Senators-in-Chief

Some of the information concerning the WMD was not accurate but it was the best information, on that subject, that everyone had at the time. He's acknowledged that. That's a bit different than the implied meaning of "admits", "he gave", and "fake". Intelligence is not flawless. Remember that Saddam himself was implying he had WMD. Besides, that didn't make up the sole justification. Without the full and open inspection mandated by the UN resolutions there was no way to be sure. Saddam brought the war upon himself. Congress was, and is, aware of all the reasons. They just have selective memory.

They're not fools. Iraq was not predictable. As radicals loose their grip and representative government takes hold in Iraq it will become a stronger counterbalance. Yes, there's uncertainty about how long that might take.

You're misquoting what I wrote. I think you know that and saw the response to Terry's comment. Germany's declaration of war had no relation to what I wrote.

But, although not in this specific example, I certainly have made errors and sure don't know everything about anything. I'm not a history professor that's for certain!

That's another misquote. I'm not a big fan of the UN but we made the decision to act based, in part, on the UN resolutions. The UN has no means to enforce its resolutions so it falls upon those members who can to do so. We are, I hope, still a sovereign nation.

There have been a few general officers - more than in the past - speak out against the strategy and tactics of this war. Some of them, indeed, are doing some second guessing. I can at least respect their comments and some, as I recall, at least expressed some ideas of their own. Some just weren't happy they didn't get their way. Believe it or not, there are differences of opinion among members of the military at all levels.

The second guessers I'm was thinking about are those sitting in Congress who have nothing to offer except criticism and who change their position depending upon the political wind.

There's nothing funny about even one dead warrior. There's also nothing right about suggesting the 3,000 plus dead warriors of the war are the result of "the clown", as you call him, who's our President. No one in command, from the top down, takes lightly the sacrifices of those in their command.

 

Barbarian observes:
As you know, even Bush now admits that the information he gave Congress, to justify his war, was false.

"Not accurate", as in "false." Let's not dance around the truth.


Barbarian observes:
You fear Iran. Justly so. But you support the fools who took out the one counterbalance to Iran in the region.

The alternative is, they were trying to damage the United States.

Wrong. They were totally intimidated after the first gulf war. Saddam was pathetically eager to appease Bush to stop the war. So much so, that Bush had to change the demands several times in order to justify invading. Saddam had no means to challenge us in any way.

Barbarian observes:
Like youir mistaken notion that we initiated war against Germany, your errors depend on not knowing the facts.

Didn't quote you at all. I'm pointing out that we didn't declare war on Germany for the reasons you suggested. They declared war on us.


Barbarian observes:
BTW, I don't buy your argument that the UN has the authority to declare war for us, nor do I think they can obligate us to enforce their decisions.

You want it both ways. Our national security should not be subject to UN resolutions.


Barbarian on appeals to experienced military people:
This is pretty funny, considering the guys you are defending publicly ridiculed the generals who pointed out that their plans were a formula for disaster. A record number of retired generals have called for the replacement of the clown who put us into this mess. Now you praise the military, after supporting the people who ignored their experienced counsel? That would be funny, if there weren't 3,000 dead troops involved.

A record number, in fact. Unprecedented. Because the morons running the pentagon made fun of their predictions, which any reasonably intelligent junior officer could have anticipated.

Evidence?

So are the people of the United States of America. And the families of 3,000 dead troops.

Clowns. Bush had a lot of help in fashioning this debacle.

I wish that were true. I really do. But I remember Rumsfeld standing before the troops, during which he baldly lied to them about why he didn't provide adequate body armor for them. If he took his responsibilities seriously, he would have done his job, and if he messed up, would have taken responsibility for it.

 

You're still misrepresenting what I wrote. You're seeking to find some obscure mistake in my writing to discredit the whole of it. I didn't write anything about us declaring war on Germany nor the reasons why we did.

We did, however, declared war on Germany the same day they did on us.

President Roosevelt wrote: "On the morning of Dec. 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States. The long-known and the long-expected has thus taken place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere. Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty and civilization. Delay invites great danger. Rapid and united effort by all of the peoples of the world who are determined to remain free will insure a world victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism. Italy also has declared war against the United States."

We know from history that our reasons ran much deeper than just them having declared war on us that morning. We expected it. Germany had, in fact, been attacking our ships in international waters.

Months earlier President Roosevelt said: "When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him."

Regardless, my point was that the evil doings of Germany in Europe had been on-going for some time yet many people in our nation still didn't consider it to be our fight. They didn't believe our national interests were at risk. They didn't want to get involved. They believed Germany would leave us alone if we left them alone.

We - the nation, the Congress, and the President - saw a rattlesnake and we sent our warriors to crush it. There are still more rattlesnakes to find and kill.

It is ridiculous to blame Secretary Rumsfeld for our warriors not all having the latest body armor or more heavily armored vehicles in a manner that suggests he didn't care, lied, or was derelict in his duties. It took time and money to procure, manufacture, and distribute that equipment. Priorities were set to allocate the equipment in the order it was thought to be most needed. Rarely does an army go to war with everything it needs. We'd like that but it just doesn't happen. Often needs develop according to the tactical situation, troops improvise, and the logistical system adjusts to the new needs with time. Our warriors today have far better body armor and armored vehicles than ever before. Nothing assures them they will be free of all risk. Even wearing the body armor has risks in that it can reduce mobility and increase fatigue. The whole business of fighting involves putting people in harms way. I hold our enemies responsible for that!

 

You misrepresented what I wrote. By now, I'm used to it. But it's still not right. I said he stood in front of our troops and lied to them about the reasons he failed to adequately protect them. He said that there wasn't manufacturing capacity to do it in a timely manner. But the manufacturer later said that there was plenty of capacity, if he had wanted to order enough to protect all our troops.

Rumsfeld lied.

Exactly. He didn't think the troops were worth spending the extra money to protect them. As he said, he figured that "people are fungible."

True. If we had purchased armor for all of the troops going into combat areas, we wouldn't have been able to afford four-star hotels for Halliburton technicians. We wouldn't have been able to buy gasoline for twice the going rate. Sometimes, you have to prioritize. (WFTH-I)

 

We know he was lying, because the company supplying the armor later pointed out that they could have supplied much more of it than was ordered. He just made up the story that it couldn't be supplied fast enough.

Armor Holdings Inc., the sole supplier of protective plates for the Humvee military vehicles used in Iraq, said it could increase output by as much as 22 percent per month with no investment and is awaiting an order from the Army.

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday the Army was working as fast as it can and supply is dictated by “a matter of physics, not a matter of money.'’

Jacksonville, Florida-based Armor Holdings last month told the Army it could add armor to as many as 550 of the trucks a month, up from 450 vehicles now, Robert Mecredy, president of the company’s aerospace and defense group said in a telephone interview today.

“We’re prepared to build 50 to 100 vehicles more per month,'’ Mecredy said in the interview. “I’ve told the customer that and I stand ready to do that.'’

Insurgent attacks on the vehicles with homemade bombs and rocket-propelled grenades are accounting for as much as half of the more than 1,000 U.S. deaths and 9,000 U.S. wounded in Iraq, according to Congressional estimates.
http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/2004/12/09/what-price-physics/

That's what Rummy did. He didn't want to take the heat for not adequately protecting the troops, so he blamed the supplier. But he lied. See above.

It does to the troops. They aren't fools. They read the papers. They know what Bush & Co. really think of them.

 

How do you read "lying" into this kind of information? That's not a fair conclusion even based on the single news report quoted. Your accusation that Secretary Rumsfeld lied are simply without merit and do nothing but harm the man's reputation and does nothing for the warriors except put doubts into their minds.

The report claims the manufacturer was ready to supply the armor upgrade kits for a price and in a certain amount of time. That's good! What else was on the plate at the time to be dealt with? Do you think there might have been some issues to work out besides just the manufacturer's statement they "could" supply them? How long would it take to get them to the units? Who would install them? How would they be transported? Could the vehicles be pulled out of service long enough and fast enough without effecting the on-going missions? What units should get them first? Is troop protection the only issue? Are risks involved in combat? Where did they fit - relative priority - to other needs? Was it more important to get other weapon systems upgraded? What procurement requirements and limitations were at work? What did the people dealing with the manufacturer say had been communicated if anything? Were they asked? Was the manufacturer being truthful - the whole story - when asked? Was an investigation requested? Was sworn testimony taken or is that yet another trial and conviction by news reports?

The military had an inventory of Humvees built to different degrees of light armor depending upon the projected need in place before the unique problem of this war developed. There were some heavy - heavy in the sense of these type vehicles - armored Humvees for the units and missions thought to need them most. That's what was in the inventory and what we went to war with. No one knew for certain others would need them as well and, if they did, it has to be put in perspective of all the other needs. Regardless, the needs changed and adjustments were made.

This kind of thing happens in every war. People try to anticipate what's going to be needed and get it there but it just doesn't work out that way every time. There are a lot - a whole lot - of issues to be managed by a lot of people. There's plenty of opportunity in that for problems. Certainly mismanagement, corruption, cheating, lying, etc. are all possible since corrupted mankind is at work in every corner of our world. Possible doesn't make it the case. A whole lot of good people work hard to provide the best equipment, weapons, ammunition, and supplies to our warriors. A standard of instant logistics or there's been lying is shameful.

Are the latest Humvees as good as the Guardians - a program accelerated because of this war - that were fielded afterwards? And are they, in turn, as good a heavy armor? Why don't all the troops have heavy armor right now? I know they "could" be built! Why aren't they? Is someone else lying?

Body armor and more heavily armored vehicles are two different things. That's another story but not unlike this one.

It's always easy after the fact to find some short coming in what people did or didn't do. Tell us - tell the troops - right now what they'll need next and have everything they need on the battlefield waiting for them. When you can't do it we'll call you a liar when someone else says they have the capability to manufacture what's needed.

I sure wish someone as perfect as you demand had been in charge of logistics during the Viet Nam war so we could have had today's body armor, up-armored vehicles, and everything else we wanted. Troops improvised then just like they do now and, in time, things improved often because of lessons learned and ideas going back up the chain of command. Yes, people did complain about the supply lines and, yes, there were problems but it was war and a lot of people had a lot of things on their mind and things to do. Ripping apart the system every time something didn't meet hindsight expectations just wouldn't have been very constructive. Constructive lessons were learned. Staying focused on the mission was more important than finding possible fault with leaders. [SIZE=+1]

[/SIZE]

 

Political mismanagement was the beginning of the end for our soldiers in Vietnam.

IMHO.

God bless you Bro'!

 

They always want to enjoy the freedom's that have been bought with the blood of our fallen comrades . . . but, they don't want to carry that freedom with honor and integrity.

 

When questioned by the troops, Rumsfeld said that he'd like to provide more armor, but the supplier was physically unable to do it faster. Then the media discovered that the supplier was far from delivering at full capacity and would have supplied the needed material if Rumsfeld had ordered it.

He lied.

As I said, there was the cost of putting up Halliburton employees in luxury hotels, and paying double the going rate for gasoline. There apparently just wasn't enough money to protect our troops as well. Rumsfeld had other priorities. That's beside the point that he lied about it.

The manufacturer said "ready" to supply them.

A lot quicker than if they weren't ordered. If Rumsfeld had said "we had more important things to spend money on." or "we goofed." that would be one thing. But he lied to the troops about it. He claimed it was physically impossible to get more armor delivered when the manufacturer said they were ready to do it earlier.

None of that has anything to do with Rumsfeld lying about it. He said the supplier couldn't deliver them. But that wasn't the truth, as the supplier confirmed.

Four-star hotels for Halliburton employees took precedence.

[SIZE=+1]Bottom line? The troops asked Rumsfeld why the hold-up on armor. He lied to them, when he said he couldn't get any more. The manufacture confirmed that they had been ready to deliver more, if it had been ordered.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]As you suggest, protecting the troops just wasn't the first priority for Rummy.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]

 

Here's the real bottom line: Your argument is full of holes and your accusations are without merit!

The question asked Secretary Rumsfeld by a soldier in December 2004 was: "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" The soldier's question shouldn't be taken as an untested statement of fact. It implies that soldiers - obviously other than him since he hadn't been there yet - were on a wide scale digging through landfills for scrap metal and ballistic glass. That's not true! No facts surfaced to support such a claim.

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." That was true! "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." That was true! "As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want," Rumsfeld said. That's true! He added, "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank, and it can [still] be blown up." That's true! Secretary Rumsfeld did not tell any lies on this subject.

As follow up, the Pentagon noted that 450 armored Humvees were then being produced each month which was up very signifcantly from August 2003 when only 15 per month were made. It was at about that time that commanders in Iraq started asking for them because of the increased use of roadside bombs by terrorists. That's the lessons learned part!

In April 2004 the Pentagon had said it was spending $400 million to upgrade the Army's thin-skinned Humvees in Iraq with field kits. That's a significant effort!

The initial estimates projected a need of about 800 heavily armored vehicles in Iraq. By 2004 the estimates called for as many as 6,000. That's a big change in needs! Remember needs change according to the battlefield not the politics of Washington.

In the meantime vehicles headed to Iraq were being field modified with locally fabricated armor side panels. That's the field improvising that normally goes on in war. They weren't getting bullet resistant windows or heavy floorboards. Some of that was beyond field modification.

Pentagon policy at that time was that troops driving Humvees into Iraq would only drive armored ones while the rest were being transported into the country on flatbed trucks and used only inside compounds. I'm sure that was conditional upon mission needs! The mission comes first!

 

Don't remember anyone saying he lied about that. Let's cut to the question:

No, that was a lie. The supplier later revealed that they had been ready to turn out many more units if Rumsfeld had ordered them. He simply lied to our troops about why he didn't provide them with adequately armored vehicles.

It was about money, not production capacity. As you saw earlier.

 

You were wrong yesterday and are still wrong today. He did not lie! However, by repeating this accusation you are, in fact, spreading a lie.

The "evidence" you provide is Armor Holdings' sudden claim that it was ready, willing, and able to supply the vehicles if only the Army would order them "proves" Secretary Rumsfeld was "lying" in response to the soldier's question! The implication is that Secretary Rumsfeld knew about this additional capability and by his answers was claiming nothing more could be done. The worse implication was that nothing was being done on purpose! The implication is that troops were dying because needed equipment was being provided to them. All of it combines to a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

The original M998 HMMWV was designed for road and cross-country mobility in utility, logistical, and scout missions. It replaced the older M151 1/4 ton and M38 3/4 ton trucks. That specification didn't include heavy armor protection so that the vehicles could have lower weight and higher mobility. The heavy armor was applied to other tactical combat vehicles more likely to need it. Choices were made based upon time, money, needs, etc. just as they always have been and always will be.

An armored version, the M1114 (and variants) was developed following our adventures in Kosovo. It was heavier but provide increased troop protection.The focus, at that time, was to provide increased ballistic and blast protection, primarily for Military Police and scout operations who were being exposed to hostile fire in the soft-skinned vehicles. A case could be made that this lesson had already been learned in Viet Nam but situations had changed according to needs and we weren't in that type war at the time.

The up-armored M1114 model weight about 1 ton more than the M998. Steel plating and bullet-resistant windows were added to offer improved protection against small arms fire and shrapnel. Steel plating underneath was provided to protect against mines. Armor Holdings was the contractor that the US Army's TACOM hired to make the up-armored version. The first ones was built around 1996.

When we went to war in Iraq only a very few units had the up-armored HMMWV. Just like the Secretary said: "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." But things changed! Field commanders in Iraq made urgent request in late 2003 for armor kits to retrofit the soft-skinned units. The mission had changed and many units were being exposed to the hazards previously limited to others. They wanted something better and asked for it.

TACOM responded with a crash program proceeding along two paths. One was to increase the production and delivery of the M1114 type vehicles. The other was to provide upgrade kits to existing M998 type vehicles to the extent feasible. Appropriations were obtained and contracts issued in early 2004 to produce large numbers of both. In addition, units in the field improvised with temporary solutions until the more permanent solutions could materialize. By late January 2004 there were more than 2,000 M1114 type HMMWV in Iraq. Armor Holdings had also just about finished building a new plant to build these vehicles. Production had increased to about 220 per month my Spring 2004. Contracts were let to purchase 6,000 armor kits to be installed in the field by soldiers. But even more was forthcoming! The US Congress approved $618 million in May 2004 to fund the production of 300 M1114 vehicles per month from then until October and then 450 per month until March 2006. In addition $610 million was also approved for upgrade armor kits to existing M998 and other thin-skinned tactical vehicles with high exposure. Much had already been and was in progress long before the infamous question to Secretary Rumsfeld was even dreamed up by a news reporter!

Armor Holdings public announcement in December 2004 following Secretary Rumsfeld's comments was a surprise to the Pentagon. The Pentagon responded that the company had told the Army it only had the capacity to produce 450 of the vehicles per month but was now claiming it could provide an additional 100 that were then being provided to other clients. This wasn't a lie on Secretary Rumsfeld's part. It was new information not previously available and, in fact, different that previously provided to the Pentagon. If production capcity was not an issue then why not 1,000 per month rather than 550?

If I were to be suspicious of anything from this few facts it would be that the company used the opportunity to insure additional contracts at premium prices. In keeping with attacks on other defense contractors you'd think this would be a good one to follow up on![SIZE=+1] I'm not saying that's true but just saying that would be a better malicious conclusion than suggesting Secretary Rumsfeld lied. More than likely, the manufacturer was simply able to do more than they thought they could or decided the US Army was a better customer than the "other clients".

Development and production of new vehicles, up-armor kits, and even better solutions has continued on for over a year past this incident. Production capacity continues to be an limitation. Funding is always and concern. Time is always required.

What's the next logistical problem in your crystal ball that needs to be solved? Tell the Pentagon now so they can get busy on it. Be prepared, however, if you don't have it all figured out you just might be called a liar in public by some second guesser.
[/SIZE]

 

I continue to pray that our boys will be able to come home soon.

If the peaceniks were to go over, our boys come go home.

:wavey:

 

I've been saying this same thing for months; glad to see you have come around.

Now, if you will join me in voting for Hillary Clinton in 2009 you will help bring about an end to Bush's unjust war!

 

Barbarian observes:
No, that was a lie. The supplier later revealed that they had been ready to turn out many more units if Rumsfeld had ordered them. He simply lied to our troops about why he didn't provide them with adequately armored vehicles. ... It was about money, not production capacity. As you saw earlier.

Yep. He lied. He said the hold up was a lack of capacity by the supplier. That was a lie.

It wasn't a "sudden" claim. They had always had the capacity. Rumsfeld just had other priorities; adequate armor for vehicles to protect the troops wasn't very high on his list.

He claimed to know that the company couldn't do any more. He lied about that. He knew no such thing.

Um, yeah. When he decided to limit the armoring of vehicles, that was intentional.

That's what happened. That's what the troops were telling him. Why do you think they needed the armor?

What's got you upset is the facts themselves.

 

No, Galation, you're still wrong! The facts don't support your allegations and not even one little bit!

As I thoroughly explained, the military was implementing an aggressive plan to produce new up-armored vehicles as well as up-armor kits for existing vehicles in response to the changing needs. Those needs were identified by the field commanders in 2003 who'd initiated the push for TACOM's development work. The production capacity evolved during 2004 - it wasn't "always" there. It involved more than just the one aspect of what a single supplier could or could not accomplish. All that happened well before the infamous question from the TANG soldier - or news reporter to be more precise - and much had already been accomplished prior to that December. Armor Holding's revelation that it could shift 100 vehicles per month from "other clients" to the US Army was good news but it was a new development and contrary to what they'd previously told the Pentagon. It was certainly not the result of some kind "intentional" "limit" put on production of the vehicles by Secretary Rumsfeld. More progress was made in 2005 and 2006. It's still an on-going process. There have been more innovations since. There are still short comings. Nothing is perfect and nothing is instantaneous.

Why is the truth of all this so difficult for you to accept? Why do you want to continue perpetuating the lie about Secretary Rumsfeld?

 

It's very simple.

Rumsfeld was challenged by the troops as to why they were not given the equipment they needed for the mission.

Rumsfeld told them that it wasn't a matter of money, he just couldn't obtain the armored equipment fast enough.

In fact, as you know, the company supplying them could easily have done so, if Rumsfeld had been willing to order enough. The company confirmed this fact. They were ready to produce far more than he ordered.

Rumsfeld lied. No other way to put it.