Click to bookmark this page!

- Contact Me -
Include your email address

<< December 2004 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31


Just in case you weren't sure...
If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:

Please sign the Ted Kennedy Resignation Petition!


rss feed

Shameless Self-Promotion

Buy this book (not just because it contains two of my op-eds):
Americans on Politics, Policy, and Pop Culture:
The 101 Best Opinion Editorials From OpEds.com


An Interview With the G-Man:
My first (hopefully not last) experience in live radio, being interviewed by G. Gordon Liddy!



Perspective
Joe Mariani

Number of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships by precision use of American military force under George W. Bush:
50 million in just two years

Number of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships by anti-American Bush-bashing terrorist-appeasing whining elitists:
Zero. Ever.
...

The problem seems to me to be the definition of "free speech". Liberals define it as anything they want to say or do that opposes America. I say "speech" ends where "action" begins. Once you pick up a gun for the enemy, throw a rock at a cop during a "peace" march, send money to a terrorist organisation, or travel to Baghdad to block an American JDAM with your ass, you have crossed the line from free speech to costly action.
...

Saying the War on Terror is all about al-Qaeda is like saying we should have fought the Japanese Naval Air Force after Pearl Harbor. Not the Japanese Navy, not the Japanese Army, not the Empire of Japan -- just the Naval Air Force.
...

Complaining about the "waste" when human embryos are destroyed instead of being used in medical experiments is a lot like going to a funeral and complaining about the waste of perfectly good meat.
...

Blaming CO2 for climate change is like blaming smoke for the fire. CO2 is largely a following, not a leading, indicator of a rise in temperature.
...

Cavalier's First Theorem:
Every time, Liberals will fight to protect the guilty and kill the innocent, while Conservatives will fight to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

Cavalier's Second Theorem:
Liberals are just Socialists who want to be loved... then again, Socialists are just Communists who lack the courage of their convictions.

Cavalier's Third Theorem:
Any strongly moral, hawkish or pro-American statement by a Liberal will inevitably be followed by a "but."

Top News Headlines

Iraq Blogs

The Messopotamian
Iraq at a Glance
Iraq the Model
Hammorabi
Iraq & Iraqis
Nabil's Blog
Road of a Nation
The Sun of Iraq
Healing Iraq

Iraqi Bloggers Central

The Truth About Iraq
Liberating Iraq
Pictures from Iraq
The Iraqi Holocaust: a collection
Iraq's Mass Graves

Mudville Gazette:
News the media can't use

The Other Iraq:
The Iraq you never hear about in the MSM

Michael Yon - Online Magazine
Dispatches not filed from the Baghdad Hilton hot tub


United States Central Command


Humor

Infamous Monsters of Filmland

Day by Day: Chris Muir's witty comic strip with a political bent

The Ultimate War Simulation: Why does this scenario seem so familiar?

What Kind of Liberal Are You?
Save me the trouble of figuring out what kind of idiot you are

Blame Bush
Because Bush is to blame... for everything

Sacred Cow Burgers
Web Archive

Satirical Political Beliefs Test

Communists for Kerry

Cooper's Protester Guide

Fellowship 9/11: Sauron never attacked Rohan, Saruman did! Yet a small group of elitists convinced Middle-earth to divert resources from the real war to attack Mordor for personal gain.


Analysis

When Democrats Attack
Did prominent Democrats switch positions on Iraq just to attack President Bush for political gain? (See the updated list.)

Was Iraqi Freedom Justified?
An honest, step-by-step analysis of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq that Congress voted into law shows that it was.

Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror
Details of solid ties to organised international terrorism

How The Left Betrayed Iraq
by Naseer Flayih Hasan

Did We Botch The Occupation?
No, not of Iraq: of Germany. Read the media's take on how we "lost the peace" in 1946 and compare.

Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About the Conflict in Iraq

Pictures from Hate Bush/Hate America/Hate Capitalism/Hate Israel/general wacko rallies
- by Zombie

Jihad Watch


2004 Election Links

Looosers: Sorry, Everybody!
Winners: You're Welcome, Everybody!


2008 Election

Peace Through Strength PAC


Duncan Hunter in 2008
official site



Click to join duncanhunterforpresident2008 at Yahoo! Groups

Useful Links

FamilyWishList
Share your wish list with friends and family

Virtual Tourist
Travel tips from real travelers

RemBot.com
Appointment calendar with email/wireless notification

PriceGrabber.com
Convenient comparison shopping


Reading Material

RightWingNews
The best right-wing news and commentary

GOP USA Commentary Corner

Men's News Daily
The New Media

OpinionEditorials.com
a project of Frontiers of Freedom

ChronWatch
SF Chronicle watchdog and conservative news

American Daily
Analysis with political and social commentary

The Conservative Voice
Conservative news and opinion

News By Us
...not news bias

IntellectualConservative.com
Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics

CommonConservative.com
Practical conservatism for the common man

USASentinel
Analysis, Commentary and Opinion on the Real World

PhillyFuture.org
Philly news and blogs


Now Reading

The Fatal Conceit:
The Errors of Socialism
by F. A. Hayek



Articles Previously Published at
Useless-Knowledge.com

- When Good Liberals Go Bad - 05/29/03
- How Stupid Do Democrats Think You Are? - 05/31/03
- Who Are These 'Rich' Getting Tax Cuts, Anyway? - 06/02/03
- How Can We Miss The Clintons If They Won't Go Away? - 06/04/03
- Whining of Mass Distraction: How To Discredit A President - 06/05/03
- Liberal "Rules" for Arguing - 06/10/03
- Liberalism: Curable or Terminal? - 06/14/03
- Filibustering Judges: Hijacking Presidential Powers? - 06/17/03
- Is Hamas Exempt from the War on Terror? - 06/22/03
- How Malleable Is The Constitution? - 06/26/03
- Rejecting Our Biological and Cultural Heritage - 06/30/03
- I Need Liberal Assistance, Now! - 07/02/03
- Bring Them On - 07/03/03
- We Need You Arrogant Warmongering Americans...Again - 07/09/03
- Much Ado About Nothing, Again - 07/13/03
- Double Standard: Blindly Blame Bush - 07/18/03
- Was WWII Also Unjustified? - 07/20/03
- Clinton Backing Bush? Don't Bet On It! - 07/24/03
- How To Be A Hypocritical Liberal - 07/28/03
- The Clinton Legacy: In Answer to Mr. Stensrud - 07/30/03
-What Is 'Good News' To Liberals? - 08/02/03
- Bush's Big Blunder - 08/06/03
- The Meaning of Right - Why I Supported the Iraq War - 08/10/03
- More Liberal "Rules" for Arguing - 08/14/03
- You Can Have Cary Grant; I'll Take John Wayne! - 08/19/03
- Where Is The ACLU When It's Actually Needed? - 08/25/03
- Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Ten Commandments? - 08/28/03
- From The Weasels: Thanks For Nothing - 08/30/03
- The Liberal Superfriends - 09/02/03
- Liberal Superfriends 2: The Sequel - 09/05/03
- Saddam and 9/11: Connect the Dots - 09/08/03
- Throwing Away the Southern Vote - 11/02/03
- Libya: The First Domino Falls - 12/20/03
- Is the UN Playing Games with American Politics? - 03/04/04


Blogs to Browse

Across the Pond
AlphaPatriot
Arts for Democracy
Betsy's Page
Bill Karl
Blonde Sagacity
Bull Moose Strikes Back
Common Sense & Wonder
Conservative Pleasure
Dangerous Logic
DowneastBlog
ElectionProjection
Everything I Know Is Wrong
Freedom of Thought
Sally Girl
Korla Pundit
LogiPundit.com
MarkLevinFan
Mark Nicodemo
Michelle Malkin
Moonbattery
My Arse From My Elbow
QandO Blog
RadioBS.net
Rebel Rouser
RightThinkingGirl
Sally Girl
Samantha Burns
Semi-Intelligent Thoughts
Sighed Effects
Sister Toldjah
Stark Truth
Take A Stand Against Liberals
The Resplendent Mango
The Right Society
The YNC
Tom's Common Sense
Tom DeLay
Tomfoolery of the Highest Order
Trying to Grok
TS Right Dominion
Violent Daydreams
Watcher of Weasels
Word Around the Net
WuzzaDem.com



Locations of visitors to this page


Monday, December 13, 2004
Media vs. the Military 2: The Armor Flap

Once again, members of the so-called "mainstream" media leave no stone unturned in their quest to embarrass the Bush administration and undermine support for the war America is already committed to win. This time their target is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their issue is armored HMMWVs (High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, or "hummvees"). Their tool is the very military that will be hurt the worst if they're successful.

While Rumsfeld was in Kuwait last week, he visited a group of National Guard soldiers that were about to be deployed to Iraq. He took questions from them, but not from the press. The briefing and questions were not in the least adversarial until one soldier demanded to know why "we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal" to armor the HMMWVs. Naturally, the media went wild with glee over this "evidence" that the US military is ill-equipped to fight a war.

The first problem is that the media planted the question and arranged for it to be asked. Edward Lee Pitts, a Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team, wrote in an email: "I was told yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions, so I brought two of them along with me as my escorts. ... Beforehand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have."

Now, some might say that the question was entirely legitimate, asked by a soldier with very real concerns over the vehicle he would be asked to drive into Baghdad. Fortunately (for our military; unfortunately for our media), HMMWVs that haven't yet been up-armored are not driven, but carted on flatbed trucks to a safe area. Any concerns the soldiers might have had came not from their own experience -- since they hadn't been in Iraq yet -- but from the media misrepresentation. The fearmongering media created the worries they then reported as "legitimate concerns." Reporters like Pitts (and there are far too many like him) have long ago forgotten anything they knew about journalistic integrity. Instead of reporting facts fairly and accurately, they create the news to further their agenda, engaging in a "gotcha" game designed to attack those with whom they disagree.

The fact is that HMMWVs are normally unarmored except for military police use. They're simply not designed to carry heavy armor -- the suspension and transmission aren't built to handle the extra weight. In late 2003, the terrorists in Iraq began using more IEDs (improvised explosive devices) on roadways to attack our troops, so the military realised they had to ramp up production of armored HMMWVs, and come up with a lightweight armor that could be added to the 30,000 wheeled vehicles (including HMMWVs) already in Iraq and Afghanistan. At this point, there are only about 8,000 vehicles without some armor on them, and a large number of those are "tool trucks, communication vans or vehicles that don't leave the base camp," according to Lieutenant General Steven Whitcomb, the CFLCC commander in Kuwait. Reports of soldiers digging through trash heaps to find scrap metal were likely based on soldiers recycling steel plates from vehicles that had been hit and couldn't be repaired, Whitcomb said. This makes sense, as scrap metal wouldn't do much to armor a vehicle (old A-Team reruns notwithstanding), and would unbalance the load on its suspension. For extra protection, some soldiers have used "hillbilly armor," as it's called, and that also may be the basis for media reports of widespread shortages.

HMMWVs can be given three levels of armor. Level one includes complete armor and bulletproof glass. Those have to be built from the ground up, and production has increased in just a year from 30 a month to 400 a month. Approximately 6,000 vehicles have level one protection. Level two protection is provided with an add-on kit, which covers the sides of the vehicle but not the top and bottom. Approximately 10,000 vehicles have level two armor. Level three armor is used more for trucks than HMMWVs; it consists of steel plates bolted onto the vehicles' sides. About 4,500 vehicles currently have level three protection.

Because of this manufactured armor flap, the enemy knows exactly how many and what types of vehicles are armored, and how to tell one from another. Good job, members of the mainstream media. Doesn't our military have enough to do without your invented scandals and information leaks? As for the military, I suggest that when speaking to the press, you restrict any conversation to the following topics: names of cities fought in, amount of ground taken, and number of enemies killed. Anything you say can and will be used against you by the enemy.

Posted at Monday, December 13, 2004 by CavalierX

Jamie
December 13, 2004   09:01 AM PST
 
Naturally, the media has pounced on this with both feet in an effort to embarass the administration. And they always love to embarrass Rummy. They could care less that it helps the enemy identify which vehicles to target. Or wait, maybe they DO care.... Think about it, the more unarmored vehicles that are hit, the more of our soldiers that are injured, thus more "good" stories for them to report. (Their idea of "good" is that any bad news to report from the "illicit" war is good news to them.)
Lea
December 13, 2004   09:51 AM PST
 
You are on target as usual. Great explanation.
Jamie
December 13, 2004   11:08 AM PST
 
I have noticed one thing about this latest story - our local media came out with a story a day or so later, quoting the stats about just exactly how many of the vehicles have been uparmored. And I've seen more support out on the net, too. So, it seems that this latest attempt by the msm to negatively influence people about the war is not going to get quite the support that they would hope for.
Name
December 13, 2004   12:31 PM PST
 
Bravo!
Hillary
December 14, 2004   09:23 AM PST
 
~Rumsfeld has performed poorly in his position, from proporting a lie to fool the American public into accepting and supporting an invasion of Iraq, to the condoned offenses at prisons in Iraq, to underestimating the war, it's costs and planning as if it was a weekend jaunt in the woods for the troops there, he has done nothing to promote his cause...This "war" you speak of, what exactly is it? The "war" was over when Bush dressed up in military garb and landed on an aircraft carrier for photo ops, now we are fighting, and thousands are dying for what? To instill a puppet leader in a country that will fall to civil war the second the US leaves, or are we staying, as in Vietnam, to fight a battle against a "foe" (as the commies were in the 60's/70's that will only make the military establishment richer????~
Angrydog
December 14, 2004   10:52 AM PST
 
I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't provide a more reliabe source for your "findings" then that of KENTUCKY.COM, which screams conservative redneck. (In other words, Bush's people)

As far as the HMMWVs, they were initially protected by heavy armor and in some cases still are. However, a lighter armor package was developed for them, which is on "back order." See the link below:

http://www.defense-update.com/products/h/humvee-kit-battelle.htm

Oh and yes, scrap metal CAN be used to armour light-skinned vehicles. See the link below:

http://www.dcmilitary.com/marines/hendersonhall/9_11/national_news/28050-1.html

QUOTE: "The Marines are additionally fashioning devices out of scrap metal to make their hardened vehicles even tougher." - March 19, 2004
Sister Toldjah
December 14, 2004   10:54 AM PST
 
You are on the money as usual!
JM
December 14, 2004   10:41 PM PST
 
>you didn't provide a more reliabe
>source for your "findings" then
>that of KENTUCKY.COM

I don't suppose you happened to notice that the Lexington Herald-Leader at kentucky.com was reprinting an article from the Chicago Tribune, did you? I guess not. I imagine you would prefer CNN. Very well:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/09/rumsfeld.reporter/

>they were initially protected by
>heavy armor

No, they weren't. That's the point.

>scrap metal to make their
>hardened vehicles even tougher

Didn't you read the words you yourself posted?? Hardened vehicles, as in armored with upgraded suspensions, capable of carrying heavy load.
Jamie
December 14, 2004   11:07 PM PST
 
No, he saw "Kentucky" and his brain shut down. Tsk-tsk. And I thought liberals (you know, "Kerry's people") were open-minded.
The Psychic Ferret
December 15, 2004   03:53 PM PST
 
BTW - an rather interesting read can be found at:

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTARM.HTM

Starts on the 2nd paragraph.
The Inside Guy
December 15, 2004   07:52 PM PST
 
I hate you.
skye
December 15, 2004   09:30 PM PST
 


Hey! I like You!
JM
December 15, 2004   10:12 PM PST
 
>Hey! I like You!

Woohoo! That's certainly worth enduring the hatred of some anonymous idiot! :)
Jamie
December 15, 2004   10:34 PM PST
 
I like you, too, And I think that those of us who like you far outnumber the ones who don't like you (or hate you).

BTW, Inside Guy - "hate" is such a strong word. Might you be suffering from Post Election Selection Trauma (PEST)? You know, there are clinics providing therapy for that now. You might consider signing up for some sessions soon.
JM
December 16, 2004   05:30 AM PST
 
>I like you

:-D
Jamie
December 16, 2004   09:24 PM PST
 
McCain, the RINO, came out and publicly said he had no confidence in Rummy. Then yesterday, surprise, surprise, Bill Kristol wrote a column about how he didn't like Rummy and that Pres Bush should remove him and replace him with someone better. I'm sure that he thinks McCain is that certain someone.
Jamie
December 16, 2004   11:00 PM PST
 
McCain, Hagel, and now Trent Lott are all on Rummy's case. THis article in NRO talks about this drive against RUmmy:

http://tinyurl.com/57gbn

"The get-Rumsfeld crowd — mostly Democrats, joined by the McCain-Hagel caucus and a few stray hawks — takes great umbrage at Rumsfeld's answer to a National Guardsman's question about an insufficient number of up-armored Humvees. Hagel intoned, “those men and women deserved a far better answer from their secretary of Defense than a flippant comment.” But Rumsfeld wasn't being flip. "


JM
December 17, 2004   04:35 AM PST
 
I'm shocked that Trent Lott joined the usual McCain-Hagel-Lugar trio of Bush-bashing Republicans.
Psychic Ferret
December 17, 2004   08:29 AM PST
 
I'm normally a McCain Supporter, but he has been making some really dumb-sh*t comments.
Rumsfeld's answer was not flippant IMHO, he was being brutally honest, something the media wouldn't recognized if it walked up to them and began humping their leg.
Anyone can come up with the invicible (read: fantasy) army from the safety of their easy chair or editorial desk, but the real world has real world problems.
Our military is adapting, and unfortunately, that adaptation takes time, which costs lives. One of the adaptations that I would like to see come out of this is a greater emphasis by our military on urban combat or close-combat warfare (CCW). We are great in big battles against standing armies, but have inadequate experience in guerilla warfare. We need a branch devoted to that end, similar in conept to Delta but with much greater resources assigned to it in terms of personnel and equipment.
Anyway, just my $0.02.
Jamie
December 17, 2004   08:59 AM PST
 
Many say that all McCain (and others) are doing now is positioning themselves for 2008. That is what Hillary Clinton is doing with her sudden "hawkish" behavior.

They just don't get it, do they? That by undermining the President, the Secretary of Defense may boost their chances in 2008, but it seriously hurts what our military is doing and our security here at home. Yammering on and on, going out of their way to point out just exactly where our security is lax, just exactly how many and which ones of our military vehicles are under-amored does not help us in the long run?
 

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments




Previous Entry Home Next Entry