Rumsfeld Grilled By Soldiers?

Almost immediately after returning to camp yesterday after the visit by the SECDEF, I did a google news search and read the AP Wire article and noted that, although the piece was fairly accurate, there was definitely a sense of exaggeration in the tone that presented the townhall meeting as a gripe session.  As one of the soldiers in the audience, I felt that presenting the morning in such a fashion was misleading, and with such negative connotations, I wondered how long it may be before the MSM ran with the story and turned a pleasant morning with the Secretary of Defense into a scenario that resembled a defendant being cross-examined by the prosecution in a court room.  I knew the story was generating heavy circulation when I saw it headlined on Drudge today (click here for story). 

Before I dig in, I want to address one item in particular from the story linked above that I think was not made clear enough.  When it stated:

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 hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

I believe Secretary Rumsfeld hesitated because it was difficult to hear the first part of the question Spc. Wilson asked.  Perhaps because of nerves, he spoke at first very quickly, and the acoustics of the hangar were hardly concert-hall quality.  The Secretary asked others to repeat parts of their questions as well apparently because of difficulty hearing the question in its entirety.  I do think Spc. Wilson is justified in asking such a question.  It is a serious issue, and if logistics or "physics" is the obstacle from accomplishing the tasks of up-armoring vehicles to add to soldier safety, then we need to do our best to overcome that obstacle.  The Secretary concluded with an anecdote in which he spoke of the recent terror warning surrounding the election.  He said he looked out the windows of the Pentagon one day and saw 6-8 up-armored HMMWV's perched at the perimeter of the building.  He then said, "Guess what, they aren't there any more." 

I also want to express that as a person who has worked in politics for years, I was very surprised when we were told there would be the opportunity to ask questions without first having them screened.  I would have assumed there would have been some process where those who had questions submitted them prior to asking the Secretary, and had them approved.  Instead, everyone in the room was given the option to stand, motion for one of the soldiers holding a microphone, and ask anything they desired.  There was no particular order of what kind of questions were asked and the soldiers who asked questions ranged in rank from Specialists to Lieutenant Colonels.  When I say I was surprised that this part of the event was not micromanaged, I want to ensure you that I was pleasantly surprised.  In my opinion, it shows the attitude that this Secretary has towards the soldiers he is sworn to represent.  It shows those in uniform that he does not see us or our concerns as "below his level," but instead sends a signal that we are his concern, and ensuring we can accomplish the mission is his highest priority. 

One more thing I would like to add is this, not one soldier present asked questions about why we were here, or expressed the sort of anti-war sentiment that Michael Moore led some to believe was prevalent in the military.  Rather, the concern was about ensuring we would be supplied with all necessary equipment to accomplish the mission and return home safely.  Let there be no doubt, this was not a hostile crowd eager to catch the Secretary of Defense off guard by grilling him with questions he has never had to answer.  This was a group of truly admirable American's and patriots, receiving confirmation from the man who controls the Department of Defense, that we have the full fledged moral, financial and logistical support, to accomplish the mission. 

Thanks to 2Slick, for commenting and clearing up the air as well, be sure to check out his post on the subject! 

Also, welcome to all the new visitors coming via Instapundit, Powerline Blog, Real Clear Politics and countless others.  You can also reach the site with all the pictures from the deployment at www.missick.com

Comments

[Cheryl]

Welcome back!
I would check your blog regularly and began to worry when I saw no new comments -- you know a typical "mother's" worry, which I believe has become a "nation's" worry.

I don't have any family serving in the GWOT. Through the blogs, I feel as if you have all become my family. Knowing you are from So Cal now makes you a bit special.

Anyway Sgt. Welcome back. Stay safe and THANK YOU.

Cheryl

[Retread]

Thanks for your side of the story. The MSM here is highlighting the question(s) that might sound like complaints, typical of them these days.

I found you through Power Line, one of the best blogs for digging out the rest of the story.

Thanks again for the post and thanks especially for your service to the country. There are far more of us who are grateful than you could know from the MSM.

Retread

[LindaS]

Also found you through Powerline. Nice to hear the rest of the story. Stay safe, Sgt.

[itismedavid]

Thank you. Those of us who are "right thinking" KNEW it was more like you described and we disregard just about everything in the MSM.

[Valerie]

Thanks for the eyewitness account, it certainly clarified some of the questions I had. I saw longer and shorter clips of the Q & A, (all on CNN, I think) and the shorter ones carried a very different message, due in part to their brevity and to the framing by the reporters.
The notion, that it is somehow exceptional for a US soldier to tell a US official something isn't working, is strange to me. I thought that's what we expect of them. Aren't they supposed to think about their situation, notice what could be improved, and then make the improvement? And if help is slow in coming, don't we expect them to be impatient, work around it, scrounge, cobble together interim fixes and complain? I want them to react like this, because I want them to both win and come home in one piece.
Besides, a little national publicity is great for solving supply problems.

[Valerie]

Thanks for the eyewitness account, it certainly clarified some of the questions I had. I saw longer and shorter clips of the Q & A, (all on CNN, I think) and the shorter ones carried a very different message, due in part to their brevity and to the framing by the reporters.
The notion, that it is somehow exceptional for a US soldier to tell a US official something isn't working, is strange to me. I thought that's what we expect of them. Aren't they supposed to think about their situation, notice what could be improved, and then make the improvement? And if help is slow in coming, don't we expect them to be impatient, work around it, scrounge, cobble together interim fixes and complain? I want them to react like this, because I want them to both win and come home in one piece.
Besides, a little national publicity is great for solving supply problems.

[Valerie]

Thanks for the eyewitness account, it certainly clarified some of the questions I had. I saw longer and shorter clips of the Q & A, (all on CNN, I think) and the shorter ones carried a very different message, due in part to their brevity and to the framing by the reporters.
The notion, that it is somehow exceptional for a US soldier to tell a US official something isn't working, is strange to me. I thought that's what we expect of them. Aren't they supposed to think about their situation, notice what could be improved, and then make the improvement? And if help is slow in coming, don't we expect them to be impatient, work around it, scrounge, cobble together interim fixes and complain? I want them to react like this, because I want them to both win and come home in one piece.
Besides, a little national publicity is great for solving supply problems.

[Todd]

Thank you for your Service.

America is behind you 100%

Get the mission done and come home soon!!!

God Bless!!

[Mark Bahner]

"I also want to express that as a person who has worked in politics for years, I was very surprised when we were told there would be the opportunity to ask questions without first having them screened."

Yes, I'm surprised. I think it's great. I'm glad that soldiers had the nerve to ask tough (good) questions. And I'm glad that the Secretary of Defense would allow tough questions to be asked in a very public meeting.

Donald Rusmfeld goes up a notch in my opinion. (That still doesn't put him very high. ;-))

[Blackfive]

Glad you're back.

[Michael]

Pat Tillman an American Hero...

by Robert Kaercher

“I’m (expletive) Pat Tillman, damn it!” he was heard to cry as bullets tore through his flesh and his body crumpled in a heap on a ridge in Afghanistan . Tillman, like thousands of other young American soldiers, was deployed there to combat the Taliban, who were identified as providing aid and comfort to al-Qaeda, the radical Islamist terror network responsible for the 9-11-01 attacks.

“I could hear the pain in his voice,” one of his fellow Rangers later reported.

But Pat Tillman did not meet the Grim Reaper by way of the Taliban. Rather, it was his own fellow soldiers who mistakenly dealt him the death blow in the heat and confusion of battle, as the Washington Post has recently reported.

I have no doubt that many of you reading this remember hearing of the young Arizona Cardinals defensive back’s tragic death. You probably also remember the many eulogies praising his dedication and commitment to his country and his unwavering sense of public service. After 9-11, he turned down a lucrative $3.6 million contract with the NFL to join the U.S. Army and travel thousands of miles across the ocean to defend his country. His sense of self-sacrifice was hailed far and wide; he was the very archetype of the American hero.

“Pat Tillman was an inspiration on and off the football field, as with all who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the war on terror. His family is in the thoughts and prayers of President and Mrs. Bush,” proclaimed White House spokesman Taylor Gross.

“Pat represents all that is good with this country, our society and ultimately the human condition in general,” said Seattle Seahawks general manager Bob Ferguson, who was the Cardinals’ general manager when they drafted Tillman.

According to the Washington Post, friends and family thought of him as something of an “American original,” a “maverick” that “burned with intensity” and “bucked convention, devoured books and debated conspiracy theories. He demanded straight talk about uncomfortable truths.” (Emphasis mine.)

So in the memory and spirit of the man who made “the ultimate sacrifice in the war on terror,” let’s do that, shall we? Let’s start demanding some straight talk about some rather uncomfortable truths.

It is all well and good to know that the Bushes prayed for Tillman’s family after he was slaughtered, though I’m not sure what good that does for someone who has forever lost a son, a brother, perhaps an uncle. What exactly will the president’s prayers do for them? Will his prayers bring back the bright, vibrant, successful young man who died senselessly at the hands of scared, panicky fellow soldiers confused by miscommunication and misguided orders issued by arrogant commanders far removed from the field of battle? I don’t think so.

Here’s another rather uncomfortable truth: It appears that the Pentagon actually exaggerated much of Tillman’s exploits in that war-battered, God-forsaken hellhole of a country so as to make greater his legend while simultaneously glossing over the foolish errors that were committed. This should come as no surprise, as this type of irresponsible propaganda has long served the U.S. Federal State’s never-ending recruitment drive to entice young men—and nowadays young women as well—into risking the loss of their own lives for the State’s ongoing Machiavellian schemes to slaughter and plunder the many for the benefit of a select few.

The most tragic detail that arises from Tillman’s story is that by all accounts he was an extremely well-read, curious, inquisitive young man, someone with a genuine thirst for knowledge. One friend described him as "thought-provoking . . . he liked to have deep conversations . . . .,” which makes Tillman’s following statement to NFL Films after the 9-11 attacks all the more frustrating:

“I play football. It just seems so unimportant compared to everything that has taken place . . . a lot of my family has gone and fought wars, and I really haven't done a damn thing.”

He had this to share with NBC News the day after 9-11:

“My great-grandfather was at Pearl Harbor , and a lot of my family has . . . gone and fought in wars, and I really haven’t done a damn thing as far as laying myself on the line like that.”

Now I can certainly understand how a colossal tragedy could give an individual such a jolt as to cause him to reassess his priorities in life, but what I absolutely cannot figure out for the life of me is why he would think going off to a foreign country to kill or be killed at the State’s behest is a greater or more meaningful endeavor than what he was already doing. If he no longer considered playing professional football a worthy use of his brief time on this planet, then there are an infinite number of other choices that he could have made that didn’t involve the maiming and killing of foreigners and the risk of one’s own annihilation. He could have dutifully applied his natural curiosity and reasoning skills to a quest for knowledge of why the 9-11 attacks happened in the first place. He could have educated himself to the long history of our Federal government’s direct meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, particularly in the Middle East , where Uncle Sam has been overthrowing governments and carrying out assassinations since at least the 1950s. Perhaps he would have realized that contrary to what our revered leaders have said, the 9-11 attacks were hardly a “surprise.” They had been expecting some form of violent retaliation to their interventionist criminal activities for quite some time.

Or perhaps Tillman could have better spent his time inquiring as to why the U.S. Federal Reserve Note has been steadily declining in value lo these many years, how our nation’s centralized banking system contributes to that devaluation and how and why such a system ever came into being in the first place.

Or . . . he simply could have continued playing professional football. At least tossing the pigskin entertains (some) people and the NFL was willing to compensate the risk to his physical safety far more handsomely than the U.S. government ever would.

So what is it that convinces an apparently intelligent and thoughtful person to volunteer himself to become an agent of death and destruction for the State?

One of the most difficult things to grasp about this world is the fact that human beings who in all other respects appear to be decent, respectful, moral people can allow themselves to fall sway to fallacious ideas and let their thinking be trapped by an insidious system of beliefs that rationalizes such injustices as theft, torture and mass murder. The 9-11 hijackers come to mind as one such example. I recall being struck by a Sunday Chicago Tribune article some months ago that chronicled Mohammed Atta’s life prior to his conversion to fundamentalist religious zealotry. The people who knew Atta described him as rather sensitive and always friendly, always willing to help out a neighbor in need, a man who loved playing with the children in his family —a starkly different image than that of the angel of death whose soulless blank stare haunted the front pages of newspapers everywhere in the days following 9-11-01.

We can only speculate as to why or how someone like Atta could allow his mind to be defrauded by a system of thought that justifies such an utterly nihilistic act as mass slaughter by way of self-immolation, but it’s clear to me that we here in the United States finally need to start demanding some “straight talk” regarding the questionable wisdom of our Federal government’s continuing cycle of mass murder, and the propagation of nihilistic myths that are spoon-fed to the masses to justify it. It is past time to awake to our country’s alarming slide into militarism and the resulting ongoing sacrifice of the lives of our fellow human beings both at home and abroad.

From virtually the day you are born in this country, your mind is subjected to a seemingly endless assault of false ideas and distorted interpretations of historic events in order to justify the U.S. Federal State’s damn near endless expansion of power: Union forces burning down entire cities in the South during the Civil War— what Adolf Hitler would years later admiringly refer to as a “scorched Earth” policy—was the South’s punishment for practicing slavery (when it was their perfectly rational desire to escape the North’s economic fascism that so provoked Uncle Sam’s rage); the benevolent President Lincoln freed the slaves (he didn’t); the Lusitania was an innocent passenger ship that was unjustly targeted by the Germans (it was transporting military materiel from the U.S. to England, which the Germans advised the then-“neutral” U.S. government was dangerous); the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a complete “surprise” (it wasn’t); World War II was the “Good War” because it destroyed the evil Nazis (let’s not quibble about the fact that the other brutal dictator in that war, one-time Hitler ally Josef Stalin, gained more power, territories and slaves by the end of that conflict); Islamist terrorists “hate our freedom” (as opposed to our government’s violent policies). This is but a fraction of the litany of the State’s lies—lies propagated to justify its power over not only we Americans, but over people in far-flung reaches of the globe.

Note the pattern: each and every one of the events listed above was a rationalization of the State’s preferred method of slaying thousands, or even millions, which it has always claimed to be for such “collective goods” as “national security” and “freedom.” The State must kill, you see, in order to protect you, to protect all of us. It’s tough, and it’s brutal, but such is the world we live in. There is no other choice. And that is why it is such an honor to volunteer for the military machine—you’re defending your country, protecting the “homeland,” defending freedom. Risking your life to kill total strangers is a “public service,” it “represents all that is good with this country, our society and ultimately the human condition in general.” That destructive, nihilistic idea is hammered into people’s heads day after day through government-managed public education, books, magazine articles, movies and in the guise of news reports glorifying the “acts of heroism” in war that in most cases are acts of brutal violence.

This growing tendency to favor militarism and brute force over logic and reason, to see the individual as simply a member of a collective or a cog in a machine dedicated to supposedly noble causes “greater” than any one of us, is the path back to the Dark Ages. It is the ideology of barbarism.

“I’m Pat Tillman, damn it!” he proclaimed as the bullets of his own comrades ripped him asunder.

“I could hear the pain in his voice.”

Was it purely physical pain he felt at that moment? I wonder if it is not possible that it was also the pain of a single, awful, final realization that he was betrayed by lies, fooled by propaganda. Could it be that in that very instant of his death he realized that there is always a choice for every individual, and that he made the wrong one? That risking one’s life for a “greater good” is not noble, is not heroic and is in fact a myth? That his life was worth so much more?

After all, he was Pat Tillman, damn it.

[Ryan]

Who is this guy and why is he posting this crappy article on someone elses site? If you have something to say on this matter that's cool but get your own frickin web site.

[Scribbles]

Michael's comment is a delicately balanced combination of historical fact deftly intertwined with leftist ideology.

Basically, it's a whole lot of crap, with a few facts mixed in to give it some semblance of logic and legitimacy.

Like every other leftist out there, Michael is looking to take advantage of Tillman's death by fraticide by using it as a club with which to beat those who do not agree with him.

It's well written bovine excrement, Michael, but it's bovine excrement nonetheless.

[Gary B.]

Glad to see you posting again Sgt. Missick and thank you for giving us another point of view about Rumsfeld's visit.

Michael should get his own blog to post his leftist crap on.

[Gayloyd]

Welcome back, Chris. We were all worried about you. As for Michael, just ignore him. Maybe he'll go away.

Take care and stay safe.

[Pat in NC]

Chris, I am so happy that you once again had an opportunity to post and give us the straight news. I kept checking your blog and wondered where they had moved you to. Now, I know you are
okay and I will relax a little. Thank you again for all you are doing over there and for taking the time to keep us informed. God bless you and keep you safe.

[C M Lois]

Chris, Those of us that routinely read blogs and alternate (i.e., non-MSM) websites for news have learned to view whatever we see on MSM with a jaundiced eye... knowing that it is only a part of the story and that the spin has turned the story sideways. Thanks for the birdseye's view!

[Michael]

Scribbles: -
I'm honoured you felt fit to grace that post with your wise and carefully considered thoughts.

‘Bovine excrement’ was your wonderful and thoughtful analysis, yet without a single justifiable tract to validate your grossly ignorant summary.

Surely the very fact you’re well read and verbose allows you the opportunity to ridicule and dismiss the write up, giving all your reasoning and qualification to highlight both my inadequacy and shortfalls in my prose and therefore your rightful superiority.

So let us begin...

[brian]

Michael, for me it wasn't so much what you said as it was how much of it you said. It is widely considered rude to post long diatribes on other people's websites. Just one of those little unwritten rules of Internet etiquette, I suppose. You have every right to believe what you believe. But like one poster said, perhaps you could get your own website if you want the world to know your version of the truth.

And it would be one thing if the text you posted was your own. But all you did was paste in someone else's article. Perhaps you could have supplied a link to the article, and let people decide for themselves whether or not they wished to read it.

I gather from your spelling of "honour/honor" that you're probably not from the United States. In fact, your email is through a German company. Therefore given your geography and dialect, I'm not surprised at you're outspoken against the war(s). Many Europeans are, it seems. That's your perogative. Good day Michael.

[HAWK]

Why do all you--rightie wing-nuts -always attack the messenger with slime remarks instead of attacking the message with a logic response?????
DO all of you take lessons from the likes of--O'REILLY,DRUDGE,LIMB-POTHEAD,& ANN COULTER???

[Aakash]

Don't have time to say much at the moment, but I wanted to let y'all know that there is some good material on this matter at the current home page of Soldiers for the Truth:
www.sftt.org

Thanks!

P.S. - And "HAWK"... many of us right-wingers opposed this war, and a growing number of conservatives (including those who previously supported it), and expressing strong doubts about whether it was the right thing to do. (I've written about this many, many times before... Don't blame conservatives for this war.)

[Valerie]

Chris,

Sorry for the three posts of mine up there! I previewed and then altered the message, and thought I had only posted the last one. Obviously, I am a bleedin' amateur at this.

P.S. -- Hawk, If you are referring to Sgt. Missick's comments, I would note that he did not attack the messenger: he criticized a news article for failing to account for facts that he himself observed. If you are referring to the reader commentary about Michael's posting, even I know better than to quote an entire article by somebody else.

[Valerie]

Chris,

Sorry for the three posts of mine up there! I previewed and then altered the message, and thought I had only posted the last one. Obviously, I am a bleedin' amateur at this.

P.S. -- Hawk, If you are referring to Sgt. Missick's comments, I would note that he did not attack the messenger: he criticized a news article for failing to account for facts that he himself observed. If you are referring to the reader commentary about Michael's posting, even I know better than to quote an entire article by somebody else.