A good ending to the Rumsfeld surprise
It appears that Lee Pitts' editor has his own feelings about Pitts' self-proclaimed heroism. Check out this piece where the editor notes that the reporter is there to report news, not make it. A novel concept. The most salient point of it is this quote:
He said Pitts' story on the incident, which ran Thursday, should have included an explanation of how the embed, barred from questioning Rumsfeld himself during an appearance in Kuwait Wednesday, convinced a Tennessee national guardsman to pose the question.Just be upfront about it. Granted, the forum was for soldiers to air their issues, not to have a reporter stir the pot for them, but a little transparency would have inoculated most of the criticism, but then again, it would have exposed the reporter as an operator not one who recites facts.
So that leaves me with a question or two. What if Bush pushed through a package to add armor to such vehicles within a month? Would this be praised as a victory for our soldiers, or would it be yet another budget-busting defense spending waste? Would John Kerry vote for it this time? And if Bush took the time to work the problem within the budget, would he be delaying things, leaving our soldiers unnecessarily exposed?
The point I made in the earlier post, which may not have been as clear as I would have liked given the late hour I posted it is that we're not going into an election here, but you wouldn't know it when nefarious stuff like this pops up. This was an attempt to convey an inaccurate depiction of a problem with the war. The only possible objective is to turn public opinion against the re-elected administration and the war. The MSM needs to cool it. This is not Vietnam, it's not a quagmire, our troops are not civilian-killing barbarians, nor are they target practice for "rebels" who are really foreign Al Qaida combatants determined to re-enslave the Iraqi people under a Talibanish rule. Certain contingencies cannot be foreseen in war, but when discovered, we respond. It's not perfect, it was never promised to be so, but we're doing well "with the army we have", per Rumsfeld.
The lack of armor IS a real issue which must be addressed immediately.
But gamesmanship like this seems pretty clearly to be an effort, not to knock off a politician, but rather to tar and feather him and to turn public opinion against the war. It's gotten old, and our ire now turns to the reporters, not to the leaders. Stop favoring our enemies, and stop overblowing problems so we can just win this damn war and get people home.