1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Senators-in-Chief

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by carpro, Jan 25, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're trying to rewrite history to fit the version you want. You're skipping right over all the facts. You're doing exactly what you're accusing Secretary Rumsfeld of doing.
     
  2. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Nope. You're going to need a lot more than denial to get out of this one.

    You may not like the facts, but there they are.

    From the Boston Globe:

    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]US Stance on Armor Disputed
    Company says vehicle orders waiting for OK
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by Bryan Bender[/FONT]​
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]WASHINGTON -- Despite Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's assertion that the military is outfitting Humvees with armor as quickly as possible, the company providing the vehicles said it has been waiting since September for approval from the Pentagon to increase monthly production by as many as 100 of the all-terrain vehicles, intended to protect against roadside bombs in Iraq.

    Army officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged yesterday that they have not approved new purchase orders for armored trucks, despite the company's readiness to produce more. They said the Pentagon has been debating how many more armored Humvees are needed.

    Rumsfeld, questioned by soldiers in Kuwait on Wednesday who said they have had to pick through landfills for scrap metal to boost vehicle protection, said the Army was working as quickly at it could to get armored Humvees to the front. It is "a matter of physics, not a matter of money," Rumsfeld said, adding that the Army was "breaking its neck." President Bush yesterday reiterated that "the concerns expressed are being addressed."

    But executives at Armor Holdings in Jacksonville, Fla., as well as Army officials and members of Congress, said Rumsfeld's assertion that the protective equipment is being provided as quickly as possible is not true and added the company has been waiting for more purchase orders.
    "We're prepared to build 50 to 100 vehicles more per month," Robert Mecredy, head of Armor Holdings' aerospace and defense unit, said in a statement. The company is producing about 450 armored Humvees per month, up from 50 in late 2003, when a sudden surge of attacks in Iraq exposed a lack of protective armor.

    The company says that by February it could be producing as many as 550 fully armored Humvees per month -- with armor plates on the sides, front, rear, top, and bottom -- if given the go-ahead. The company estimated it would cost the military about $150 million a year to pay for the additional 100 vehicles per month.
    The company said it also told the Army it could add new production lines and turn out even more vehicles.


    Hey, maybe you could claim the Globe and Armor Holdings and the troops all lied.


    [/FONT]
     
  3. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, I already did! It's just not the facts you want. You want to make Secretary Rumsfeld, or any member of "Bush & Co." out to be a liar. That's your goal! In the process, you're casting discredit on a whole chain of people engaged in the defense of our nation. That's just not right, Galatian, and it has to be challenged not to change your mind - that's not possible - but so others will know the truth.

    Several days after the "big story" a group of real experts - not news reporters - lead by MG Steve Speakes gave a presentation on the topic. These were people actually engaged in doing productive things to make sure our warriors have the means to fight and win. They're concerned about the ability of troops to find, fix, and kill or capture the enemy. Included is the need to provide survivability for troops because dead soldiers can't accomplish the mission.



    As I've explained before, operational needs are dynamic and the need for up-armored vehicles came about over time and was addressed over time.



    This, with respect to the HMMWV, is the M1114 and variants built by AM General as new vehicles. Armor Holdings adds the armor plating to the chassis built by AM General.



    This involves the factory modification kits manufactured by Armor Holdings to up-armor existing soft-skinned HMMWV and other vehicles. It's a compromise solution. A broken down vehicle or a vehicle that can't maneuver is no good to troops in the combat. I know this first hand!



    This is the field modifications improvised by individual units and then in a more centralized manner at a maintenance depot in the theater of operations. This happens in every war. I remember it very well. We didn't whine to the news reporters about what we didn't have - we did something about it and were proud of our creations.



    Priorities! War is full of priorities! The enemies actions forces changes to priorities. Winning - not whining - is the goal.



    Adjustments were made to plans as the needs changed.



    We were taking "advantage of all the production facilities that we have here in the U.S." and that was the limitation. The people handling this stuff for us weren't sitting on their behinds waiting for some news reporter to kick them off their chairs!



    This is Armor Holdings contribution that's being addressed. There's a big difference in claiming you're sitting around with excess manufacturing capacity and in diverting some of what you're doing from "others" and in ramping up to a greater capacity in about three months.



    In February 2004, AM General and Armor Holdings were telling the Dept. of Defense they could get to production rate of 450 per month. They didn't do that until November 2004. The limitation was, remained, and still is production capacity. Only in December did they come forth say they could do better and that was just leveraging off the progress the Dept. of Defense had previously demanded.

    The Secretary of Defense did not lie!
    [SIZE=+1]
    [/SIZE]
     
    #83 Dragoon68, Feb 7, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 7, 2007
  4. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Sorry. Not buying the story that everyone was lying but Rummy. The lack of a checkable source is a tip-off that this one is spin.

    Feel free to provide us with a checkable source, if you have one, and I'll take a look. But since no one, even Rumsfeld apoligists actually contradicted the information showing that these companies did have excess capacity, I don't think it's going to be forthcoming.

    But if you have it, let's see.
     
  5. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0

    I didn't claim "everyone" was lying. The only lying I've proved is the claim that Secretary Rumsfeld was lying. That's just not the truth!

    You're still hung up on the "excess capacity" issue. The record shows otherwise. Armor Holdings had, in November 2004, just made the projected and agreed upon capacity of 450 vehicles per month in response to the Dept. of Defense meetings in February 2004. They were pushing for what they needed then. Armor Holding's claim in December that they could then push it up another 100 vehicles per month - albeit by dropping other clients and over a period of several months into February or March of 2005 - didn't surface until after Secretary Rumsfeld's statement. Don't forget that Armor Holdings is also only one part of the production process. Other suppliers have to deliver the chassis and parts. It's not nearly as simple as the news reporters make it seem.

    I'm not saying that Armor Holdings' claim of a potential capacity increase was literally untrue. I'm saying it was a new development that remained to be implemented and proved. I'm saying the Secretary wasn't hiding anything, wasn't trying to limit the number of vehicles, wasn't aware Armor Holdings could do better, the Dept. of Defense was doing its best to meet all the needs, the leadership was interested and responsive to the changing needs of the troops as communicated by their leaders in the field, and just was not lying about anything to do with this matter.

    Didn't you read this in the extracts and explanations?

    If you're sincerely interested, you can get a transcript of the entire presentation by MG Speakes et al from the Dept. of Defense and possibly still from their web site. I get lots of stuff from them daily and keep a lot of it that might be of future interest. It's proved to be a lot more complete and original source on matters like this than the likes of a Boston Globe article written to sell news. Of course, I don't accept everything blindly regardless where it comes from. It still has to pass the "stink test" with me.
     
    #85 Dragoon68, Feb 7, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 7, 2007
  6. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    So one of Rumsfeld's employees kind of defended him? That's the defense? And this:



    It wasn't untrue at all. They said they could have provided more, if more had been ordered.

    And I'm not buying that Rumsfeld just didn't know the truth. He made up a story, to put off a question that was too hot to handle.

    And that's lying.
     
  7. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0

    You're adding wrong on top of wrong! Secretary Rumsfeld didn't put off the question at all and neither did the Dept. of Defense. They responded to it accurately and completely. The answers just didn't fit want some people wanted to hear. So, therefore, they have to continue insisting Secretary Rumsfeld was lying.


    MG Speakes and the other military and civilian leaders who gave the presentation and answered questions weren't there to defend Secretary Rumsfeld's comments. They didn't need to do that because the facts speak the truth! These people were there to provide accurate and complete information so that interested parties could truly better understand the whole matter. The transcript of what they presented along with the questions and answers is public record. These are professionals that work very hard every day serving our nation. Give me one of them for a hundred of the rest!


    People who wanted to learn came away a lot better informed. The rest weren't really interested and were there only to fish for another possible morsel of information that could be added to the twisted tale they'd already spun. The whining complaining critical second guessers have no interest in the truth. Those without any technical knowledge of the subject matter rarely get there either. It's a just real shame!
     
  8. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    OK, I got your POV;

    "Everyone but Rummy is a liar, but Rummy told the truth."

    We'll just have to disagree on that.
     
  9. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope, you still don't have it right, Galation!

    Secretary Rumsfeld just told the truth and some people just deperately want what he said to have been a lie. They just can't give up on that hopeless point.
     
  10. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Long wars = job security for the MIC.
     
    #90 poncho, Feb 8, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 8, 2007
  11. NiteShift

    NiteShift New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great discussion there Dragoon. You know your stuff.
     
  12. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    10-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 9:30 p.m. ET by one of the moderators.

    Lady Eagle
     
  13. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    And our troops and the media, and the companies involved were all lying, um? You really expect us to believe you?

    Sorry, you desperately want to deny what happened, and so to preserve your image of Rumsfeld, you would rather call everyone else a liar.

    But the facts remain.
     
  14. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Evidently not! Even after convincing evidence from Galatian showing that Rumsfield lied, Dragoon still doesn't get it.
     
  15. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Old Dragoon68 get's it all right! On this one, he can clearly see who's really lying and has a good idea about why.

    Here's some more "convincing evidence" for those who are actually interesed in facts:

    This isn't "Joe Blow" news reporter who's speaking. It's someone who knows what they're talking about.



    Again, it's made clear that the situation changed. This confirms the Secretary's statement that concerning going to war with the Army you have not necessarily the one you want.



    The guys in the field improvised. They didn't whine or sit on their behinds or let the mission fall away because everything wasn't perfectly safe for them. They did what must be done and the logistical guys went to work on a more permanent solution. It's another indication of a great team at work!



    That sounds prudent!



    So from August 2003 to November 2004 production capacity was increased from 30 to 450 vehicles per month. Wow! To accomplish this required teamwork among the military and the various contractors. New facilities were constructed to produce the additional capacity. It didn't exist before the need evolved. Hardly anyone has excess manufacturing capacity or inventory these days.



    This was another step taken under the responsible leadership of the Secretary of Defense. Excuse me, if I forget that he doesn't get credit for any good that's done but, rather, only the problems.



    Isn't this interesting? At the time of the question no troops were being sent forward in soft-skinned vehicles. No troops were going to be exposed to that particular hazard. Up-armored vehicles were either used for the movement or available on arrival at the forward units. The soft-skinned vehicles to be used on base were transported on trailers. So where exactly then was the short coming implied by the news reports?



    The needs changed and the military adapted. Hindsight is really amazing isn't it? Isn't it great that the Army at least already had some up-armored HMMWV in MP service that could serve as the pattern for the rest?



    So then the impression of hordes of defenseless troops scrounging through garbage dumps for scraps of metal and glass to avoid being blown to bits riding in substandard vehicles was as bogus as a $3 bill!

    It's about more than up-armord HMMWV vehicles to those in the know. Just as previously suggested, there really is more to it that just up-armored vehicles! Here, again, are the points concerning maneuverability and firepower. These convoy practices seem familiar from another war now a distant memory to so many.

    Studying further the comments of another person in the know - not a news reporter fishing for dirt to sell a story - reveals some more conflicts with the implications of intentionally known and under utilitized production capacity:

    Secretary of the Army Brownlee said, back in December 2004, that the tripling in Armor Holdings' production of armored Humvees this year demonstrated that the Army did all it could to respond to rising need as the insurgency escalated. The Army made production of any equipment needed to protect soldiers a "top priority and ... deserves credit for what it did.'' Of course, Secretary Rumsfeld gets deserves no credit from his accusers because he's guilty of lying according to them.

    But Brownlee made a trip to the Armor Holdings plant in Fairfield, Ohio, and the AM General plant in Mishawaka, Indiana, on February 13, 2004 and then asked Robert Mecredy, head of Armor Holdings' Defense Group, to specify the highest capacity his company could achieve.


    Secretary Brownlee told him "Whatever you build, we'll buy."


    It's more clear all that time that Secretary Rumsfeld didn't lie about anything. The whole story is just part of the smearing "Bush & Co." with anything - made up if necessary - and bringing down the war, the leadership, the military, and anyone else who gets in the way. What a blessing for our enemy all this is! Fortunately, it's not the truth and many people know it.

    The real lying involved in this story is coming from those spreading the false story that Secretary Rumsfeld lied. They keep hopelessly hanging on to that lie.
     
    #95 Dragoon68, Feb 11, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2007
  16. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks very much for the compliment but I really don't deserve it.

    The guys doing the work deserve all the credit for what they're doing and how they're doing it. That includes all of them from top to bottom in the field and in the staff. We have a great team serving this nation and the truth about what they do deserves to be known. They're not perfect but they're actually doing constructive things while a whole lot of others are just busy trying to tear them down for every little detail they do or don't do.
     
  17. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    We aren't talking about the guys doing the work in the field. We know how many units were ordered, and the company had additional capacity that was not used.

    Dancing around the issue, won't help you.

    Rumsfeld lied. Yes, I know, the excuse: the troops lied, the media lied, the suppliers lied. All to keep you from admitting what is obvious to everyone; Rumsfeld lied.

    BTW, I forgot about this one...


    The Baghdad bunker which the United States said it bombed on the opening night of the Iraq war in a bid to kill Saddam Hussein never existed, CBS Evening News reported Wednesday.
    The network quoted a U.S. Army colonel in charge of inspecting key sites in Baghdad as saying no trace of a bunker or of bodies had been found at the site on the southern outskirts of the Iraqi capital, known as Dora Farms.
    . . .
    Shortly after the attack, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters: "There's no question but that the strike on that leadership headquarters was successful. We have photographs of what took place. The question is, what was in there?"

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0529-08.htm

    In case you're going to claim that they, too are lying...

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/21/se.14.html
     
  18. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Turns out there no elaborate Afghan bunkers either. Those computer generated graphics the media were using to whip up support for the war were pretty neat though.
     
  19. NiteShift

    NiteShift New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree. Dragoon presented several sources indicating that the DoD was doing everything it could to get more up-armored humvees to where they were needed. And part of the problem was ramping up production of the various components. Course, it's much more gratifying to call a political opponent a liar, based on one news item and a question that was cooked up by a reporter.
     
  20. NiteShift

    NiteShift New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    And to me, the larger issue is this: For a couple of years, Bush's opponents had been insisting that more troops were needed in Iraq, that Rumsfeld must be fired, and that all the generals should be replaced. Bush has done that, and what is the response? "Madness!! Bush is mad!!"
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...