2 plywood and on the gun tubs of swifts it is 1/4 aluminum, the rear gun is in the open. the gun wing on the boat I was on was also 1/4 aluminum. Did as you said let them know the humvee was designed as a light vehicle and until Iraq had no need for armor. The humvee insn't a heavy combat vehicle and was never intended to be an armored personnel carrier. The humvee was a compromise from Clinton's budget cuts that could replace the Jeep. I guess next they will whine about the John Deere Gators they use in AFGHAN in the mountains not having a bullet proof body.

Mike Bradley

Dear Pat.

What part of your missing the point do you not get?

OK, The "FING" o has done it again.

And proves the point of you "people" are giving aid an comfort to the enemy.

The beating of two Badguys after killing one of us is not news....GET IT!

Are you "PEOPLE" so sick from hate of the election that this garbage is news? Of course you are.

There is no way that an embedded journalist will not become part of the team he/she takes fire with. That's human. Reporting truth requires independence from all players. Want some truth? Read Robert Fisk.

If we are not hearing about the plight of our troops, imagine what we are not hearing of the misery of Iraqis.

The Iraq people.....the ones that killed the soldier?

  Those people I WANT DEAD!

You want the plight of the other people known, gee, then get the "o" to write about the good deeds, the good work, the fine job, we have done.

 Otherwise it's aid an comfort to the people that killed that soldier. I have kids there,I know what is going on. Do you?

WHAT NAMES? yes, it was all caps, SO WHAT!

So ignore me...my words don't count, but my vote does, and you lost. Check those facts out.

The Humvee deal is BS, they never were armored.

What part of that don't you get Pat?

Lastly, you people have learned nothing from all this.as one poster to this site wrote me, "who in the hell cares what they write, "let them continue with it, and lose again!" Damn, excuse me, I need to let you idiots, oops,(I did call a name that time) continue on the road again.

My god,and you think Dean is going to save you?

The difference in this war from the one we were in in Vietnam, is that in vietnam most of the transportation was by air in armored 'copters. They were shot down as there was no way to armor plate the rotors or the open doorways. I am always amazed at the level of authority of people that were never there but they are so sure they know that they are right. Walk the mile with Jack or another real soldier, or you risk the danger of only being a weapons expert at shooting your mouth off.

Oh Please LIBS GET OVER IT INSTEAD OF SPREADING HATE STAND BEHIND YOUR PRESIDENT. KERRY WAS A LIAR AND WAS PROVEN A LIAR OVER AND OVER GEEE. THIS MILITARY HAS MORE PROTECTION THEN ANY WAR THAT HAS EVER BEEN FOUGHT !!!! KNOW QUIT A FEW OVER THERE FIGHTNING NOW ," SAYING THEY ARE WELL EQUIPED TO FIGHT ANY TERRIORISTS GEE GET A LIFE AND GET REAL. SAD HOW NEWS MEDIA HAS TO CON A POOR MILITARY SOLDIER TO GET A STROY TO MAKE HIMSELF LOOK BRAVE. OUR NEWS MEDIA HAS TURNED INTO SOMETHING ELSE. KEEP KEEP THEM OUT OF THE WAR ALTOGHER. LET THE MILITARY FIGHT THIS WAR IF YOU DONT LIKE IT PLEASE GO JOIN. OH AND THE PATROIT ACT ONLY A FEW PPL DECIDING WHAT OREGON IS TO DO SHAME SHAME HOW CAN U SLEEP AT NITE. " YOU WERE TAUGHT DO WITH WHAT A PERSON HAS " NOT WHAT YOU WANT !!!! OUR MEN AND WOMEN HAVE SUFFICIENT PROTECTION OVER THERE PLEASE LIBS STOP THE DAM WHINNING.

ONE MORE THING FOR SO-CALLED COMMISSIONER RANDY LEONARD !!!! YOU ARE A SCUM BAG. THIS IS NOT JACK !!! SO PLEASE GO AHEAD AND BLOCK YOUR E-MAIL TO ME. WHAT A JOKE YOU ARE. SOUNDS TO ME LIKE SOMEONE GUILTY SCUM BAG.

Let my try and understand. The Oregonian has not done enough Bush bashing? And it would be better if they were more like Michael Moore?

""""""Finally last week, we got a couple of questions asked regarding the safety of our friends and neighbors serving in The Big Adventure in Iraq."""""

Big Adventure? That must be the context in which YOU place the entire war effort.

A perfect explanation for your lack of accurate context with the Humvees farce.

Why is it you folks beat around the Bush.

Allow me to re-phrase your position. President Bush, Rumsfeld, the entire administration and all of military commanders are so completely incompetent and of dubious intentions that they virtually deliberately sent thousands of our troops into harms way without the level of protection which simple planning would have provided. It never occured to them that simple armor wouold protect our troops better. Proof again that the intelectual liberal is of a higher authoriy and brilliance. Gee why didn't Rummy and company think of armore?

Isn't that just about your point. Ever soldier could be in a virtual tank If Bush weren't so stupid and evil right?

"""""""A Tennessee reporter working with a recently deployed guardsman from his state, managed to ask dear old Rummy a question for which he was totally unprepared"""""""""""

Unprepared?

So here again, it never occured to the stupid Bushy Rumsfeld, that a soldier would have a beef about something? Of course that is preposterous and military brass hear complaints all the time. In every war and during every peace.

The deep meaning you wish to glean from this non-story. I'm quite certain many of you beleive the true remedy would be to disband the military altogether.

But for today you are content bashing them and their leaders when you are not busy trashing Christmas.

With the Oregonian echoing all things NY Times and the editorial board off the liberal deep end it is quite special to hear they are not far enough to the left. Wow!

75% of hum-vees have proper armor and rest are being brought up to par.....If it wasn't the hum-vee question, liberals would whine about something else....at least this gives them a bone to chew on for the time being..

To add too this, Lets go back to the stupid Col.,(yes, I called him a name) that was on Lars show Friday I think.

He was "outraged", ( Love that term, you libs use it alot) that Bush didn't do enough to prepare his grandson for war.

Hello, You people read "Blackhawk Down" ?

Why did the father of one of those kids refuse to shake Bubba's hand? Well, why was that?

The idiot Col. who jumped all over Lars was lacking in morality for sure,he was there long before Bush was. Why didn't he jump on Clinton?

Why doesn't Pat ask Ron Wyden ,or Smith, or Earl,(I don't own a car) Bluemanure. They voted for defense money's.

The true, god, that would be awful wouldn't it?

lastly, My kid has been in over ten yrs. He hasn't trained too take a beach EVER! Just house too house, don't tell me Pat, we haven't sent our kids there un-trained or ill prepared.IT'S JUST A LIE!

Shame on you people.

None of you have a life, all you have to do is bash the nation our troops and the President. You people need to get out of the rain.

Message to Pat Ryan.

Since you will ignore this, I'll just get this off my chest.

Facts, you want facts,from who?

The NY TIMES, "seems they have a little problem with the facts don't you think?

The "0" come on now, you got to be kidding, I'am really shocked it wasn't their reporters "loading" that news deal with Rumsfield.

The guy I want too write the story is someone from Texas, Idaho, Kansas, someone who was really in the "excrement" in combat, or has a duty to tell the story of how much good we have done.

Becky Miller wants to know why we are there.

1. To a degree it is about oil, why don't you all lose oil products period for a week, sorta like giving up water,we can't run the USA without it.

   Sub to the above: the BS idea, The President is there too line his pockets with blood money is asine, How much money can one man spend in a lifetime.

   1. Hello, if we kill a whole bunch of people there instead of here, we may save lifes ....even Progressives,lets not forget Pat, it isn't us hiding in their holy places, hiding and shooting at us from houses of innocent people,killing their own police, IT'S NOT US!

2. If we are on the borders of the countries of the badguys, and can react in hours or minutes to an attack against us anywhere in the world.. The mindset, maybe, not too attack us....WELL DUH!

3. It's time to be offensive not defensive in war, it beats having your clock cleaned, Like we had on 911.

4. This is the part I like for sure, I know, Gore, or Kerry as president would have set there like the "goobs" they are and allowed us to be nailed again.

   Sorry! I have a real problem with bleeding against my will.

Looks like the word is out on a conservative email tree to flood the conversations here at Blue. Either agree with the reds or be shouted down and called names. Sad, really sad.

Hi Jack ..... heres a letter from Iraq Hump Day All, Hot! Unbelievably hot! Unbelievably freakin' hot!!! | Helpedsome of my Marines move ammunition crates the day before yesterday at Ali Al Salem Air Base. It was 137 degrees. That's right sports fans, One Hundredand Thirty-Seven degrees. Felt like my damn hands were actually cooking inthe heat. Completely soaked through with sweat all the time. The camel spiders are disgusting, damn things are all over the place at Al-Assad. They look like something out of "Aliens", but they can't hurt you, got mouths like a daddy-long legs, can't break the skin.

Checked in to the new AO we are taking over, got a good area recon and lookat our ground. Walked into the COC. Wham! Wham! Wham! Three mortar rounds,courtesy of our distinguished enemies lands about 100 meters away. The unit we're relieving says "No big deal, this is the third night in a row, and they can't hit anything." My boss says "BS." The Colonel looks over at meand says, "Nick, take care of that right away." WTF? I hadn't even had a chance to drop my gear yet. I said, "Okey, Dokey sir" (a non-doctrinal Marine Corps response.) I ordered up a counter-battery radar set a couple of hours later. Also some other surprises. Next night, same, same. Hit about 0130, 60mm stuff, so we know they're firing from relatively close, probably not more than 2-3 clicks out. Our counter-battery fire worked well, we now have two 81mm mortar fire-capable 24/7. Rounds go out. Nothing further heard from Hadji tonight. Nothing heard for the next eight nights, as a matter of fact. Patrols running well,quiet sector.

Motorized patrols on the MSR and the town's going well, counter mortar patrols we are running are aggressive and appear to be effective. Ninth night: Wham! Big stuff, 82mm and 122mm dropping all over. I think about 12-15 rounds total into our FOB, can't give you an exact count, due to the fact that I was holding onto my butt with both hands during the explosions. Bad guys suck! Gotta give Hadji credit, he does strike back when he can,it just took him over a week to get re-supplied with bigger weapons. Surprise number one: in addition to our 81's,we now have a platoon (3 guns) of 155mm M198 howitzers at the FOB. Two of the puppies are fire-capped 24/7 also. Our counter-battery/mortar fire is quicker than hell. Four rounds from

each weapons system, 81's and 155's.Ouch, that's gotta hurt on the receiving

end. Too bad, so sad for Hadji. Should've picked another damn neighborhood to screw with, not mine.

Hadji is using Somali-like tactics, small trucks, shoot and scoot. Fire 2-3 rounds and try to leave the freakin area. This crap looks really familiar. I think they lease their vehicles from the same dealers as in Somalia. Think all these freakin' dirt bag terrorists wannabe's read from the same manual?

Surprise number two from Nick's bag of tricks: A C130 Spectre gunship in DS of my Battalion, doing figure eights all night, just waiting for his chance.They target on the impact of our mortars and 155's. A four-second burst from the Spectre, all weapons systems. That's it, just a four-second burst. Not a sweeter sound in the world. That makes it game, set,and match! Hadji don't want to play nor more tonight.Only a four-second burst from the AC130, remember?

Took a patrol out a few hours later, the ground from the rounds impacting, especially from the Spectre, looked like a damn tornado went through there. Beautiful sight. Pieces of two small Nissan trucks, mortar parts, mortar rounds, and body parts all over the area. Pro-activity is a wonderful

thing. These bastards are dangerous, but they are also lazy as hell. They set patterns worse than anybody I have ever seen operate. Keep your eye on Fallujah. We is going to be going back in there full force.

Got another one you'll like: Air strike went in on the outskirts of Fallujah targeting a specific building hiding some Foreign Fighters from Syria or Chechnya trying to infiltrate. Good hit, target destroyed. About thirty seconds later, my radio battalion guys monitor a cell phone call from a terrorist cell leader, saying "the Americans missed me, but they just

hit XXXXXX's house across the street." We called the air dogs back, had them re-target and run another strike. BIG BOOM! Secondary explosions all over the place from a weapons/ammunition cache they had in the house that the idiot just called from. Thanks for the assist Hadji. He's doing a one-on-one interview with Allah right about now. If this wasn't so deadly serious, this would have been funny as all hell. (truth be told, we were all still cracking up about it two days later). All I can really say is this place sucks.

Small things, dude for when you get here: wear the ballistic goggles, drink water all damn day (the camelbacks are great), I'm drinking probably 5 gallons of water per day, and it ain't enough. Helmet and Flak Jacket worn at all times when you are outside, it sucks, but it saves lives. Wear both the throat protector and the groin protector. Perforated eardrums are common, get and wear the anti-blast ear plugs. I wear them whenever we're in a vehicle,just in case of IED's. Purell hand sanitizer is a good piece of gear also. We've got them everywhere for the Marines to help keep clean. This whole freaking country is a dirty shit house. It's weird flying on the helos at night. In some places they can only fly at night, due to SA's and RPG's. At night it is scary as hell, because you're just watching those damn green tracers all over the placed,waiting for one to turn and reach toward the helo you're on. Dude, when we fly,I'm also sitting on top of two flak jackets, valor be damned, I don't want to get shot in the butt or worse. They were giving me crap about it at first, but now everybody is doing it. I swear to god, Fallujah is like Detroit on steroids during Halloween. It's time we just need to clear that whole damn city in zone. Just waiting for the word.

My Battalion HG, COC, and ALOC are in an old chicken factory from Saddam's days. Good facility, strong structure, we have hardened it with wood, metal and sandbags all over the place. Has taken two direct mortar hits with

no effect. That's gotta be pissing Hadji off. Main job is keeping the MSR's open for convoys; checkpoints and combat outposts at each bridge and overpass. My brother, the US army scares my guys more than the bad guys do. Every time an army convoy gets hit going through our zone, they fire in every direction, 360 degrees. No fire discipline. My guys in a bunker were taking .50 cal fire on their sandbags last week. Now we're making each army convoy that comes through stop at each of our checkpoints to check in and find out who is in charge. Has reduced their nervousness. Don't mean to ping on you army guys (even though I do it all the time) but the small unit discipline is the issue.

This is truly a Sergeant and Corporal's war. Tell you what Bro, these younger Marines of mine are nothing short of amazing. They are thriving, living on the edge of the adrenaline rush the whole damn time. The code word for every day is "Trouble." Ever time I get into a vehicle, I ask the driver "What are we looking for today?" Every one of them answers "Trouble, Sir!" Trouble for hadji is what they mean, if the bad guys want to attempt to screw with us.These so-called "insurgents" are the worst kind of freakin' cowards I have ever seen. I thought the Somalis were bad, but at least they had some drug-induced courage.

The battalion adjacent to us had a hit on a damn school bus in the AO the other day, targeting elementary school kids of junior new Iraqi govt officials. Their Ops Officer told me the Marines were having to pick up kids arms and legs from off the tops of buildings. Bet you're not seeing this crap on CNN? The ops Officer also told me that his Marines are truly pissed, because they are deadly quiet as all hell right now, not loud as usual, but quiet and focused, looking for some real payback. The day is coming. Gotta run, this was a long one, lot going on. Got some more to send in the next couple of days." S/F - Mud

The fact of the matter is that humvees and other vehicles in Iraq can be upgraded with armor to better protect the US troops inside. Unfortunately, this hasn’t been a priority for the Bush Administration because, according to the generals, after more than two years in Iraq less than 75% of vehicles needing armor upgrades have them.

I support the troops. I want them to have the best possible protection against roadside bombs and sniper fire. Every US casualty that could've been prevented with a simple armor-upgrade is a tragedy. To Jack Peek, Iron Otter, Rose Pedersen, Steve Schopp, Nicola Spano, and Debbie Button, Sharon, and the other keyboard warriors: Why don’t you want US soldiers to have the armor they need? Why do you criticize the citizens who are pressuring our elected leaders to provide the equipment that the generals say the soldiers need? In short, why do you hate America?

This blog is for people who love America, including our soldiers, so if you hate America and it's soldiers this might not be the place for you. We report, you decide.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=317399

Military officials said Thursday they were working hard to upgrade the armor on Army vehicles in Iraq, a day after a soldier had pressed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on the subject. President Bush said, "The concerns expressed are being addressed."

Close to three-quarters of the Humvees in the Iraq war theater now have upgraded armor protection, but many larger trucks and tractor-trailer rigs do not, according to congressional figures…

Democrats have more questions for Rumsfeld. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said he would put his in a letter demanding increased production of armor kits and an explanation for why soldiers are searching for scrap metal in landfills.

"This administration has received every dollar they have asked for from Congress, and oftentimes more," Durbin said Thursday in his Chicago office. "So, the money has been there." […]

Of more than 9,100 heavy military haulers in Iraq, Afghanistan and nearby countries, just over 1,100 have received upgraded protection, according to figures provided by the House Armed Services Committee in Washington. Armor add-on kits are in production for many of the rest of these vehicles.

By comparison, the military has decided it needs almost 22,000 armored Humvees in the war area. It has 15,334; an additional 4,400 await armor add-ons and the rest have not been delivered to the region.

Those Humvees are being built at the rate of 450 a month. The company armoring them, Armor Holdings Inc., said Thursday it could increase production by 50 to 100 vehicles a month.

Humvees are armored in two ways: at the factory or in the field. The factory-armored vehicles are considered the best-protected, and the military says it needs 8,105 in Iraq, Afghanistan and nearby countries. It has 5,910. About 120 have been destroyed, Whitcomb said. The rest are protected with add-on kits of armor that can be bolted to a regular unarmored Humvee.

Manufacturers are making these kits at a rate of 800 a month. Some 4,300 Humvees remain unarmored.

It’s good that an issue such as the humvee armor complement can get press attention. That may make it easier for such issues to get addressed, perhaps end-running some of the bureaucratic red tape.

That said, people are willfully misconstruing the nature of the problem in an effort to find something to blame Rumsfeld for. The humvees were not delivered improperly equipped, rather it turned out this mission has resulted in different requirements than were envisioned for these vehicles.

It’s not clear to me that command has been negligent in getting this fixed, since apparently measures are already ongoing to address the problem. There’s certainly nothing wrong with examining how such emerging needs should be dealt with and working to improve the procedures whereby command adapts to such needs. Cases involving genuine negligence on the part of command have fared more poorly in the past, though I doubt that many posters here are curious about that. If they were, they'd know that such supply problems are typical in war -- even when they don't involve an unanticpated need for innovation.

JS predictably sees the glass half empty, saying that “less than 75% of vehicles needing armor upgrades have them. The article he cites is more impartial, noting that nearly 75% do (I guess that’s the 15,334 with upgraded armor, 4,400 without). However you put it, it doesn’t sound like such a terrible record for retrofitting in the field.

The situation is described as being worse with the other vehicles, but it needs to be emphasized that, as in the case with the humvees, these vehicles were not envisioned to be armored. The British are using the same kinds of vehicles in their zone. Why? Because those are the kinds of soft-shelled vehicles that have always been used. I suspect that many of those vehicles can only be up-armored via jerry-rigging, short of actual redesign. I also suspect that the benefit of up-armoring is likely to be exaggerated for soft-shelled vehicles; beyond protection from small caliber arms, its chief benefit may be psychological.

I have no doubt that this never would have been a story had we had a Democratic president. The real story ought to be that Rumsfeld was willing to subject himself to the kind of exercise that resulted in this canard developing. To see the likes of Nancy Pelosi — for whom, let’s be serious, thoroughly funding the military has never been a priority until it could be seen as a way of scoring political points — now calling for Rumsfeld’s head is a bit rich. As is targeting Rumsfeld for a failure to adapt, since he has worked so hard to drag the military away from outmoded approaches — and earning himself highly quotable enemies in the process. If he cared more about his own image than about the mission of Defense, he could have avoided that, just as he could have avoided exposing himself to tough questions.

All around the mulberry bush we go. This is not about our reletive knowledge of armament. The situation is really quite simple.

This war was completely optional. The timing was political, not related to defensive needs. [Although JP will dispute this, I don't see much worth in his thinking about terrorism or much else. He can go educate himself and examine the concepts of nationalism and jingoism, or rant on, but I don't see the value in engaging him.]

As an optional war, the administration had complete responsibility for the well-being of out troops, not to mention the well-being of Iraqis whose land WE decided to fight on. It is obvious that there was little or no planning beyond neo-con fantasy for Iraq post Saddam. Either the Shrubbery really expected the flowers in the streets scenario, or they just don't give a damn about our military people, just as they don't give a damn about Iraqis.

Anthony,

Recheck the article. "Predictably," the figure you cite speaks only to humvees. However, "Of more than 9,100 heavy military haulers in Iraq, Afghanistan and nearby countries, just over 1,100 have received upgraded protection..." In other words, only 12% of the tankers, semis, and other heavy haulers have they armor they need. Kits exist to upgrade this armor, but only 12% have received them. Convoys of these largely un-armored vehicles are favorite targets of the insurgents and their roadside bombs.

Nearly two years into a war of choice (a war Bush and Rumsfeld could've waited to start until the planning was done and equipment in order), it is inexcusable that only 12% of heavy haulers and less than 75% of humvees have the armor they need to keep safe the soldiers inside.

It's a shame that instead of adding to the chorus of voices encouraging our elected leaders to protect our troops, certain individuals seek to attack those who want our troops protected. Shame on you.

Tom,

You might as well say, “Don’t confuse me with the facts.” Your post drips condescension toward Jack Peek but you hardly distinguish yourself as a reasonable commentator.

In the absence of any substantive argument about the issue in question (the real meaning of the “under-armament” of vehicles) you avoid the issue and rant in general opposition to the war.

You’re going to have to do better than that to show yourself as anything other than a fanatic of a different stripe.

For a little context, see "Caring for the Wounded in Iraq — A Photo Essay" in the New England Journal of Medicine.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/24/2476

According to these picture, body armor does a pretty good job of protecting soldiers from some serious explosions. Their vehicles should be adequately protected so soldiers aren't needlessly losing limbs, or worse, dying.

Also, it sounds like more sophisticated battlefield medical technology has saved many, many lives.

Kos has more: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/13/123223/00

Pat,

I’m not disputing general arguments about how open the administration or Rumsfeld was to entertaining different scenarios. I’m simply commenting on how the vehicles were designed to be used.

Soldiers in the field have discovered that standard-issue equipment is deficient for the purposes at hand. That’s often the way such things happen, and it’s not the same thing as soldiers being sent into the field with the wrong equipment as a consequence of negligence.

Before 9/11 made combat operations more likely, Rumsfeld had taken on for himself the mission of reforming the military into a more agile force capable of dealing with conflicts more like Somalia and, indeed, Iraq. I don’t think attacking him now in this manner is any less ironic just because he didn’t single-handedly insist on the redesign of humvees before events sped up his timetable.

You say that “we learned in the last week that they were not pushing the retrofitting of these vehicles to the limits of existing production capacity.” First of all, it seems captious in the “half-empty” spirit of JS to fail to appreciate the increase in productivity that had already been pushed. Furthermore, in order to know the meaning of the increase, such as it is, it would be helpful to find out why the previous limit was set, and by whom. I’m not an expert in manufacturing, but I’m sure that some kind of accommodation had to be made in order to induce the manufacturer to produce more, requiring a resetting of what might have been reasonable priorities. Again, I think there’s an effort to rush into fault-finding as opposed to a patient interest in judging impartially and focusing on solutions.

I’ve known you to make a strong case about the stubbornness of the administration and Rumsfeld as it relates to the general preparedness for the war as it unfolded, and I have accordingly taken care not to engage what you wrote on those grounds. However, on the issue of the “under-armament” of vehicles I believe you and others are trying to force this issue into the procrustean bed of more general criticisms. (Tim takes this tendency to the extreme by forgetting the issue all together and just ranting about the fact of the war without reference to the vehicles.)

Finally, while it’s not implausible to suggest that Rumsfeld might have expected to find a reasonably favorable audience among soldiers, it still takes some cojones to face men you are sending out to possibly kill and die. The fact is that he exposed himself to the possibility that tough questions could be asked.

JS,

Recheck what I wrote before you lapse into a sanctimonious harangue. I acknowledged that the situation was worse with the other vehicles. If you don’t like what I subsequently said on that subject, then take me up on that.

Forgive me for doubting whether you’re in possession of the necessary facts to determine whether it is “inexcusable” that only 12% have other than standard armoring.

It’s really pathetic that you seek to shame me simply because I’ve taken issue with your clearly partisan arguments. Nothing I’ve said suggests in the slightest that I’m opposed to doing everything possible to ensure that the troops be as well supplied as they can be. That ought to be obvious, but your last post does suggest a certain deficiency in reading comprehension.

Hello everyone. I just wanted to show you guys this and remind us why we are in Iraq http://husseinandterror.com/

Or, you can look at these photos of Iraqi children to remind us of the price they are paying for our being in Iraq:

http://www.zonaeuropa.com/01467.htm

Sharon, first of all the US provided Saddam with poison gas and other weapons back in the 80s when he was our good buddy. Second, the money given to Palestinian bombers also flows in from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other US allies.

There was no strategic reason for the US to invade Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Sharon,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html "The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no 'collaborative relationship' between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-10-04-alqaeda-saddam_x.htm "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday that he hasn't seen 'any strong, hard evidence' to link Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorists who staged the Sept. 11 attacks, a more direct statement than he has made on the subject before.

"Rumsfeld's comments came as a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found that 42% of those surveyed thought the former Iraqi leader was involved in the attacks on New York City and Washington. In response to another question, 32% said they thought Saddam had personally planned them."

Sharon: Don't worry, you're not alone in your confusion. The Bush Administration and the right-wing media have done a great job of pushing the fallacy that Saddam was involved with 9/11.

And Sharon, I just want to show you and your friends this and remind you why we are in Iraq:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Don't feed the trolls!

Anthony:

"Forgive me for doubting whether you’re in possession of the necessary facts to determine whether it is “inexcusable” that only 12% have other than standard armoring."

What additional "facts" does one need to conclude that 20 months into this mess it is inexcusable that only 12% are armored?

Is it so difficult to admit your dawg and his SecDef screwed up big time on this war?

Just what would it take for you to admit serious and substantial mistakes were made?

Anthony wrote:

However, on the issue of the “under-armament” of vehicles I believe you and others are trying to force this issue into the procrustean bed of more general criticisms.

Well, Anthony, excuse me if I choose not to discuss an issue on the terms you see fit. The crux of the vehicle armoring problem lies, indeed, in the more general nature of this war: why and how is has been waged.

You can ignore my mention that Iraqis are also humans capable of suffering. Take as given that wars of imperial aggression are the cat's meow of effective foreign policy. That still leaves the matter of the timing of the invasion of Iraq, the planning for its post "major operations" period and the effect these two issues have on the safety of US personnel.

It is plain to see the arms and legs flying all over the place. You attempt to excuse this in discussing the details of vehicle armament. It's a bit like complaining of weak seatbelt anchors after you kill someone driving drunk at 100mph. The technical details are besides the point. The fault is in the crime.

To Jack Peek, Iron Otter, Rose Pedersen, Steve Schopp, Nicola Spano, and Debbie Button, Sharon, and the other keyboard warriors: Why don’t you want US soldiers to have the armor they need? Why do you criticize the citizens who are pressuring our elected leaders to provide the equipment that the generals say the soldiers need? In short, why do you hate America?

Pat and a host of others:

OK...because Anthony is back, I will try to tone it down,(good luck Jack, you will need it)I hate AMERICA? You are as mentally challenged ( didnt say nuts) as the fine gentlemen in the group home behind me. The statement is as foul, and sick as it can be, so lets just let that one go.

I want us to have what ever it takes to win what we are doing now.The problem Pat(and a host of others) is the lies..the direct lies, that are posted here on the service needs of the kids in Iraq.

When you know something about me, you know the worse thing you can do to me, is too accuse me of something I didn't do, or tell me something to my face that isn't true and in my heart I KNOW IT IS.

So Pat, you really crossed the line.

My son works on this equipment that we speak about, he has had as many as 40 people working for him, the Humvee's were never made for the weight of extra armor, but repairs and retro-fits are on going, new units have tougher suspensions to assume the weight but nothing will stop 200 to 500 to 1000 lbs of HE going off under or near by the unit.

The new Strayker (sp?) is heavey, faster,(nearly 68 mph) and has armor to better with stand the combat. this unit is coming on line now.

Lastly, the supply priorities in NAM, were ammo, water, food, after that it was improvise, GET IT PAT?

well since my husband is a Marine and has been to Iraq twice ..I think I have a good source of information..I dont give a flying crap what your newspapers say..Al Zarqawi is Al Qada wgi is in Iraq...

The "we armed Iraq in the 1980's" is a constant excuse used by the Left to argue against war against Saddam. While Saddam did get limited military support, most of what he got during the Iraq/Iran war was intelligence information. In fact, the evidence of this was the Gulf War in 1991...which wasn't too far from when our outrageous military support supposedly occurred. But, just how much US-made military equipment did you see used against our troops in the Gulf War? How many US made tanks did you see? Their troops were using AK-47s, not M-16s; their tanks were Soviet TU-type tanks and their aircrafts were Soviet and French made MIGs and Mirages. Seriously...think about that. If we had given this regime so much of our military equipment...the best in the world, why were they using someone elses?

And even if we did, it's irrelevant. We also armed Stalin during WWII with the Lend-Lease Act but that didn't preclude us from engaging in a Cold War, immediately after WWII ended. Even shortly before WWII, when we knew of the atrocities being committed in China, the Japanese were still getting steel to build their ships and fuel to power them from the USA. Throughout history, friends have become enemies and enemies have become friends...but that shouldn't preclude us from reacting to a dangerous situation. Using this argument, the British should've remained our enemies...those dirty Redcoats.

And this crap about giving Saddam Bio/Chemical "weapons" is an exaggeration as well. Saddam never got "weaponized" nerve agents or "weaponzed" biological agents from the USA. Everything he got from us was a cooperative (UN and Western nations) effort to help Iraq deal with the rampant spread of contagious diseases and viruses that were killing his people. While this did include biological samples of viruses, this was a standard practice with the ATCC (American Type Culture Collection) and other medical institutions as they sent samples to medical researchers around the world...so they could develop immunizing agents to battle these diseases.

This was especially of interest for Baghdad University and the Ministry of Higher Education (not Saddam) as they appealed to the UN, CDC and WHO for help in controlling the spread of Brucellosis, Diphtheria, Hepatitis, Cholera, TB and any number of contagious diseases. Much of these so-called "chemicals" were also based on the same principal of fighting disease...which included chlorines and pesticides that could be used in water treatment facilities and in agriculture to contain the spread of disease. Before the concern over bio/chem warfare, these were common practices that medical researchers engaged in world wide. Saddam never got instructions from the US on how to weaponize these agents. That, he got from the USSR which was revealed shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The documents released uncovered that the Soviets engaged in the deadliest bio/chem weapons research the world has ever seen...including "cocktails" which was the mixing of deadly pathogens that made them resistant to vaccines and standard protections.

In hindsight, what the "USA" did was obviously a stupid thing, but it was not illegal...and if it was, the Senate Banking Committee, who actually investigated these charges, would've brought charges and prosecuted those who participated. While they did acknowledge bio-material transfers to Iraq, nothing was done outside the law that existed at that time. But there has been a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue of biological samples, which we did supply legally and deadly chemical materials, which we didn't. While one report says the US government was aware of Saddam's ambitions for "chemical" weapons exploitation as early as the early 1980's, a UN report states that Saddam's "biological" weapons program wasn't initiated until mid-1986 at Salman Pak. And this wasn't acknowledged until after the Gulf War, when the inspectors hit the ground and did their investigations. Now this is important because there has been a deliberate diception by some to say that if we knew about Saddam's chemical weapons, why did we continue to give him more. Number one, we didn't give him chemical weapons; number two, there was no evidence at that time that he was working on "biological" weapons. As the UN report states, he started that in mid-1986...and even then, it wasn't learned until "after" the Gulf War. The attacks on the Kurds and Shi'ites were by chemical weapons...not biological weapons. But that didn't matter because this was enough for some to infer that we continued to supply Saddam with weapons to kill his people.

Unfortunately, this was all the ammunition the left needed to accuse the US of arming Saddam with bio/chem weapons. There is a great article the debunks this myth and explains the details in these transfers. And even though anthrax was a part of these transfers, these transfers had been occurring since the late 1960's and was common practice within the medical community, before the fear of bio/chem warfare. Heck, from what I understand, anthrax is a spore that can be found in Nature.

Unfortunately, nowadays, anyone can turn chlorine and pesticide into a deadly aerosol weapon...and fertilizer into a explosive device. This is a far cry, however, from the Sarin and Mustard Gas that was used by Saddam on the Kurds and Shi'ites. And the USA never gave Saddam these deadly nerve agents. You wouldn't know that, though, from reading the accusations and articles of others. According to them, we gave Saddam these "weaponized" materials. This is nothing but the same liberal clap-trap that looks to blame Smith & Wesson (or any other gun manuafacturer) for the death of an individual because another individual used that product irresponsibly, malisciously...or in Saddam's case, other than how the product was intended to be used. I could be wrong, but from what I've read, I see alot of people connecting dots that don't exist. I think this chart goes further to mitigate these charges, as well.

Tom Civiletti,

You wrote: “Well, Anthony, excuse me if I choose not to discuss an issue on the terms you see fit.”

The problem, Tom, is you want to discuss another issue all together.

You continue: “The crux of the vehicle armoring problem lies, indeed, in the more general nature of this war: why and how is has been waged.”

The crux of your illogical thinking is that you reason backward from your conclusions. I invite you to dispute my impression that you’re not even curious about the armoring question. Whatever the problem may be, the facts are irrelevant; you already know who to blame, and you have your stock rationale.

I’m not in the least averse to talking about more general questions associated with the war. However, I entered this thread to address the specific issue of armoring because I thought what was being said about it was unsound. I suspect you don’t like the topic because you have no effective answer to what I’ve said. As I’ve seen all too often at BlueOregon, when some people run out of arguments (assuming they had any in the first place), they change the subject.

can't help but wonder had Clinton not gutted the Military and stopped making armored vechicles for 8 years if we would be discussing this at all

Randy S,

You’d make a hell of a juror.

You wrote:

“What additional "facts" does one need to conclude that 20 months into this mess it is inexcusable that only 12% are armored?”

Who needs facts! What does it matter exactly why 12% have armored and why the others don’t. Who cares what different kinds of vehicles there may be and precisely what their purposes are. What difference does it make what original armor component some vehicles may have or that additional armor may not in fact either permit reliable function of a given vehicle or even make a difference with regard to the kinds of threats it faces? Of what possible interest would it be to know what tradeoffs were made with regard to resource allocation and shipment, and why? Indeed, why be distracted by any such speculation when one already knows the answer to any question that might arise.

Randy, you suffer the same debility as Tom Civiletti: you arrive at your position deductively from your conclusions. His methodology is characterized by changing the subject, yours by contempt for the facts. Then again, I see the Civiletti method in this comment:

“Is it so difficult to admit your dawg and his SecDef screwed up big time on this war?”

And since you ask: “Just what would it take for you to admit serious and substantial mistakes were made?”

A sound argument would be a good start. But with regard to claims: given your eagerness to tumble head-over-heels into illegitimate conclusions, I can’t be blamed for receiving anything you say with a good deal of skepticism.

Sharon,

This has nothing to do with Clinton; it has to do with what the humvee was designed for. Furthermore, while their reasons and attitudes might differ, Rumsfeld himself opposed spending on more heavily armed vehicles. The question here is about how light vehicles and non-combat vehicles have been and ought to be armored.

Bill Clinton took the “Peace Dividend” and cut the number of Military divisions substantially - he also cut the corresponding development, supply and resupply of materials Armys are not built and armored overnight or even in a few years. Current democrats have incentive to keep our military as weak as possible b/c military failures can be blamed on the current administration and be used to propel themselves into power. Example see John Kerry.We could do better, but then can we always say that? Do you want the Gov’t. to tell Ford/GM/AMC to stop making civilian cars and turn production to Humvees and APCs? I would not complain, but many if not most would. At a minimum, I’d tell AMC that the sales of civilian Hummers would be stopped and make them devote their entire production line to equiping our troops, but except in the case of DIRE emergencies, the US does not operate on a Command Economy (like the old Soviet Union did).

Sharon,

I know you really really want to blame Clinton for the mistakes made by the Bush Administration, but hinting that Clinton is responsible for the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq makes you seem loony. (Jack Peek-As does your assertion that there’s no problem regarding the lack of up-armored humvees and heavy haulers…the US military disagrees.)

The Bush Administration just recently realized that soldiers asking Rumsfeld for better armored vehicles is bad PR (evidently, soldiers dying in under-armored vehicles isn’t?). So they’ve done something they could’ve done months or years ago—ask the company that makes the up-armored humvees to increase production.

In summary, the Bush Administration has acknowledged that the lack of armored vehicles is a problem, yet they’ve waited almost two years to ask the company that makes the armor to increase production.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aDrg28Q3a8Is&refer=us

Dec. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Armor Holdings Inc.'s order from the U.S. Army last week to accelerate monthly production of heavily armored Humvee military vehicles won't increase the total number of the vehicles destined for Iraq, the Army said.

The Army's plan is to complete 8,105 “up-armored” Humvees by March 2005, unchanged from before the Dec. 10 order, Army spokeswoman Lieutenant Colonel Pamela Hart said in an e-mailed response to questions from Bloomberg News. Jacksonville, Florida- based Armor Holdings said Dec. 10 the Army had asked it to raise monthly output to 550 vehicles by March, from 450 now.

``We're increasing the rate of production, not the total number of vehicles,'' Hart said. She declined to provide additional information.

Sharon says: "Al Zarqawi is Al Qada wgi is in Iraq..."

What?

From your nonsense sentence, I'm inferring that you think the presence of al-Zarqawi in Iraq conclusively proves a connection between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda (let me know if I'm wrong).

However, Zarqawi operated in the Kurdish controlled area of Iraq that was routinely patrolled by US and British fighters (the no-fly zone north of the 36th parallel). Also, the CIA disagrees with you.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6189795/ "WASHINGTON - A CIA report has found no conclusive evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein harbored Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which the Bush administration asserted before the invasion of Iraq."

Furthermore, "long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger."

And why?

"Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."

Read the whole article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

So how about we take the old Family sedan down to the local garage or maybe the monster garage and have Jessie attach a 40 foot box trailer to it so we can do all our Christmas shopping at once? Not a good idea! Why? because our car was never intended to, or built to be able to haul that extra weight or, cope with the vastly mutilated handling properties. The brakes will never stop it, we will not be able to turn when we need too, we will not be able to get going because the engine was not built with enough power to move that much weight. Just as we would not wear a raincoat to go swimming or wear ice skates at the track meet. The bottom line is that if a vehicle is built to be a truck it will never be a tank. The answer is not for us to waste a huge amount of money on bastardized useless equipment but we need to send the correctly built equipment to replace the armoreless vehicles. Why did we send in the light weight Humvees? It is what we had for equipment at the start. Why is it the wrong vehicles? This war is unlike any other major war we have fought? It is in the desert but unlike W.W.II African Campaign that was barren waste of just sand. We are fighting in the center of cities that are still occupied with the civilian population. We must be able to move and react quickly and with great discretion. We have to be highly mobile and agile. In no other USA involved war to date has there been such a high rate of suicide attacks (including the Kamakazies of WWII) on individual soldier. The result is no large stockpile of armored jeeplike vehicles. We used what we had.

To Jack Peek, Iron Otter, Rose Pedersen, Steve Schopp, Nicola Spano, and Debbie Button, Sharon, and the other keyboard warriors: Why don’t you want US soldiers to have the armor they need? Why do you criticize the citizens who are pressuring our elected leaders to provide the equipment that the generals say the soldiers need? In short, why do you hate America.

WHAT A LOVELY WAY TO TWIST THE WORDS OF PPL PAT. SOUNDS JUST LIKE SOMEONE WHO HAS NEVER BEEN TO WAR OR WHO KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT WAR OR EQUIPMENT PERIOD. PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO TWIST THE WORDS THAT I HAVE WRITTEN NEWS MEDIA ALWAYS DOES THAT TO SELL STORIES GEEE FIND ANOTHER JOB PLEASE, OR AT LEAST BE GOOD AND NOT TWIST OTHERS WORDS TO SUIT U R SATISFACTION.

I LOVE AMERICA WHAT ABOUT YOU ??? DO U OR DID U SERVE ?? DO U REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT WAR IS OR ALL ABOUT THE MILITARY EQUIPEMENT. IF NOT SUGGEST U DO SOME STUDYING ON THE SUBJECT OR BETER YET GO AND FIGHT IN THE WAR THEN U WILL UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THE EQUIPMENT OUR MILITARY USE THERE GEEE . SOME PPL WILL DO ANYTHING TO SELL A NEWS STORY.

OH GEE ALL OF A SUDDEN WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT OUT MILITARY ARMOR ROFL U PPL ARE A JOKE A YRS LATER U YELLING U R HEADS OFF GET THE FACTS GET REAL KEEP UP WITH THE TIMES. WORRY ABOUT OUR HOMELAND SECURITY HERE IN OREGON IS WHAT YA ALL BETTER FOCUS ON. !!! OH GEE HOW MANY SLEEPER CELLS HAS BEEN LOCATED HERE IN OREGON ??? WAKE UP AMERICA WE ARE AT WAR NOT ONLY IN IRAG OR THE BIG A BUT ALL OVER THE WORLD. GEEE GET A LIFE GET REAL PRINT THE TRUTH AND ONT TWIST PPL WORDS TO SUIT U R OWN NEEDS OR AGENDA

EQUIPMENT THAT OUR MILITARY USE AND WHAT ALL THE EQUIPMENT REQUIRES FOR A PERSONS TO DO IN TIME OF

WAR. GEEE HOW DUMB

.

Sorry Pat. The irony of my "Why do you hate America?" question was evidently lost on all of these folks who feel it's inappropriate for people like you and me to put pressure on our elected leaders to protect our troops to the best of their ability.

I just hope Jack Peek, Iron Otter, Rose Pedersen, Steve Schopp, Nicola Spano, Debbie Button, Sharon, and the other keyboard warriors aren't sending CAP LOCKED messages to our troops overseas telling them how they don't need up-armored vehicles because humvees weren't meant to be armored. That could be a real morale-killer.

JS,

What is it in your twisted moral core that makes you habitually resort to mischaracterizing your adversaries in order to demonize them and sanctify your petty partisan prejudices?

I can't imagine that anyone who has read Jack Peek, Iron Otter, et al., would believe that they either "feel it's inappropriate ...to put pressure on our elected leaders," etc. or that they think that troops shouldn't be well-equipped. And yet you throw out these suggestions as if they were plausible. Is there anyone here who can't see through that?

In the spirit of what Pat said, if you're going to attack people, let it be for what the actually say.

P.S. Donald Rumsfeld isn't an elected leader.

Yeah, but Rumsfeld is the best we can do since our fearless leader won't subject himself to any serious questioning from soldiers or the press.

pat..I am not a warrior..But I am married to One...Who the hell are you to judge me

Hi Jack! Had we gone in with might and main, really to take names and kick ass, we would not have to be dealing with this now. War is hell. We should not be playing war games over there. I have always said that it would be better to bomb them into the stone age from the get-go. Sure, we drop leaflets to tell all non-players to get our and be resettled for the time being in our camps. We give them alot of opportunity to get to safety, and be processed, and to come clean. After the place is reduced progressively over a couple weeks of intense bombing to moonscape, there will be NO survivor. We would not have to worry about any prison scandal, or be wondering about the WMDs, snipers and etc., let alone hundreds of casualties on our side. With NO opposition, we will be able to rebuild in double-quick time, as every country in the coalition would be sending in all kinds of people to help us. With skilled people from all over showing the Iraqis the how-tos, normalization will be fast. They and their children will fit into the New Iraq for they, the ones who know what is good for them will be the future of that country. But alas, we chose the PC route. And so, we are paying dearly for it!

Take care, and keep up the good work!

Yours truly, John

Dear Pat,an a host of the rest of you good people.

The "PC ROUTE", Did you notice that part?

The fact is we did, and we are paying for it, but if we had done as my good friend suggested...WOW, do I know your response to what would have been the correct war plan.

The fact is..(STAY WITH ME, HERE COME'S THE GOOD PART), you "good" people would have bitched, whined, rioted, protested...because it's what you do.

The reason is politics, you all dearly hate Bush,it's something unlike in 58 yrs this month, I have ever seen, and don't again wish too.

There isn't a pretty, good,or clean way to kill people or break things in war, you "people" can't handle it, or much less in this day an age take part in it. To win war as this one needs to happen, we need to wipe a block of these people off the map, then ask them if they had enough, get the wrong response, do it again., What did Tom Cruise say from his jet pilot movie,"There are no points for second place!"

The war is like Rummy said, "YOU GO TO WAR WITH WHAT YOU HAVE,THEN, IMPROVISE AS NEEDED!" (0r pretty close to it)

I want to finish my thoughts on this subject with the following: Pat, trying running out of ammo in a firefight, all the armor in the world can't help, point is we have the basics, ammo, water, food, that's all we can do then go from there.

To others, I think Bush was wrong in the way we went about it, but he is PC enough to try and appease you "people" as well, and that was a mistake.

To the rest of you, How dare you tell me I HATE AMERICA, How dare you say I don't want my 3 kids to have all they need.

We, those of us who have posted here against you "people".....are the silent majority ,you "people" didn't learn from your failed approcach to help us all, not just a narrow, minority. and the end result of that, like the qoute from the WW2 movie.....The Japanese Admiral said, 'I fear, we have awaken the sleeping dragon!"

In plain terms, people, DON'T PISS US OFF!

Lastly, I know from experiance, you will diss this post, but go back and look at the part where I said you "missed in your approach to us" in the election cycle, you don't present a candidate, who is so elitist, an arrogant, we wouldn't have him for a dinner with all the family, don't verbally degrade us for our core values, you compromise, don't look at us an say stupid, redneck trailer trash......because we will throw the "trash, and the trailer back!"

We will see how this last post is handled.......remember the sleeping dragon.

Somebody didn't get their nap today!

HOW MANY OF YOU PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY SERVING? OR HAVE A FAMILY MEMBER SERVING IN IRAQ?

HOW MANY OF YOU PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY SERVING? OR HAVE A FAMILY MEMBER SERVING IN IRAQ?

Anthony says, “I can't imagine that anyone who has read Jack Peek, Iron Otter, et al., would believe that they either ‘feel it's inappropriate ...to put pressure on our elected leaders,’ etc. or that they think that troops shouldn't be well-equipped.”

Well, Anthony, I don’t know why you’ve taken it upon yourself to defend the indefensible, but here’s a sampling…

JS: “I support the troops. I want them to have the best possible protection against roadside bombs and sniper fire. Every US casualty that could've been prevented with a simple armor-upgrade is a tragedy.”

JS again: “Nearly two years into a war of choice (a war Bush and Rumsfeld could've waited to start until the planning was done and equipment in order), it is inexcusable that only 12% of heavy haulers and less than 75% of humvees have the armor they need to keep safe the soldiers inside.”

Jack Peek screams, “THE SHORTAGE OF BODY ARMOR…Its BS!” And referring to the soldiers who asked Rumsfeld about the armor he says, “the WHINNERS [sic] to Mommy, and too Rummy, need to SHUT UP an do the damn job they were sent too do…” Furthermore, “And proves the point of you "people" [BlueOregon posters?] are giving aid an [sic] comfort to the enemy.”

Rose: “LIBS GET OVER IT INSTEAD OF SPREADING HATE STAND BEHIND YOUR PRESIDENT.” And, “OUR MEN AND WOMEN HAVE SUFFICIENT PROTECTION OVER THERE PLEASE LIBS STOP THE DAM WHINNING [sic]”

Debbie: “None of you have a life, all you have to do is bash the nation, our troops, and the President.”

Jack Peek, Iron Otter, Rose Pedersen, Steve Schopp, Nicola Spano, Debbie Button, and Sharon:

How do you reconcile your comments with the analysis Brigadier General Raymond C. Byrne, Jr., commander of the Oregon National Guard? How do you answer Oregon Guardsman Sean Davis?

Here is what these two Oregon Guardsman have to say:

"If you have [something] then that's better than nothing. The question becomes then again when - when are they going to receive the full up armored Humvees? And I don't have that answer," says Gen. Byrne.

"It distresses me greatly that they do not have the equipment. I don't have control over it. The soldiers don't have control over it. The question becomes, 'When is it going to be available? When is it going to be available? When will they have it?'"

Oregon guardsman Sean Davis told us that his unit was short ammunition and night vision goggles, and lacked radios to communicate with each other.

He says guardsman were using walkie-talkies that they or their families purchased from a sporting goods or similar store. "And anybody can pick up those signals, you know," he says. "And we don't have the radios that we need."

Gen. Byrne says stories about families in Oregon having to go out and buy for their sons and daughters radio equipment, body armor, GPS gear, computers and night vision goggles because they weren't being issued are true.

He said some Guard units are also using Vietnam era M-16 assault rifles, which he calls adequate for state duty but not acceptable for duty in Iraq. There is also a bullet shortage for training, he says.

It bothers him, but "there's nothing I can do about it," he says.

"If I was making the decisions, I would readjust," he says. "The soldier on the ground should be a focus. When that's taken care of you can take care of other stuff."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110204C.shtml

Nice try, JS, but you might as well string a bunch of quotes together attempting to prove the earth is flat.

Neither of my points are refuted by what you quote.

You know full well that, however inexactly and sometimes carelessly these folks may have expressed themselves, that they care at least as much as you do how well-equipped the troops are.

You may not understand, depending on your capacity for self-deception and your prejudice toward your political adversaries, that what these folks object to is not holding officials to account but rather what they take to be -- rightly or wrongly -- gratuitous partisan attacks during a time of war.

If you were a less habitually supercilious person and a little more honest about your own motivations, you might be able to have a better dialogue with these folks. And me, for that matter.

Thank you for inadvertantly making my point for me.

These "folks" take any criticism of the war in Iraq or of this Administration as "gratuitous partisan attacks during a time of war." With this mindset dialogue simply cannot exist.

To these folks, it doesn't matter that I am simply repeating what members of the Oregon National Guard have said. Because I am a liberal/progressive/Democrat/BlueOregon reader, I am "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" with my criticism. So, instead of talking about the concerns of Oregonians who are serving in Iraq, we end up talking about the "motivations" of the people who simply give voice to what many soldiers are saying.

Meanwhile US soldiers still lack armor, their family members still have to send them walkie-talkies and GPS devices, and only 12% of heavy-haulers have the armor kits that they need. All this after nearly two years of a war we initiated on our timeline.

I feel the troops are better served by giving voice to their concerns, in an attempt to remedy them, rather than INCOHERENTLY SHOUTING AT, or discussing the motivations of, any critic of this war or this Administration.

JS,

It's gratifying to see you backing off the mischaracterization that I took issue with.

With regard to the point I've inadvertently made for you, I agree that it's difficult to have dialogue with people who are not open to it. It may be likely that "these 'folks'" will regard criticism of the administration as gratuitous partisan attacks. That doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong. Nor does it mean dialogue is impossible.

Whenever people of diverging political views meet, there is a tendency to dismiss what the other says as motivated by partisanship. The fact is that some element of what is said by both sides is almost certainly driven by partisanship -- and there's nothing wrong with that, in itself.

But reasonable people will look to the opportunity of engagement not just to score points but also to get to what might fairly said about a given topic without regard to partisanship. Thus, at the end of the day, Pat and Otter, say, may have different wishes for how this matter will affect Rumsfeld and Bush, but both may make concessions about what the problem really is or isn't. And we all might end up a little less polarized.

I agree that many of your adversaries here have behaved badly, and I have in fact criticized their behavior, both here at BlueOregon.com and elsewhere. That doesn't preclude my criticizing bad behavior on the other side.

You end your last post repeating contentions that I and others have addressed. It's as if those arguments have just rolled off your back. Thus, whatever can be said about Jack and his cohort, I don't find you particularly interested in serious dialogue. I suspect there's a certain amount of projection in your protest about their impermeability.

Can dialogue with you really exist? Let's wait and see.

I'm not interested in serious dialogue with unserious people. Will you and your cohorts prove to be serious? Let's wait and see...

JS,

I have no cohort here. I've already made several serious posts on this thread alone. I've conducted myself here with the same respect for the forum that has characterized my posts elsewhere at BlueOregon. The record is there for anyone to examine it.

And speaking of things worth examining, an article on the subject of this thread appeared at OpinionJournal.com today. Some of what the author says reflects arguments already made here (and mostly ignored by you), but there is new material too, and the author speaks with a certain authority:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006029

Enjoy.

Is General Norman Schwarzkopf's criticism of Rumsfeld and the Defense Department a "gratuitous partisan attack"? Do Jack Peek and his fellow keyboard commandos know more than Gen. Schwarzkopf about the needs of troops and the obligations of their military and civilian leaders?

According to Schwarzkopf, "things have gone awry," in Iraq, and he doesn't blame it on Clinton or the intended uses of the humvee being different than the current uses.

I'd love to hear the keyboard commandos' thoughts on the following...

Schwarzkopf, interviewed on MSNBC-TV’s “Hardball,” chided Rumsfeld for his reply to a soldier in Kuwait over the lack of armor on many military vehicles used in Iraq.

“I was very, very disappointed — no, let me put it stronger — I was angry by the words of the secretary of defense when he laid it all on the Army, as if he, as the secretary of defense, didn’t have anything to do with the Army and the Army was over there doing it themselves, screwing up,” Schwarzkopf said.

Schwarzkopf, a registered independent who campaigned for Bush in the last two presidential elections, has previously criticized Rumsfeld on several occasions as arrogant and out of touch with troops on the ground.

Monday, Schwarzkopf said the Defense Department had badly misjudged the situation in Iraq. Reserve forces were rushed into urban combat — “toughest kind of fighting” — without adequate training, and “things have gone awry.”

“In the final analysis, I think we are behind schedule” in Iraq, Schwarzkopf said. “... I don’t think we counted on it turning into jihad.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6708495/

If you read the whole thing, you can also learn about Republican Senators McCain and Hagel criticize the handling of the war.

how many of you were in the military or have a family member serving ? Because it seems like you are clueless

JS,

What bearing does what Schwarzkopf said have on the humvee issue? It's fine to throw it out there, but if you are interested in dialogue please tell us how this affects the arguments made about armor and procurement made above.

I saw some excerpts of the Matthews interview and the impression I got was that the general was angry at Rumsfeld for what he perceived as the Secretary's shunting the blame to the army. Having heard what Rumsfeld said, I never felt that the army needed to be defensive. I suspect that Schwarzkopf has his own reasons for reacting the way that he did, probably relating to an ongoing feud with Rumsfeld. The comments that I heard all expressed general (no pun) disapproval of Rumsfeld and didn't say anything that would change my mind about the nature of the problem.

It's not news that Schwarzkopf and some number of other high military commanders already have it in for Rumsfeld. How much that has to do with a lack of due diplomacy on Rumsfeld's side (or arrogance and ham-fistedness, if you prefer), how much on the self-important stubbornness and high dudgeon of the military establishment, I don't know. Rumsfeld may have regrettable deficiencies in his leadership style, but I'm convinced that he rocked the boat of the military establishment for good reason and it's not terribly surprising that he made enemies doing so. A Democratic SecDef who had bearded the generals in their den would probably have been canonized at BlueOregon. Admit it.

Whatever the case, this all seems a matter of Schwarzkopf critiquing how Rumsfeld talked about the matter, and even then only as an opportunity to renew his ongoing attack against him.

Anthony = Troll

Please don't feed the trolls.

Anthony's sole purpose of posting here is to disrupt this website. He has no interest in having an honest discussion of the issues. He and others are only trying to frustrate "blues" and anger them. They succeed when, out of frustration, we call them names or overreact to their BS.

Please don't reply to the trolls. Just ignore them.

As a frequent reader, and a true blue, I disagree with Beverly's comment. (About Anthony, not the other trolls.)

I don't know what brings Anthony here, but I think we allow ourselves to be frustrated and angry by his words. We know what we believe, and Anthony does many of us good to search for articulation. I disagree with him often (like how he casually dismisses Schwarzkoff's statements) but as blues we are prone to the larger philosophical disagreements. He likes to get to the bits.

So be it.

Republican Senator Susan Collins (Maine), a member of the Armed Services Committee, recently addressed these issues...

"I am very concerned that it appears the Pentagon failed to do everything in its power to increase production" of the vehicles, Collins wrote [in a letter to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld].

"The Department of Defense still has been unable to ensure that our troops have the equipment they need to perform their mission as safely as possible."

Collins also complained that the Army requested production of an additional 100 Humvees a month only after a soldier complained about the lack of necessary armor on trucks during a December 9 town hall meeting with Rumsfeld in Kuwait.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/16/rumsfeld.senators/index.html

Let's see if I can summarize the argument:

<sarcasm time="">

"All this whining about not enough armor has got to stop. Armies go to war with the equipment they have, not the equipment that some worried mother might wish they have. Deal! If your commanding officer orders you to go on patrol butt naked and armed with a super squirt water pistol, well, hey soldier, orders are orders. Are you not a man? Are you not a soldier?"

</sarcasm>

OK, now let's get real. I think there isn't much the left can or should do about this issue. This is not America's war... it is a partisan war launched by the leader of a political party for partisan reasons, largely in the interests of an neofasist (yes, I'm talking about the the US of A) corporate regime.

We ordinary Americans hardly have a dog in this fight about armor. It is between the soldiers and those who voted to send them there and keep them there.

There is a whole mindset of obedience, deference to authority, love of empire, trust in leaders.... a huge psychodrama that is playing out, between the leaders and the led, between those who dominate and those who are willing to be dominated (soldiers).

Will the leadership crush the "dissident soldiers" with their mild complaints like "hey what about armor?"

Will they offer Rummy's resignation as an apology?

Will the friction between soldiers and leaders grow?

This is interesting... but not my struggle.

All I can do is point out the facts of the situation.

All I can do is support the human beings who have become soldiers.

People say "support our troops" but that is wrong. I don't support our soldiers and neither should you. I support instead the human beings who have transformed themselves into soldiers and abandoned their own moral judgements for the moral judgements of their leaders, and allowed themselves to become followers of orders, and allowed themselves to be shipped to Iraq.

I support them in spite of their choice to become soldiers.

I support them with all my heart, in spite of all their choices, in spite of the fact that they have become soldiers and are acting against my interests and the interest of the people of the United States. I support them as human beings. But not as soldiers. They are not soldiers in my name, and they are not fighting my war.

I wish them life and body armor and that they should all see their kids again. But as soldiers they do not have my support for the choice to become a solider, for their willingness to follow orders now that they are soldiers, or for their willingness to be instruments of an ugly foreign policy.

Oh sure, that's too fine a distinction, and most of the public can't begin to grasp it, but I think we have to keep making it from the sidelines.

It is the soldiers and their families who have to ask themselves whether they are valued by their leaders and country as human beings should be valued.

Then they have to reach their own conclusions and act accordingly.

The deluge of attacks here is fascinating... as if the body armor issue was coming from the left!

The human heart's desire to resist any idea that questions the wisdom of a strong leader is overwhelming, it seems. Those on the right cry out "It must be the leftists who are to blame." But of course we have nothing to do with this. This is between soldiers and commanders, followers and leaders.

We who are neither, we who reject the authoritarian world view, can only watch and wonder whether the structures of authority and habbits of obedience or the instincts of resistance and the sense of human self worth will prevail....

Will this particular betrayal of the little guy in American history register on human conciousness, contribute to revaluation of the value of obedience and organized violence, or somehow be supporessed and forgotten?

Time and history will tell.

Jesse and John,

Heartfelt thanks for the kind words.

It's not so much a love for getting to "the bits" -- by all means let's have broad philosophical discussions as well -- it's just that people tend not to distinguish between one point and the other. It's a rhetorical maneuver (though often executed unconsciously) to slide away from the point in contention in order to move to more favorable ground. If I'm making an argument about a particular point, I expect that point to be acknowledged or refuted before changing the subject.

The proximate cause of my being here is that I was invited by a contributor. I leave it to that contributor to decide whether he wants to identify himself. I keep coming because I enjoy disputing with people who hold different views. Part of that may be a pure love of intellectual conflict, part of it is a desire to refine my views. I mean that in the way that Jesse describes, but also to actually purify my position of dross. I really do come here with an open mind, however wary my partisan prejudices make me of the opposition's arguments.

I tend to like the people I find on the other side, and I constantly wonder about how it is that intelligent, decent people can hold such divergent opinions. I'd like to find out more about that, whether it's likely to change my own opinions or not. The main reason is that I really would like to better understand the philosophical and temperamental underpinnings of the different positions. I most certainly would welcome the opportunity converse and debate on subjects less burdened by the partisan concerns of the day. Of course, this is a partisan political Web site.

I have already argued elsewhere at BlueOregon that I think conservative posters have a special responsibility when posting here. They should take care not to cause scandal to their own cause, and they should respect that this is a Blue sandbox. With that in mind, let me be clear to posters such as Beverly that I don't believe I have any specific right to post here, and I accordingly follow a high standard of debate, lest I wear out my welcome.

Now, if anyone ever finds what I write too snarky, I recommend they read above in the thread in question to see what precipitated my response. If I'm sarcastic or otherwise severe, it's generally because someone was asking for it. Turnabout is fair play. Should I be more magnanimous? Maybe, though it would definitely be less fun. Anyhow, you can't blame me for being no snarkier than my provocateurs.

I'm about out of time, but regarding Schwarzkopf, I hope I don't casually dismiss him. First, I do believe he has an agenda against Rumsfeld, and second, I really don't see how his comments help refute the argments I've made here. Perhaps I missed some of what he said and someone here can supply it. Still, I doubt it would change much. Does it not seem to you that there was some turf marking and other business going on in Schwarzkopf's comments? There may be something blameworthy in Rumsfeld's capacity for making enemies, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me to wonder whether that enmity is often a factor in finding fault where it otherwise might not be.

Anthony,

You've repeatedly stated that people have avoided your central argument, which you've apparently only made once in the course of several posts (in the future, on an 80 comment post, it would be helpful if you repeated your central argument more than once rather than just referring back to "it" in the abstract). I've tried to glean that argument from your original post, and here's what I've come up with (I'm sure you'll let me know if I've missed).

Anthony: “People are willfully misconstruing the nature of the problem in an effort to find something to blame Rumsfeld for. The humvees were not delivered improperly equipped, rather it turned out this mission has resulted in different requirements than were envisioned for these vehicles.”

I don’t think the “I didn’t adequately plan for the requirements of this mission” defense is sufficient. Besides, addressing this opens up a much broader point regarding the planning and decision to go to war in the first place, and there’s really not much point in us going there once again. As Pat so eloquently explained, “I'll concede that the Hummers were appropriately armed to receive the blows of rose petals from grateful Iraqis, which again was the ONLY contingency that these guys appear to have planned for.”

Anthony: “It’s not clear to me that command has been negligent in getting this fixed, since apparently measures are already ongoing to address the problem.”

Senator Collins (R-Maine) complained that the Army requested production of an additional 100 Humvees a month only after a soldier complained about the lack of necessary armor on trucks during a December 9 town hall meeting with Rumsfeld, nearly two years after the war began. If the increased production had been requested before we went to war (the Bush Administration set the timeline), at the increased production rate, 90-95% of the humvees would be properly armored. I wonder how many American soldiers’ lives have been lost in the last two years with the gap between 75% armored and 95% armored.

And since you've called many comments here partisan political attacks while concurrently rationalizing every criticism of Rumsfeld or the Administration (usually you accuse the critic of having "an agenda"), please point out a Rumsfeld critic who does not have "an agenda". Or, are there simply no honest criticisms to be made about Rumsfeld, bad planning, and lack of armor and equipment?

There is a whole mindset of obedience, deference to authority, love of empire, trust in leaders.... a huge psychodrama that is playing out, between the leaders and the led, between those who dominate and those who are willing to be dominated

Hey Miles -- did you find that the dictionary under 'patriotism' or 'submission' -- oh wait --- silly me. It's both.

Memories appear to be short in politics and are facilitated by the equally deficient memories of the American public. Recently, a number of politicians on both sides of the aisle have fed on artificial blood poured in the water as a result of Secretary Rumsfeld’s remark at a recent conference with US military troops. So, what exactly was the egregious and insensitive remark made by Secretary Rumsfeld that incensed so many? It was simply this:

"you go to war with the Army you have ... not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

Let’s disregard the fact that Secretary Rumsfeld was “set-up” with a loaded question, but rather rejoice in Mr. Rumsfeld’s characteristic candor which is rarely heard elsewhere from inside of the beltway. Most importantly, let’s look at what cards Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was forced to play when he came to office and then, perhaps, many will begin to understand the basis for his answer. When appointed, Secretary Rumsfeld inherited the loss of:

709,000 Active duty military personnel; 293,000 Reserve troops; 8 full standing army divisions; 20 Air force and navy air wings with 2,000 combat aircraft; 232 Strategic bombers; 19 Strategic ballistic missile submarines with 3,114 nuclear missile warheads on 232 missiles; 500 ICBMs with 1,950 warheads; Four-(4) Aircraft carriers and 121 Surface combat ships and subs, plus all of the support bases, shipyards and logistical assets needed to sustain such a naval force. The above US military forces – equal or exceeding that of many small countries - were eliminated during the 8-year Clinton administration during the false peace and youthful naiveté that dominated the 1990’s. Perhaps we should look to his predecessor, the previous administration and every member of Congress who voted for these cuts and are now saber rattling for their answers. I suspect many will choose to remain silent on the issue.

There is plenty of blame to be shared by many inside of the beltway, so let’s not join the frenzy of those with political agendas and make Secretary Rumsfeld the scapegoat for his candor. I urge you to “stay the course,” Secretary Rumsfeld, and continue to lead the military fight on the war on terror. America needs your expertise as much as we need your frankness. This war will not be one by anyone afraid to shout, at some point, the now infamous Jack Nicholson line from the movie A Few Good Men:

“You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth…”

WHERE ARE YOU ALL STATIONED ? LMAO

I suppose all the applause from the rest of the troops attending the Rummy's Townhall in Kuwait for the question about the lack of armor was planted as well.

and your stationed where lmao.....

OK I will start ..I am stationed at Camp Lejeune..Now it's your turn maggots

Sharon, They think were you live is for a summer get- away...

hey you useless leftist idiots wanna tell me why you hate your country so much.don't you knw how lucky you are.

hey chew on this for a while Leftists in America never seem to learn from their past mistakes. Of course, they don’t see aiding and abetting the enemy as a “mistake.” They see their mistakes as great victories.

The fact that in the case of Viet Nam leftists gave strength and hope to an enemy ready to admit defeat, seems to have no effect on them. They are oblivious to this. We will never know how many American soldiers died in the rice patties and jungles of Viet Nam because of the liberals’ obvious support for the enemy. Perhaps, in their twisted minds, liberals saw those soldiers as “martyrs” for their cause. The death of these soldiers’ was a high price but in the end leftists won and they could blame the deaths on the “war-mongering right” even though it was those from the left who escalated our involvement in Viet Nam.

Now we are battling terrorists in Iraq. Our brave marines and soldiers are putting their lives on the line once again, and once again liberals are handing the enemy the ammunition to kill them.

If you listen to leftists, they scream that they are outraged that our brave men and women are dying, but in truth, they see it as an opportunity to make political hay in an election year.

What is the enemy hearing? He is hearing a ranting Teddy Kennedy yelling about “Bush’s Viet Nam” and he is hearing the man he hopes will be the president next year--John Kerry--lecturing to the choir about how this war is the worst “failure” in diplomacy in American history. He hears Al Gore--the man he wishes had won the last election--screaming like a wild man about how “Bush has betrayed the American people.” He hears others in Congress calling President Bush a “miserable failure.” It’s music to his ears. That “miserable failure” has brought the enemy untold grief.

The enemy is not just hearing it, he is repeating it. He is repeating it to his followers. He is broadcasting it on Arab TV. The enemy is singing the praises of these liberal leaders in his Mosque. It gives him strength. It gives him hope and it gives him the will to fight on. It gives him a reason to come over the borders from Iran and Syria to kill Americans. After all, if the liberal party wins in November—just a few short months away—the enemies’ victory will be assured. So he will fight on and our soldiers will continue to die. Innocent Iraqis caught in the cross fire will continue to die. Iraqis who want freedom and are helping us will be assassinated.

The liberal rhetoric has given the terrorists a blueprint to follow. Continue to kill Americans, send our soldiers home in body bags and the left will howl and the American people will once again cringe, cower away and retreat before the daily onslaught of “terrible news from Iraq.” We have a history. Our enemy knows this and he is not stupid. He knows that the “new” America will not tolerate causalities. He believes we are all weak, sniveling cowards who will run at the first shot. The “new” America will run to the impotent and corrupt United Nations and beg for help. The enemy knows he will safe once again from the wrath of the “Great Satan.” America has a reputation now of being a country that cuts and runs.

Our soldiers don’t cut and run but our politicians do. The media is duplicitous with the far left by only reporting bad news and rarely any good news. Pounded with doom and gloom and a daily body count, many Americans are beginning to doubt—beginning to get fearful and when completely indoctrinated that all is lost, the hue and cry will begin. Iraq is not worth it. “Those people” don’t appreciate what we have done for them so we should pull out and leave them to take care of themselves. “They” don’t want us there. This is Bush’s war! By saying this, leftists can justify abandoning millions to be killed--free from guilt. They will say as the mass slaughter begins, “It’s the Iraqi people’s fault.” They can then turn their eyes away from the carnage and feel righteous in their decision and mumble... “They deserved it.” “It’s Bush’s fault.”

When we abandoned our friends in Viet Nam, anyone who had helped us died. The killing was massive and brutal. It would be no different in Iraq and those who assisted the Americans and coalition forces would be lined up and executed. Death would be worse at the hands of the terrorists and probably would not be swift. Those on the left seem not to care. They didn’t care in Viet Nam and they don’t care now.

Leftists have perfected their anti-American program and streamlined it since Viet Nam. It took a couple of years to lose the war in South East Asia; it will only take the left a few months to lose the war in Iraq. If John Kerry wins in November they will step-up their work on losing the war on terror. Iraq is just the first step. The left will abdicate our power and safety to the United Nations ignoring the inglorious and failed history of that body. The left will embrace “Old Europe” with both arms and beg for help. That is the second thing they do well. First, they surrender--then they beg. After all, the “new” America is weak and cannot win.

How far have we fallen since World War II? We had a mission. We fought until that mission had been completed and then we stayed and rebuilt the countries we had defeated. When the world was stable once again, most of our troops came home. The same leftists that kept us from perhaps preventing that dreadful war with their isolationist attitude started complaining almost immediately after the surrender of the Axis Powers and they have never stopped.

Many on the left come from academe but they have no vision. Many come from wealthy, well-educated families but they don’t have the common sense God gave a squirrel.

In the liberal version of the dictionary, victory means capitulation and appeasement. As Americans, we have been down that liberal road and it has always led to death, destruction, and a World War. This trip will be no different.

Sharon,

If you've going to spout off ignorant, anti-American vitriol, the least you could do is cite your source.

http://www.republicanandproud.com/liberaldefinition.htm

What a joke. And you try to pawn this garbage off as your own. Truthfully, your dishonesty doesn't surprise me, but please, post your plagarized garbage somewhere else.

And I forgot...LMAO...

Dear JS.. AHHH, never mind I can't say that!

But what I say is the following,"credit where credit is due."

From the "USMC A COMPLETE HISTORY" by the Marine Corp association, page 576 MANPOWER,

 "Since the summer of 1965, more then 30,000 Marines have voluntarily extended their tours of duty in Vietnam for 6 months or more. That equates to more then a battalion a month. During December of 1968. 3200 of the 8,000 men who were scheduled to come home volunteered to remain in country."

What a differnce JS, a generation makes from then until now, a perfect example of the degrading of the services by the left in this country, and it seems that the only ones in the news on trying to run out and leave their friends are from Oregon, "WHY IS THAT?"

The ones who "Bitch and whine" read your posts.

The others read Sharon's, WELL DUH!

hey asshole...I never said I owned that statement..But how true it is...

you never see the Marines on your boob toob bitching about not having body armor..or complaining about extended tours..There are only 2 kinds of Marines..Marines that are in Iraq...and Marines that want to be in Iraq...

STILL WAITING ON THAT ANSWER ....WHERE ARE YOU STATIONED...LMAO

To these folks, it doesn't matter that I am simply repeating what members of the Oregon National Guard have said. Because I am a liberal/progressive/Democrat/BlueOregon reader, I am "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" YOUR WORDS!

"Since the summer of 1965, more then 30,000 Marines have voluntarily extended their tours of duty in Vietnam for 6 months or more. That equates to more then a battalion a month. During December of 1968. 3200 of the 8,000 men who were scheduled to come home volunteered to remain in country."

What a differnce JS, a generation makes from then until now, a perfect example of the degrading of the services by the left in this country, and it seems that the only ones in the news on trying to run out and leave their friends are from Oregon, "WHY IS THAT?" My words!

So just ignore us "trolls"...in 08, your going down again! Jack Peek, father of three in the service of their country who are not whining!

I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.).

I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11.

I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Arabs.

I am sorry that Arabs have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships. I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth.

I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their religious schools.

I am sorry that Yassir Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and hijacked the Palestinian "cause."

I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians.

I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA.

I am sorry that our own left wing elite and our media can't understand any of this.

I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered.

I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon their death.

I am sorry that those same bombers are seeking 72 virgins. I can't seem to find one here on Earth.

I am sorry that the homicide bombers think babies are a legitimate target.

I am sorry that our troops died to free more Arabs.

I am sorry they show so much restraint when their brothers in arms are killed. I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group.

I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state.

I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen "Daisy Cutters" on Fallujah. (Note: a "Daisy Cutter" is a 10,000 lb bomb, used to clear helicopter landing zones)

I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site".

I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church - one of our Holy Sites.

I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, etc.

I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa.

I am sorry the French are french?

America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those responsible because that is what we do. We hang out our dirty laundry for all the world to see. We move on. That's one of the reasons we are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.

Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, we were like - so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure, it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated? Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujans.

If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long wait. You have a better chance of finding those 72 virgins.

Jack do you read what you write before you hit the post button?

Yes,and DO YOU NOT GET THE MESSAGE?

But,those on the left are still sorry and will continue to be sorry right up to the last day.

JS

You write: “I don’t think the ‘I didn’t adequately plan for the requirements of this mission” defense is sufficient.”

My reply: First, let’s be careful distinguish between the anticipated requirements and those as they actually emerged. Assuming we agree about that, WHY don’t you find it sufficient, bearing in mind my arguments about how this kind of thing can happen and is really no one’s fault? What’s YOUR argument to that effect? Sometimes incompetence leads to the wrong things or insufficient numbers of the right things getting to where they’re needed. That’s different from a new situation requiring new equipment that hadn’t been anticipated by anyone. Or do you dispute this?

Arguments about whether we should have gone to war in the first place are irrelevant. Maybe we should have gone to war, maybe we shouldn’t. I’m not arguing about that. Pat, in the humorous passage you cite, suggests that the Administration wasn’t well prepared for a variety of contingencies that should have been anticipated. That may well be the case; as I’ve already remarked, I’m not inclined to dispute that. However, the crack about Hummers appropriately armed to receive the blows of rose petals is off the mark. The Hummers were not inadequately armored by accepted standards. What happened is the standards changed.

You wrote: “Senator Collins (R-Maine) complained that the Army requested production of an additional 100 Humvees a month only after a soldier complained about the lack of necessary armor on trucks during a December 9 town hall meeting with Rumsfeld, nearly two years after the war began. If the increased production had been requested before we went to war (the Bush Administration set the timeline), at the increased production rate, 90-95% of the humvees would be properly armored. I wonder how many American soldiers’ lives have been lost in the last two years with the gap between 75% armored and 95% armored.”

My reply: First, since the need was only identified some time after the war began, it’s absurd to expect increased production to have been requested before going to war. Why not answer what I said in the way its wording invited? I wasn’t convinced that command was negligent because it seemed uncontroversial that remediation of the problem was ongoing. The question, then, is when was the need first identified, and then how was it responded to? I believe I suggested in earlier posts that it might be a good idea to review the procedures whereby such needs were responded to. If there were nothing wrong with the procedures, maybe there was something wrong with the way command responded to identified needs. And possibly (though it would be unlikely) you could find something specifically wrong with the way the Secretary of Defense responded to such needs.

Since this thread began I have read in a couple of places that the unit to which the soldier questioning Rumsfeld belonged had 830 vehicles, only 20 of which had failed to be up-armored by that point, and those 20 were up-armored by the end of the following day, as per schedule:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008949.php

If this is true, then the up-armoring had been going on for quite some time. I have also already commented on the conditions that could affect increasing production from… what was it, 450 to 550? Your latest post doesn’t take issue with my comments, which suggests to me that you didn’t have an effective answer to them, or you’d have made it at the time. Now you regurgitate a question that I’ve already answered. So, you were not impressed by the fact that the military actually did up production by 450 but you were pissed off because they responded to public pressure by somehow (you have no idea how) extracting more production out of the manufacturer. You’re a hard person to please.

One of your early posts here said that 75% of the humvees had been up-armored, which itself shows an ongoing program addressing the identified need for up-armoring. I replied that this seemed like a pretty good record of retrofitting in the field. You never replied. Why not do so now? Is this not a good record? If not, on what grounds do you dispute it? My suspicion – as I’ve expressed here several times – is you have no idea what the criteria are for judging such matters, but that doesn’t stop you from jumping to conclusions that favor your political prejudices. I don’t fault you for having such prejudices – I have them myself; I do fault you for your lack of intellectual rigor and your deficit of fair play.

You write: And since you've called many comments here partisan political attacks while concurrently rationalizing every criticism of Rumsfeld or the Administration (usually you accuse the critic of having "an agenda"), please point out a Rumsfeld critic who does not have "an agenda". Or, are there simply no honest criticisms to be made about Rumsfeld, bad planning, and lack of armor and equipment?

My reply: This is the kind of thing that makes me lose patience. You dismiss as “rationalizing” arguments for which you have no effective answer. I have done more to focus this argument here on the relevant questions (armoring, procurement, command responsibilities) than anybody else in this thread. When the argument has ranged away from the facts to questions of the reliability or unimpeachability of the accusers (e.g., Schwarzkopf) I have replied precisely on the point of that supposed reliability. Furthermore, I demonstrated willingness to engage on the fact claims that Schwarzkopf might have made, but didn’t find that he presented any facts worth disputing. If you think he did, bring ’em up, as I invited you to.

I’ve been open to honest cricitism of Rumsfeld throughout this entire debate. I suggested in my response to Pat Ryan’s comment that he was capable of making such criticism on other issues. But with regard to the issue in this thread, in the absence of good arguments to the contrary, I remain persuaded that the military was responding appropriately to the novel demands of this conflict, and that in any case, Rumsfeld’s enemies (yourself included) had jumped on this issue less out of interest in the problem as to find a pretext to argue Rumsfeld’s incompetence.