So what if the question was �planted� by a journalist? Does that make it any less valid a question?

Reporter planted GI's question for Rumsfeld
Says issue of unarmored vehicles wasn't being covered

The question a U.S. soldier asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Wednesday about the lack of armor on some combat vehicles in Iraq was planted by a newspaper reporter embedded with the soldier's unit, the reporter told colleagues in an e-mail.

Edward Lee Pitts, Chattanooga Times Free Press military affairs reporter, said he wanted to ask the question himself but was denied a chance to speak to Rumsfeld at what the Pentagon called a town hall meeting for GIs in Kuwait. . .

Soldiers at Camp Buehring, a staging area in the Kuwait desert, peppered Rumsfeld with queries, including one about armored vehicles from Spc. Thomas Wilson of the 278th.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked.

The question prompted cheers from some of the approximately 2,300 troops assembled in a hangar to hear Rumsfeld.

Pitts said he was told only soldiers could ask questions, so he and two GIs "worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have."

To make sure the soldiers were picked, Pitts said he "found the Sgt. in charge of the microphone for the question and answer session and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd."

"When he asked Rumsfeld why after two years here soldiers are still having to dig through trash bins to find rusted scrap metal and cracked ballistic windows for their Humvees," Pitts wrote, "the place erupted in cheers so loud that Rumsfeld had to ask the guy to repeat his question."

Rumsfeld said armored military vehicles have been brought to the region "from all over the world, from where they're not needed to a place they're needed."

"It's essentially a matter of physics, not a matter of money," Rumsfeld said. "It's a matter of production and the capability of doing it.

"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want."

Rumsfeld's response was aired repeatedly on news channels, including CNN. The Pentagon held news conferences to discuss the issue.

Even President Bush weighed in, telling reporters at the White House Thursday that the military is working to address the issue, and that he didn't blame the soldier for asking such a tough question.

"If I were a soldier overseas wanting to defend my country, I would want to ask the secretary of defense the same question. And that is, 'Are we getting the best we can get us?' And they deserve the best," Bush said.

In his e-mail, Pitts said he had been "trying to get this story out" since he learned several weeks ago that he would be assigned to an unarmored truck, and the Times Free Press published two stories on the issue.

"But it felt good to hand it off to the national press," Pitts wrote. "I believe lives are at stake with so many soldiers going across the border riding with scrap metal as protection. It may be too late for the unit I am with, but hopefully not for those who come after."

Pitts wrote that Wilson told him he "felt good b/c he took his complaints to the top. When he got back to his unit most of the guys patted him on the back but a few of the officers were upset b/c they thought it would make them look bad."

Military officials had given the Tennessee Guard unit "reassurance all along that this would be taken care of," said Tom Griscom, the paper's publisher and executive editor.

"We have pictures of soldiers in the 278th literally going through [a] scrap heap" scavenging steel plate for their vehicles, Griscom said.

"They [the soldiers] spoke for themselves," Griscom said.

Griscom said he supported the way Pitts handled the situation.

"Lee called in here yesterday on the [satellite] phone, told us how the questions had unfolded," he said.

"I am supportive of his trying to find a way to get a question asked," Griscom said.

Though there was some discussion at the paper about Pitts' handling of the matter, Griscom said, "I would not start by saying we made a mistake. I personally do not think we made a mistake."

Professor Stuart Loory, who holds the Lee Hills Chair in Free Press Studies at the University of Missouri School of Journalism in Columbia, said he doesn't consider the manner in which the question was asked to be a problem for the reporter.

"Reporters don't have the same access any longer that they did to ask their own questions," he said. "And planting a legitimate question with somebody who may have the access, I think, is an acceptable practice.

"The question is whether or not the soldier who asked the question really believed in it, and my guess is that he did, or he wouldn't have asked it," said Loory, who also is editor in chief of Global Journalist magazine.

Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita disagreed.

"Town hall meetings are intended for soldiers to have dialogue with the secretary of defense," Di Rita said in a news release.

"... The secretary provides ample opportunity for interaction with the press. It is better that others not infringe on the troops' opportunity to interact with superiors in the chain of command."

**

The REAL hullaballoo about this event should be over Rummy�s lame-ass response that to me is a perfect example of how very little our Administration actually cares about our soldiers out there or is even aware of what they have to go through every day.

Bush�s response was more befitting the question. Not that I buy the sincerity in his response (because actions speak louder than words), but at least he said the right thing.

~~~

In other political news�

So much for our Administration �trying to get to the bottom of� human rights� abuses being enacted against POWs and feeling that those abuses were �outrageous� and �horrific� or whatever insincere adjectives they used at the time. Let me say it again � if our Commander in Chief and Secretary of Defense did not want this shit going on, it wouldn�t be going on. They may choose to remain ignorant, but ignorance is the same as giving these soldiers the �go ahead.�

Bush and Rummy are like the Pontius Pilate if their day. �Washing their hands� of the matter doesn�t mean they are not culpable.

Weeks after the disclosure of abuses at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, Department of Defense officials reported observing Iraqi detainees being brutalized by military interrogators who then allegedly threatened their DoD counterparts and warned them to keep their mouths shut.

It is becoming increasingly apparent (not that it wasn�t always apparent to some of us) that these abuses are not one or two �isolated cases�. Think about how much we know about. Makes you kind of wonder how much we don�t know about � especially in Guantanamo Bay, where there isn�t such a press presence.

I also again say � these prisoners are NOT convicted criminals. They are NOT terrorists (although it wouldn�t surprise me if they became one after being held in prison and having carrots shoved up their ass, or whatever). Most of the people held in Iraqi prisons are freed several months later, after it is determined they did nothing wrong.

They are being held without charge and abused (whether in Iraq or Guantanamo Bay) for being of Middle Eastern decent.

I also urge you to read an article posted by roxy yesterday about a soldier who deserted his unit in Iraq because of the atrocities he saw going on there. It�s not a fun read, but it is an important one. And I think it illuminates my point that these soldiers are doing what they have been trained to do. Thank God a few of them have retained their sense of human decency and dignity and�oh yeah � the law.

Since I have defended soldiers so often both in these pages and in my �real� life, a few friends have been rather vocal about their disdain for the kinds of people who generally join the military (you know, I tend to hang in rather liberal crowds, as a rule). I�ve been wanting to respond but just haven�t found the time. Now seems the apropos occasion, I guess.

I have heard �young, dumb and full of cum,� more than once. Soldiers are generally seen as 19 year-olds who grew up on video games and John Wayne movies, who are too stupid to get in to college and who just wanna shoot stuff. If that �stuff� happens to be a �towel head� so much the better.

Let me say first that I know perfectly well there are exceptions to what I am about to describe. So don�t bombard me with your emails in defense of your boyfriend, OK?

Generally speaking, I don�t disagree. I don�t usually get along with the sort of guy who would join the military, with very few exceptions. As I have said before, I understand that there are some people (two members of my own family, for example) who join the military to earn money for college or because they have limited options right out of High School. Or they join out of some outdated and (in my opinion) misguided urge to �serve their country.� I know the military even helps some who lack discipline or direction. In fact, I have often wished John�s son Johnny would have gone in to the Army as he once wanted to, because he needs a kick in the ass (although now that we�re at war, I�m glad he didn�t enlist, of course).

All of that said, I�d say most men, especially, join the military (and especially the Marines) because of some macho-bullshit creed that is completely foreign to me and because they want to play with guns.

These are not my kind of people. In fact, two things have always been a definite turn off when I meet men � if I find out they are a Cop or I find out they are a member of the military (especially a Marine, though). I just will not even entertain dating either one.

It�s my own little bias, I know, but I learned my lesson on both fronts a long, long time ago. Remind me to tell you the joke I was told by one Marine when I was eighteen or so, after we were discussing the fact that he was a racist idiot, wherein he said: �I see nothing wrong with niggers. I think everyone should own one.�

So, you know, most people who think like me, when they hear about these abuses is these prisons, they�re all like: �Well, it�s no wonder. All these macho men, in a room together, having no compassion and all of the power, of course they�re going to resort to this bullshit.�

Here�s how I see it: We all know the types of personalities who generally enlist in the armed services. This is even MORE reason to TRAIN THEM PROPERLY. GIVE THEM DIRECTION. GIVE THEM ORDERS. GIVE THEM DISCIPLINE.

Because while all of the things I just said might well be true, another thing that is true is that THESE PEOPLE DO NOT THINK FOR THEMSELVES. That�s the whole concept behind the military. That�s what they call �discipline.� You do as you are told, you do not ask questions. If you ask questions, you get in deep, deep trouble and you learn not to ask them anymore.

Instead, we are training these people to be animals.

Remember all of those Marines from Fort Bragg who came home and killed their wives after a few weeks/months?

How can you turn off that sort of programming, once it�s been ingrained?

This is why so many of our Viet Nam vets have had such problems readjusting to real life when they returned home. They were trained to be animals, then when they came home there was no mechanism to assist them in readjusting to real life.

This stuff will go on so long as Washington allows it to go on. So that�s probably at least another four years.

Unless we speak up and demand change.

**

But here�s some good news for a change, from TrueMajority:

Bill Pressuring Sudan to End Darfur Genocide Clears Congress,
Bush Expected to Sign

�. . . in a gesture of bipartisan compassion that we dream about but rarely see in Washington, both the House and Senate have now passed the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act, pressuring Sudan to end the genocide in Darfur. Bush is expected to sign the legislation into law soon.

�The Act was passed after tens of thousands of TrueMajority members and folks from other groups made their voices heard.

�The legislation calls on the President to impose sanctions on Sudanese leaders if specific progress is not made by certain dates. It also earmarks an additional $200 million in aid for the victims in Sudan and Chad. This serious pressure and assistance from the U.S. cannot come too soon as over 70,000 people are dead in Sudan and more than 1.5 million are displaced. America�s government did the right thing.�

**

On the Environmental front (courtesy of Environmental Defense Action Network News)...

Oil Industry Eyes Arctic Wildlife Refuge (Again) - Time to Act

The Bush Administration, Congress, and the oil industry are at it again, pushing to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling, a move the Senate rejected last year. Known as "America's Serengeti," the Arctic Refuge is home to polar bears, caribou, migratory birds and other wildlife. Despite widespread public opposition to drilling in sensitive wildlife habitat, the battle could start again in early 2005. Speak out - tell President Bush and Congress that Americans oppose trading wilderness and wildlife for more global warming pollution and a mere six-month supply of oil. Take Action

**

And finally, we even have some good news on this front:

FedEx Kinko's Gets Greener Behind the Counter

FedEx Kinko's is giving other companies something to copy. Now, black and white copies made behind the counter will be printed on 30% post-consumer recycled paper. This move, made with help from Environmental Defense, brings FedEx Kinko's a step closer to their goal of 30% post-consumer recycled content for all paper and packaging. Post-consumer recycled paper reduces energy use, waste and greenhouse gas pollution. Thanks to the over 25,000 Environmental Defense activists who wrote to Kinko's CEO last year to encourage them!

~~~

Word of the Day for Friday December 10, 2004

extemporaneous ek-stem-puh-RAY-nee-us, adjective:
1. Composed, performed, or uttered on the spur of the moment, or without previous study; unpremeditated; impromptu.
2. Prepared beforehand but delivered without notes or text.
3. Skilled at or given to extemporaneous speech.
4. Provided, made, or put to use as an expedient; makeshift.

last / next



~~~~~~~~~~~peace, love and smooches~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Don't know why you'd wanna, but on the off-chance you may feel tempted to steal any of my words and claim them as your own, please be advised: All material
Copyright 2002-2005, Howl-at-the-Moon Words



***DISCLAIMER: These are my thoughts and my thoughts alone. If you know me in my "real life" off the net and have come across this page purely by accident, please keep in mind that you were not invited here and I would suggest you leave this page now. However, should you choose not to do so, please be warned that reading my thoughts here is not an invitation to discuss them off-line. You may discover things you do not know about me and may not like very much. Such is life. Again, this is MY space and I will use it as I see fit. If you are offended by anything here, well that's pretty much your own fault at this point. I say all of this with love, of course, but there it is.