The Pentagon and the Administration Never Acted to Protect the Troops

I've been astonished by a deep disconnect between what the Administration and the Pentagon says....and what they do.

The biggest and worst disconnect IMHO is between protecting the troops and the constant claims of "we are there to win in Iraq" and how the administration and the Pentagon have acted.

This article from the USAToday points out the disconnect with regard to protecting the troops, cutting down on troop deaths and injuries....and an amazing disrespectful disconnect with actions.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2007-09-03-congressmrap_N.htm?csp=34

In fact members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats have had to step up to prod the Pentagon and the administration to action.

With less of this aggressive action by members of Congress simply more American soldiers would have already died....and more would die in the future because of lack of response to the problems of inadequate armor.

These issues stem back to 2003 shortly after the invasion of Iraq and have continued into 2007.

Its amazing that after 4 years they still don't tend to get it right.

Rumsfeld was famously opposed to any comments or criticisms. But the problem doesn't end there.

The administration and Bush directly were made aware of shortages by Representative Murtha (Dem) in August 2003, probably the Member of Congress closest to the troops and the Pentagon.

In February 2004 Representative Duncan Hunter (Rep) had to prod the steel industry to speed up delivery of parts for Humvee repairs. The army was simply moving slowly.

In 2004 Lindsey Graham (Rep) prodded the Pentagon to speed up delivery of initial MRAP's to defend against IED's...and 3 years later Biden and Levin (Dems) worked to prod the Pentagon to continue to deliver MRAP's.

Meanwhile, a detached from details Bush goes on about winning the war and honoring the troops....while not pushing the process to better protect them.

The President is full of Political Public Relations but incredibly short on details. Its a disgrace to soldiers, a disgrace to Americans.

 

That's a pretty scathing partisan report, Earl. On one hand, companies trying to get things into production with no reporting of how much it costs. Of course, a partisan might suggest cost shouldn't be a factor, but it always is. On the other hand, a General saying new equipment kills soldiers.

"It's your fault!"

"No, it's your fault!"

Wait, let's blame America first!

 

How is it partisan? Duncan Hunter was a leader of the pack, and he's a Republican. Several others were Dems.

I'd have a lot more respect for you GTech if you commented on what seems to be a clear failure by the executive branch to protect American lives.

Btw, Ron Paul asked Congress to declare war so they could raise war taxes, and Congress declined. Shows who is really for supporting the troops and who is not.

 

Read the article first GTech. Then make some comments based on information and not just shoot out Bush-love opinions.

4 years of being pushed by a group of Democrats and Republicans on a slew of separate items but related in that they have to do with protecting the troops.

Meanwhile the political spinners over those 4 years kept claiming that anyone who had different opinions than the administration was anti american and against the troops.

And meanwhile they dropped the ball again and again.

I was most stunned by the incident involving Hunter back in 2004. We were dealing with something simple, armor add-on kits, not new types of vehicles that require testing.

The army simply didn't act fast or make it a priority and it appears they made up a story or showed total lack of care in claiming that there were "steel shortages and commercial manufacturing blacklogs" (cited from the article).

Someone (Hunter) actually gave a shit....found a guy who could expedite the process to protect soldiers...

"By the end of that day, Simmons had persuaded ISG officials (the manufacturer) and their union representatives to extend work scheedules and put commerical orders on hold so virtually all production capacity could be devoted to manufacturing the armor plate." "Within weeks Simmons drafted a new production schedule that called for all the armor kits to be finished and delivered to Iraq by April 30, 2004--seven months ahead of the schedule initially laid out by the Army"

Your comments sound like those of Rush Limbaugh when a soldier complained to Rumsfeld about lack of armor and Rumsfeld responded with his "you go to war with the army you have quote"

then Limbaugh made his smart ass comment about the soldier being fed the line by a reporter.

Seems like your response and that of Limbaugh's go hand in hand.....you guys care more about bowing down to every claim that comes out of the White House and you couldn't care less if American soldiers are being adequately protected or not.

Big big disconnect between what has come out of the mouths of the White House and its minions and what goes on in real life.

 

I read it.

Duncan Hunter was the leader of what? He's one of my preferred presidential candidates. Unlike some here, he wouldn't sell his country out like a partisan hack. He has a son in Iraq.

 

And yet you are selling out your soldiers by not supporting them and continuing to prop up the inner circle of Bush.

Anyone who reads what you write can understand clearly that you have two sets of rules. One for everyone who disagrees with the war (un-patriotic, partisan, sell out) and another for the people who are mismanaging it (loyalty, heroes, true Americans).

You seem to care a lot more about the leadership of this country than the people who are citizens of it. Much like a British Loyalist. King before Country.

 

Incorrect. I don't team up with terrorist supporters and anti-Americans to trash my country. I leave those chores to you. You do a fine job of it too.

Is there any circumstance, besides Ron Paul, that you wouldn't sell America out over? Apparently you'll sell it out over Iran, as we just saw.

 

Speaking of selling out a country, America was already sold to GTech's uncles back in the day. Stop the stupidity G, or you will get smacked!

 

islamists are always attracted to the anti-American posts for some reason. Looking for allies wherever they can find them and they are definitely in the right place here.

 

So outside the rhetoric, what you really are saying is that you are pro-"the troops" and are absolutely appalled at the lack of action from the Executive branch and the Pentagon? Good. At least we can agree on that. Bush has been a failure.

Again, post the Iran link. I never mentioned it.

• I would not sell America out to spread fear.
• I would not sell America out to cover for gross incompetence in the wake of a terrorist attack.
• I would not sell America out to claim executive privilege to cover up domestic policy decisions.
• I would not sell America out to proclaim that I was guided by God into war.
• I would not sell America out to the United Nations.
• I would not sell America out to multi-national corporations or special interests.
• I would not sell America out to fight a war that cannot be won.
• I would not sell America out to sacrifice American lives for foreign interests.
• I would not sell America out for the sake of politics.
• I would not sell America out to defend the Executive Branch.
• I would not sell America out to continue failed foreign policy.
• I would not sell America out for profit.

 

Yep, blame America first. Unless Ron Paul is elected

Damn communists!

 

Where is the Iran link? Gunna keep fabricating stuff and name calling (traitor, treason) or do you actually have some "game" tonight?

As one of my DP P&R heroes, I am pretty let down that I caught you in a moment of weakness. In better times, I might have asked for your digital autograph.

 

It's kind of disgusting the way you resort to ridiculous accusations when you know you're on the wrong side of an argument... Teaming up with "terrorist supporters"?

Answer me this, how is it a terrorist act to want to save US lives?

If you ask me, the terrorist supporters are the ones that are refusing to pull our troops from harms way...

 

Precisely. It is a lot easier to kill Americans when they are lured into the middle east.

It's another one of those logical fallacies I touched on earlier today.

That Americans dying abroad are somehow preferable to Americans dying at home.

Or that the government wants us to believe that it is more capable of conducting a global manhunt than it is of defending our ports and borders.

That's the only explanation I can come up with why they insist we have to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here".

The BS flies pretty thick when it comes to justifying why 1,000s more Americans have to die over 9/11, years after the fact.

 

Who claims saving lives IS a terrorist act? That wasn't what I was referring to at all.

Yet you want to send them back in harms way to Afghanistan. Talk about hypocrisy. American troops don't share your desire for defeat on their behalf.

 

Yup, to kill the man that masterminded the WTC attacks that left over 3,000 US citizens dead... You see a problem with finding bin laden?

So now you're trying to speak for our troops? I speak for myself, and believe we should let them each speak for themselves...

 

Nope, I see a problem with your hypocrisy. Pretending you care about soldiers and want to bring them out of harms way in Iraq by demanding defeat, only to turn the other cheek and claim to want to send them over to Afghanistan back in harms way.

With hypocrisy that thick, I could put it on top of a latte and sprinkle some chocolate on it.

Nope. I'm saying that you don't speak for our troops. They do not share your desire for defeat on their behalf.

 

First of all, I don't appreciate the fact you think I'm "pretending" to care about our troops... I don't even see how you can say that, given the circumstances... You've got to know that's completely off-base...

Second, pulling our troops from Iraq, because there's no clear goal that benefits the US, makes sense... Sending them to find a person that killed Americans makes sense...

I'm not anti-war... Just anti-useless-war...

I don't speak for our troops, but by saying

You're putting words in their mouth, and I know plenty that wouldn't appreciate that...

 

Redefining those nuances as you go along, eh? The hypocrisy is thick!

I know plenty that would not appreciate you calling for defeat on their behalf. In fact, I know quite a few that would do more than tell you that to your face.

Here's an honest question. I've been out of the Army since you were in kindergarten. What type of flak jackets did they have while you were in? We were "Just" getting them back in the mid-80s.

 

Of course, just as I know a few that can't believe there are so many civilians that don't understand enough about the war to want to leave them there...

Depends what unit you're with... Most get the IBA, some get parakleet...