Wednesday, December 08, 2004


I know this'll get jumped on by many, but I saw it and had to share. Donald Rumsfeld was fielding questions from troops about to head to Iraq when he was asked about why there weren't enough state of the art armored vehicles being used in combat. These quotes are part of his answer:

"Something like 400 [vehicles] a month are being done," he said. "And it's essentially a matter of physics, not a matter of money. ... It's a matter of production and the capability of doing it."

--It's funny that he used physics as a reason, and the answer essentially says 'Yeah, well, tough luck, we'll get them to you when we can' More from the article:

In April, the Pentagon said it was spending $400 million to replace the Army's thin-skinned Humvees in Iraq with the so-called "uparmored" reinforced versions.
"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want," Rumsfeld said.

--Also a funny answer, perhaps if we really needed to go to this war, we should've waited until we had enough of the best equipment and vehicles for our troops to avoid casualties and injury, that might be 'the Army you want', no?

He added, "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank, and it can [still] be blown up."

--Thanks for that Donnie, but they're more worried about the armor piercing rounds that are ripping them and their fellow soldiers to shreds, which might be avoided by having the best armored vehicles we can get. We had the technology before the war, why was it not implemented? I find it intruiging, perhaps we rushed to combat?


Blogger Philselway said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home