bush speak - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 06-29-2005, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Umm...It's a Military.com story.

No its an AP story posted on military.com.

Quote:

You can also semi-verify this as all the main stream news sites stories about lack of armor are from 2003.

Now the cynical side in me had a feeling you were hoping to attack the source, and the logical side in me would assume you didn't check the link, but the hopeful side in me will assume you just didn't read the full article.

For more documentation, here is the link on the AP web site.

ACK edited out link, its a huge string and makes bad things happen to the formating.

Just search the ap web page for Iraq Troops in the title and the year 2004

tecoyah · 06-29-2005, 04:46 PM

AP....placed on Military.com

This is good news....why question the source if not to cause a reaction

Damn ustwo beat me by like 0.2 seconds....heh

roachboy · 06-29-2005, 04:48 PM

Quote:

I used to think that political differences were just due to lack of information or some self serving interest. Many times this is true, but occasionally I have run into people who are as informed as I am, with the same facts, who come to totally different conclusions. How two intelligent people with the same data could come to different conclusions used to puzzle me. I came to realize it was the paradigm from which they view the world that was fundamentally different (...)

i have been sitting here for a few minutes in amazement that ustwo has posted something in politics i actually agree with and which i understand as a reasonable position.
i would call hell to see if it has frozen if i thought it existed.

on another note--i find it curious that folk who are not and have not been invovled with operations in iraq are contradicting information from folk who are there about equipment problems. i find it particularly curious that in one case at least the contradiction is based on experience in an unrelated, much different war. nor do i understand how citing the date a report first appeared makes the content of that report "old news" when he presents not even a scrap of information to show that the problem had been addressed.

but whatever--how did the link get set up that if you support the administration then it follows that that administration can do absolutely nothing wrong? that support requires a complete abdication of anything approaching critical thinking? why is it such a problem to acknowledge ANYTHING that even might be problematic about the administration, its policies, its actions in or around iraq, no matter how much information piles up to the contrary?
is there any possible critical mass of information that would cause such blind allegiance to shake even a little?
or is the security that comes from the absolute refusal to think critically part of what explains adherence to conservative precepts for this new, extreme right variant of conservatism.

i know quite a few old-school conservative types, more mandarin sorts, for whom this kind of blind allegiance was NEVER an aspect of being conservative. when and how did this redefinition occur?

the mode of argument particular to contemporary far-right ideology has nothing in common whatsoever with previous types of conservative thinking.

this has two points--one is contained in the above--the other is apparently general paradigm can and do change, and often quite fast--in this case, the new right has managed to redefine the notion of conservative in a quite fundamental ways in the space of less that 20 years. i would imagine that many of the folk who support the bush administration to the complete exclusion of critique--and there are several who have posted above--would nearly come to blows with older-school conservatives, if their written self-presentation meshed with who they are in real life.

Elphaba · 06-29-2005, 04:58 PM

From three months ago from Soldiers for the Truth:

03.03.2005

The Armor Scandal

Bureaucrats’ Inertia Cost the Lives of Our Troops

By Roger Charles

If you want to read a depressing, pathetic indictment of the Perfumed Princes of the Pentagon (those in and out of uniform), read the latest major investigative article in The New York Times today ("Many Missteps Tied to Delay in Armor for Troops in Iraq," March 7, 2005).

According to article, the Pentagon's "difficulties in shielding troops and their vehicles with armor have been far more extensive and intractable than officials have acknowledged."

Here is but one example of the bureaucracy at work, according to the Times investigation:

"In the case of body armor, the Pentagon gave a contract for thousands of the ceramic plate inserts that make the vests bulletproof to a former Army researcher who had never mass-produced anything. He struggled for a year, then gave up entirely. At the same time, in shipping plates from other companies, the Army's equipment manager effectively reduced the armor's priority to the status of socks, a confidential report by the Army's inspector general shows. Some 10,000 plates were lost along the way, and the rest arrived [in Iraq] late."

"In all, with additional paperwork delays, the Defense Department took 167 days just to start getting the bulletproof vests to soldiers in Iraq once General [Richard] Cody placed the order. But for thousands of soldiers, it took weeks and even months more, records show, at a time when the Iraqi insurgency was intensifying and American casualties were mounting."

"By contrast, when the United States' allies in Iraq also realized they needed more bulletproof vests, they bypassed the Pentagon and ordered directly from a manufacturer in Michigan. They began getting armor in just 12 days."

At the end of the article's too-long litany of incompetence, piss-poor judgment and lethal bureaucratic inertia, this reader bowed his head and fought twin temptations. One, to scream in frustration that Pentagon apparatchiks saw only business as usual while great young Americans were being killed and maimed in Iraq with increasing severity and frequency. And, two, to cry in grief for the lives that were lost or maimed when so many of these deaths and horrible injuries could have – and should have – been prevented.

Unfortunately, preventing a goodly number of these casualties would have required that some senior Army or DoD official – just one – truly cared more for the welfare of the troops than for the proper staffing of some piece of paper. It's brutally obvious that proper staffing "within" the DoD acquisition system was the be-all and end-all that overrode every other consideration.

It did not and does not have to be this way. During the Falklands War in the spring of 1982, then-Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger faced the same bureaucracy while trying to support our British allies in their fight to prevent the Argentine junta from annexing their islands in the South Atlantic following the invasion.

Weinberger's response to the "most-urgent" British requests for U.S. materiel assistance was instructive: He ignored the DoD acquisition system altogether! Over the strong protests of the bureaucrats, Weinberger short-circuited the materiel mafia that continues to force U.S. troops to rely on "process and procedure" to the detriment of getting their hands on live-saving equipment in a timely fashion.

Weinberger's solution was brilliantly simple. At least once a day, he and his British counterpart in the Ministry of Defense had a secure telephone call. The British "SecDef" told his American counterpart what the Brit forces needed, and Weinberger issued an order for the DoD acquisition system to provide the specified items. The only "staffing" was the execute order!

For example, the Brits most urgently needed the best air-to-air missiles that the United States had – the AIM-9L Sidewinder.

To no surprise, our own admirals protested, and may have actually succeeded in "hiding" some of the requested Sidewinders. In spite of this obstructionism, enough AIM-9Ls were transferred to U.K. forces to enable the British Harrier jump-jets to protect their fleet with minimal losses.

Please note that no U.S. troops were at risk in this British-Argentine shoot 'em up. Nonetheless, Weinberger ignored the bureaucratic niceties (and maybe a legal stricture or two in the Federal Acquisition Regulations).

The moral of this too-long sea story, is that if SecDef Donald Rumsfeld and the closed circle of high-level hand puppets that surround him had truly given even half of a damn about the welfare of our troops in harm's way, he and his lackeys had both the Weinberger precedent and power at their disposal to have ensured that body armor and up-armored vehicles got to our troops in Iraq in sufficient amounts and in time to have saved lives and limbs.

That this did not happen is a major indictment of the Pentagon's current leadership.

To date, no one has been fired, or even reprimanded for the armor-shortage scandal. No doubt, many of the uniformed and civilian leaders on whose watch this disgrace occurred have subsequently been promoted (and the higher-level career civilians inside the acquisition machine have I'm sure received their annual performance bonuses for "exceptional" performance in both 2003 and 2004.

The ugly truth is that they all chose by inaction and failure to use all the tools available to them, to let stout-hearted Americans needlessly die and be maimed for life. How they as individuals can live with the consequences of their dereliction of duty is a matter for them and their consciences.

For what it's worth, they have earned my complete and utter contempt.

Elphaba · 06-29-2005, 05:05 PM

Tacoyah, I read the source that Ustwo gave me after my request for it. There was no mention of an AP source in the article that I saw. I have since posted that the issue of providing adequate protection to our troups is not at all dead or old news.

Have I responded adequately to your yellow warning? If not, please advise me for there was no hidden agenda on my part for asking Ustwo to provide a link.

tecoyah · 06-29-2005, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Tacoyah, I read the source that Ustwo gave me after my request for it. There was no mention of an AP source in the article that I saw. I have since posted that the issue of providing adequate protection to our troups is not at all dead or old news.

Have I responded adequately to your yellow warning? If not, please advise me for there was no hidden agenda on my part for asking Ustwo to provide a link.

Yes....you did respond adequately....quite well in fact

Elphaba · 06-29-2005, 05:21 PM

Thank you.

Ustwo · 06-29-2005, 06:05 PM

Elphaba I notice your responce article seems to be covering the exact same issue mine did, based on past problems over a year old.

It seems you posted what has already been posted and resolved. There are issues which need to be addressed of course but it is still news over a year old.

I will note this as well...

Quote:

"By contrast, when the United States' allies in Iraq also realized they needed more bulletproof vests, they bypassed the Pentagon and ordered directly from a manufacturer in Michigan. They began getting armor in just 12 days."

It makes me wonder if the armor was supplied by a 'low' bid contract instead of working directly from the company best suited to deliver.

Fresh indignation over this is nothing but a smokescreen.

Elphaba · 06-29-2005, 07:55 PM

Sigh... Our allies were able to get protective vests through suppliers in the US before our own soldiers could through the Pentagon. It is there in the article I posted if anyone chooses to read it. Halliburton is not a supplier of protective gear; they do lunches and laundry and gas from what I can tell, at premium prices.

I don't intend a "smokescreen," as you suggest, nor am I experiencing "fresh" indignation. What a foolish statement from you, when I have only been a member of TFP for a short time. You know nothing about me.

From the above article, it is clear that another Sec Def might have done a better job of protecting our troups even in a "minor" war.

Ustwo · 06-29-2005, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

I just wanted to add that since we have the technology now to actually replace soldiers with robots, this would eliminate all battle field casualties.

Barring that, Bush not encasing every soldier in rebar reinforced concrete is just further evidence that he doesn't care about the troops and sent them to war ill-equipped to resoundingly defeat an enemy.

It makes you wonder why Bush is so popular with the military and won 4/5ths of the military vote. Must just be a fluke eh?

Mantus · 06-29-2005, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I used to think that political differences were just due to lack of information or some self serving interest. Many times this is true, but occasionally I have run into people who are as informed as I am, with the same facts, who come to totally different conclusions. How two intelligent people with the same data could come to different conclusions used to puzzle me. I came to realize it was the paradigm from which they view the world that was fundamentally different, and paradigms will never change based on one case or one event. I have seen them change in people, but it takes years. This is in general why arguing politics with most people is just pissing in the wind.

It takes time, yes, but one can have an effect on people. Believe it or not you had an effect on my political views.

However it is important to judge yourself as you judge others.

pedro padilla · 07-01-2005, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

This is uncalled for.....unacceptable....and not worthy of these boards

i stand by that statement. I hope they all come home in one piece. i don´t understand how this can be in any way disrespectful or unworthy. I sincerely hope my friend serving over there makes it home safely. As I do for anyone elses friends or family. How can you twist that into something ugly?

tecoyah · 07-01-2005, 01:44 AM

If...by chance...the sarcasm I (amongst others here) read into this statement is a figment of my imagination, I aplogize. Taken in the context of this thread, and your general tone in this debate, it seemed a valid assumption.

pedro padilla · 07-01-2005, 02:50 AM

no sarcasm intended. I would like nothing more than to see an end to this fiasco and for everyone to come home in one piece. period.

smooth · 07-01-2005, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

does anyone know whether data like this is either produced or available, and if so where one might find it?

I know of one undergrad anthropologist who managed to get herself into basic training and conduct her research on glory-based killing, or something along those lines. I watched her present at Santa Clara's anual soc/anth undergrad conference. Tasty stuff for a budding anth student. She's since traveled on to some school in England.

With the activation of basically entire small-towns into combat duty, we can hope that some of them were sociology/anthropology students. Hopefully their professors had the foresight to keep in contact and lead them through valid ethnographic data collection.

Officially, yet unobtainable I would imagine, would be psych evals. It will likely be a long while before their observations hit the journals, what say you, like 20 years given that the war won't even be simmering down for a decade? But if you could somehow tap those records early...that would be your treasure trove, roachboy.

06-29-2005, 04:46 PM	#42 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	AP....placed on Military.com This is good news....why question the source if not to cause a reaction Damn ustwo beat me by like 0.2 seconds....heh __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

07-01-2005, 01:44 AM	#53 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	If...by chance...the sarcasm I (amongst others here) read into this statement is a figment of my imagination, I aplogize. Taken in the context of this thread, and your general tone in this debate, it seemed a valid assumption. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

06-29-2005, 04:58 PM	#44 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	From three months ago from Soldiers for the Truth: 03.03.2005 The Armor Scandal Bureaucrats’ Inertia Cost the Lives of Our Troops By Roger Charles If you want to read a depressing, pathetic indictment of the Perfumed Princes of the Pentagon (those in and out of uniform), read the latest major investigative article in The New York Times today ("Many Missteps Tied to Delay in Armor for Troops in Iraq," March 7, 2005). According to article, the Pentagon's "difficulties in shielding troops and their vehicles with armor have been far more extensive and intractable than officials have acknowledged." Here is but one example of the bureaucracy at work, according to the Times investigation: "In the case of body armor, the Pentagon gave a contract for thousands of the ceramic plate inserts that make the vests bulletproof to a former Army researcher who had never mass-produced anything. He struggled for a year, then gave up entirely. At the same time, in shipping plates from other companies, the Army's equipment manager effectively reduced the armor's priority to the status of socks, a confidential report by the Army's inspector general shows. Some 10,000 plates were lost along the way, and the rest arrived [in Iraq] late." "In all, with additional paperwork delays, the Defense Department took 167 days just to start getting the bulletproof vests to soldiers in Iraq once General [Richard] Cody placed the order. But for thousands of soldiers, it took weeks and even months more, records show, at a time when the Iraqi insurgency was intensifying and American casualties were mounting." "By contrast, when the United States' allies in Iraq also realized they needed more bulletproof vests, they bypassed the Pentagon and ordered directly from a manufacturer in Michigan. They began getting armor in just 12 days." At the end of the article's too-long litany of incompetence, piss-poor judgment and lethal bureaucratic inertia, this reader bowed his head and fought twin temptations. One, to scream in frustration that Pentagon apparatchiks saw only business as usual while great young Americans were being killed and maimed in Iraq with increasing severity and frequency. And, two, to cry in grief for the lives that were lost or maimed when so many of these deaths and horrible injuries could have – and should have – been prevented. Unfortunately, preventing a goodly number of these casualties would have required that some senior Army or DoD official – just one – truly cared more for the welfare of the troops than for the proper staffing of some piece of paper. It's brutally obvious that proper staffing "within" the DoD acquisition system was the be-all and end-all that overrode every other consideration. It did not and does not have to be this way. During the Falklands War in the spring of 1982, then-Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger faced the same bureaucracy while trying to support our British allies in their fight to prevent the Argentine junta from annexing their islands in the South Atlantic following the invasion. Weinberger's response to the "most-urgent" British requests for U.S. materiel assistance was instructive: He ignored the DoD acquisition system altogether! Over the strong protests of the bureaucrats, Weinberger short-circuited the materiel mafia that continues to force U.S. troops to rely on "process and procedure" to the detriment of getting their hands on live-saving equipment in a timely fashion. Weinberger's solution was brilliantly simple. At least once a day, he and his British counterpart in the Ministry of Defense had a secure telephone call. The British "SecDef" told his American counterpart what the Brit forces needed, and Weinberger issued an order for the DoD acquisition system to provide the specified items. The only "staffing" was the execute order! For example, the Brits most urgently needed the best air-to-air missiles that the United States had – the AIM-9L Sidewinder. To no surprise, our own admirals protested, and may have actually succeeded in "hiding" some of the requested Sidewinders. In spite of this obstructionism, enough AIM-9Ls were transferred to U.K. forces to enable the British Harrier jump-jets to protect their fleet with minimal losses. Please note that no U.S. troops were at risk in this British-Argentine shoot 'em up. Nonetheless, Weinberger ignored the bureaucratic niceties (and maybe a legal stricture or two in the Federal Acquisition Regulations). The moral of this too-long sea story, is that if SecDef Donald Rumsfeld and the closed circle of high-level hand puppets that surround him had truly given even half of a damn about the welfare of our troops in harm's way, he and his lackeys had both the Weinberger precedent and power at their disposal to have ensured that body armor and up-armored vehicles got to our troops in Iraq in sufficient amounts and in time to have saved lives and limbs. That this did not happen is a major indictment of the Pentagon's current leadership. To date, no one has been fired, or even reprimanded for the armor-shortage scandal. No doubt, many of the uniformed and civilian leaders on whose watch this disgrace occurred have subsequently been promoted (and the higher-level career civilians inside the acquisition machine have I'm sure received their annual performance bonuses for "exceptional" performance in both 2003 and 2004. The ugly truth is that they all chose by inaction and failure to use all the tools available to them, to let stout-hearted Americans needlessly die and be maimed for life. How they as individuals can live with the consequences of their dereliction of duty is a matter for them and their consciences. For what it's worth, they have earned my complete and utter contempt.

06-29-2005, 05:05 PM	#45 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Tacoyah, I read the source that Ustwo gave me after my request for it. There was no mention of an AP source in the article that I saw. I have since posted that the issue of providing adequate protection to our troups is not at all dead or old news. Have I responded adequately to your yellow warning? If not, please advise me for there was no hidden agenda on my part for asking Ustwo to provide a link.

06-29-2005, 05:21 PM	#47 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Thank you.

06-29-2005, 07:55 PM	#49 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Sigh... Our allies were able to get protective vests through suppliers in the US before our own soldiers could through the Pentagon. It is there in the article I posted if anyone chooses to read it. Halliburton is not a supplier of protective gear; they do lunches and laundry and gas from what I can tell, at premium prices. I don't intend a "smokescreen," as you suggest, nor am I experiencing "fresh" indignation. What a foolish statement from you, when I have only been a member of TFP for a short time. You know nothing about me. From the above article, it is clear that another Sec Def might have done a better job of protecting our troups even in a "minor" war.

07-01-2005, 02:50 AM	#54 (permalink)
pedro padilla Insane	no sarcasm intended. I would like nothing more than to see an end to this fiasco and for everyone to come home in one piece. period.