Banner Logo
Home
The Real Kato
About Me
Twitter
Facebook
Frozen Lunches
Links
Dooce
Sweat Pants Mom
Secret Agent Josephine
Vindauga
Contact



Archives
Most Recent

2020 November
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January


Categories
All Categories 

bloggers 
books 
commentary 
dating 
food 
funnyhaha 
interesting 
life 
movies 
music 
politics 
reviews 
science 
site-business 
sports 
style 
techwatch 
television 
theater 
travel 


Recent Comments
On Big Ten Football 2020: Week 4 Recap and Week 5 Pre...
Dan* said:
Ooof. What a horrible season for both of us so far.

At this point, I've mostly lost interest in thi...
On Big Ten Football 2020: Week 1 Recap
Ken said:
I stand corrected. I looked at the ESPN play-by-play to count IU's timeouts and they must have not i...
On Big Ten Football 2020: Week 1 Recap
Dan* said:
Hi Ken, good to see you back for another season of commentary! Looking forward to some football.

C...
On College Football 2019: Final
Ken said:
Hey Dan, thanks for being my only subscriber! Yeah I'll be rooting for Penn State (Memphis is a weir...
On College Football 2019: Final
Dan* said:
Thanks for the great articles this year Ken! I hope the Big 19 kicks ass in the bowl games. See you...


<< Previous: Helping | Next: Oh, You Fat Penguin >>

Back-Door Shenanigans
Wednesday, 2004 December 8 - 10:58 pm
Donald Rumsfeld found himself under some fire today.

An AP story reports:

Spc. Thomas Wilson had asked the defense secretary, "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?" Shouts of approval and applause arose from the estimated 2,300 soldiers who had assembled to see Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld did not offer sympathy or support. His answers boiled down to this: we're doing the best we can, and what do you need with all that armor anyway? Quote: "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can [still] be blown up."

I think this goes to show a couple of things: first, not all troops are lockstep behind the administration in agreeing with how this war is being carried out. Second, the administration would rather put a political spin on any situation than actually address the concerns of troops.

Rumsfeld's bit of equivocation comes right on the heels of a class action lawsuit by soldiers who say that the Army's "stop-loss" provisions are forcing them to serve beyond their agreed-upon obligations. News flash: if you are forcing people to serve, it's no longer an all-volunteer army. This is the backdoor-draft that the Democrats warned us about. Was anyone listening?

The message that the Bush administration seems to be missing: NOT ALL SOLDIERS ARE HAPPY TO BE AT WAR. You can yammer about "supporting our troops" all you want; clearly there are some who the administration is not supporting.

Put that on your yellow-ribbon bumper sticker.
Permalink  1 Comment   Bookmark and Share
Posted by Ken in: politics

Comments

Comment #1 from Javi (Guest)
2004 Dec 10 - 2:05 am : #
ya know, i believe rumsfeld's exact reply was along the lines of "you go to war with the army you have, not with the army you want." and, although this may completely spoil your impression of me as a lucid, enlightened and articulate political thinker...

"what a PRICK!"

...and then i thought, no actually, since this was something of an "elective war" on our side, rumsfeld's comment actually makes absolutely no sense... but maybe wanting some of that sense thing is my first mistake.

Comments are closed for this post.
Login


Search This Site
Powered by FreeFind