Biden Blasts Rumsfeld On Remarks To Our Troops

Thursday, December 9, 2004


WASHINGTON, DC - Following yesterday’s remarks by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to U.S. troops preparing to head for Iraq, U.S. Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, issued the following statement:

“I was dismayed by some of the things Secretary Rumsfeld said to our troops the other day in that town hall meeting. I'm glad he went. I'm glad he asked them to ask him tough questions. But it seems pretty clear he didn't expect our troops to take him up on that, because his answers were an insult to their service, and to our intelligence.

“The Secretary was asked about the shortage of body armor and armored vehicles. One National Guard scout from Tennessee talked about scrounging for scrap metal to protect his vehicle. In fact, a spokesman for that Guardsman's unit said that 95% of the unit's 300 trucks were not properly armored.

“Here's what Secretary Rumsfeld replied: "All the armor in the world" might not save you from a roadside bomb. By that logic, we should send our troops into battle on bicycles.

“And here's the kicker. Secretary Rumseld said "you go to war with the army you have, not army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

“Mr. Secretary: We did not go to war with the "army we have." Many of us, including our leading uniformed generals, urged you to go to war with a large ground force; you were determined to prove your theory we could fight light, with high tech weapons and drones and special forces. You went to war with a fraction of the ‘army we have.’ And that's made our troops’ mission even harder and more dangerous.

“And if you really believe we went to war with "the army we have," why didn't you wait until they had all the armor they needed? This was a war of choice, not necessity, to be waged on our timetable, not Saddam's. And why is it that, 20 months after Saddam’s statue fell, our troops still don’t have the protection they need. Congress has given this administration virtually every dollar it has asked for in Iraq. And last year, we tried to give you more money to protect our troops but your allies in the Senate voted it down.

“Secretary Rumsfeld can't have it both ways. Either it was important to go when we went, in which case we should have gone with the full force of our army. Or, we could have waited, and used the time to make sure our men and women in uniform had everything they needed to be as safe and successful as possible.”

Source: http://biden.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=229939

Rumsfeld is the sociopath who called our troops "fungible." Not to mention the prison TORTURE incidents.

That's it! I'm voting Biden 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WOW!

any astrologists out there predicting Rummy gone before the coronation?

Rummy should have been fired last year. They won't fire him now because it would mean that Bush admits that invading Iraq was a mistake.

I just read on the SFTT.org website that the question asked by that soldier was kind of framed together by an ABC embedded journalist. Im not saying that the situation those NG troops are in isnt jacked up, but sounds like the reporter wanted to put rumsfield on the spot by having a soldier ask this question.
Now SFTT.org is Ret. Colonel David Hackworths site and is not pro-bush, it is a Pro-US troops site. Here is alink to the story, makes for interesting reading.
SFTT article

The reporter was not allowed to ask questions. He brought two soldiers with him. He discussed possible questions with the troops. He asked the soldier if he wanted to ask that question. The soldier said yes. The soldier made the decision because it's on the minds of all the troops going into Iraq. The guy was a hometown (from where this unit hails) reporter. When the soldier asked the question everyone applauded. It's not a set-up if the soldier agreed that the question needed to be asked, and if all the soldiers applauded him.

John McCain says he has "no confidence" in Donald Rumsfeld.

Here's the story: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=326680

Why did he wait until after 11/2?