• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Paper Regrets Handling of Rumsfeld Story

Grunt03

Diamond Member
embedded reporter had helped frame a question

The question to Rumsfeld from Spc. Thomas "Jerry" Wilson, 31, of Nashville, complaining that many military vehicles in Iraq (news - web sites) are not adequately armored, has touched off a storm of new publicity about the issue.

"In hindsight, information on how the question was framed should have been included in Thursday's story in the Times Free Press. It was not," the paper's publisher and executive editor, Tom Griscom, said in a note to readers published Friday.

Military affairs reporter Edward Lee Pitts, who is embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team, said he worked with guardsmen after being told reporters would not be allowed to ask Rumsfeld any questions.

Griscom said Pitts "used the tools available to him as a journalist to report on a story that has been and remains important to members of the 278th and those back at home."

Pitts had sent an e-mail to co-workers back in Tennessee on Wednesday outlining his role.

"I was told yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions so I brought two of them along with me as my escorts," he wrote. "Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have."

He also said he went to the officer running the question and answer session "and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd."

But the story by Pitts published Thursday about the question to Rumsfeld made no mention of Pitts' own role.

The question from Wilson appeared to surprise Rumsfeld on Wednesday and prompted cheers among the soldiers listening to him in a hangar.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?" Wilson had said.

Rumsfeld said the Army was prodding manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it quickly, but added, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have."


In commending Pitts' work, Griscom, who served as White House communications director under President Reagan, said Pitts "used what was available to him to get an answer to a story that we have covered and that has been important."

Kelly McBride, a member of the ethics faculty at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, said she did not fault the reporter for getting help with asking the question, but described the failure to include that information with his story as "dishonest with his readers."

"I suspect some people would see it as manipulative," McBride said. "I suspect Rumsfeld felt manipulated."

Pentagon (news - web sites) spokesman Larry Di Rita said Rumsfeld gives reporters ample time to ask questions and that his appearance in Kuwait was for the soldiers.

"Town Hall meetings are intended for soldiers to have dialogue with the secretary of defense," Di Rita said. "It would be unfortunate to discover that anyone might have interfered with that opportunity, whatever the intention."

The reporter's e-mail also indicated Pitts was proud of his role in asking the question: "I just had one of my best days as a journalist today," he wrote. He said it "felt good" that the question and answer received so much attention from other media.

Yet still we think it is a good idea to allow reporters to attach with the operating forces?
I guess many of you also think that he didn't do any of this for personel gain. Just is just another example of a reporter trying to get the headlines. No matter the cost, I would like to see where the reporter stands when the soilder is pulled in and receives a counseling which becomes part of his perminate record. It will effect his promotion ability.
Great job jerk!!!!!!
 
Plus, the reporter didn't tell the soldiers to cheer so loud (after the question was asked) that Rumsfeld had to hear the question a second time. Was that a setup too?

Are you angry that we hurt poor Rumsfeld's feelings? (If so, theres an article somewhere where he says he wasn't bothered by it)

Were you hoping for someone to ask for candy canes?
 
They will try to bring him down, thats expected, and they probably will. You're with this administration or against them, and its been shown countless times that they have no shame in punishing dissent to the fullest extent possible.
 
Originally posted by: jjsole
They will try to bring him down, thats expected, and they probably will. You're with this administration or against them, and its been shown countless times that they have no shame in punishing dissent to the fullest extent possible.
Yeah, that's why all the dissenters in this forum will be heading for the stocks shortly, huh? :roll:

Do you guys EVER stop with the overblown hyperbole?
 
Originally posted by: jjsole
They will try to bring him down, thats expected, and they probably will. You're with this administration or against them, and its been shown countless times that they have no shame in punishing dissent to the fullest extent possible.

Yep, systematic witchhunts of dissenters are clearly part of the neocon modus operandi.
 
Whether or not the question was "staged" is really irrelevant, IMO. It's still a valid question in that if we are sending them to war, shouldn't they be equipped with the best this country has to offer?

Rumsfeld's comment was pure Bullsh1t and a slap in the face to those who are serving!!!
 

Say what ever you wish it is your right. I serve in the armed forces and have been in country, I have had armor plates on vehicles and some I did not.

IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE REPORTER NEW WHAT THE RULES WERE, HE USED MILITARY SERVICE MEMBERS IN ORDER TO BE HEARD.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Yeah, that's why all the dissenters in this forum will be heading for the stocks shortly, huh? :roll:

Do you guys EVER stop with the overblown hyperbole?

Ah, come on, the overblown hyperbole is what makes this interesting. Leave them be. 😛
 
Originally posted by: tallest1
How does the actual source of the question change ANYTHING?
It's a typical administration reaction. They have no answer for the question so they try to discredit the source.

You're right. It doesn't change anything. The fact is, there have been complaints about lack of armor and other critical supplies for well over a year.

The soldier's question just brought the issue to the front pages. It's about fsking time! :|
 
Originally posted by: Grunt03

Say what ever you wish it is your right. I serve in the armed forces and have been in country, I have had armor plates on vehicles and some I did not.

IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE REPORTER NEW WHAT THE RULES WERE, HE USED MILITARY SERVICE MEMBERS IN ORDER TO BE HEARD.

First of all, thank you very much for serving. I wouldn't be here freely posting if it weren't for the sacrifices you and your comrades make.

Now onto your reply, you're right. Using soldiers to further reporters' agendas are the lowest of the low and I acknowledge that up-armored vehicles are being manufacturered as quickly as possible but (in my opinion) the issue is neither the questions asked nor the source of the question as the conservatives here are claiming. Sure, there's a slight chance a soldier could have coincidentally asked the same question but thats beside the point.

The point is how a major military leader replied to the [immorally] brought up issue. He pretty much told our soldiers that all the armor in the world may not help you, so keep waiting. A statement made even more dis-heartening given the fact that he probably left the scene in an up-armored vehicle and that he was actually planning on talking to troops in Iraq, not Kuwait, but changed plans due to the danger.
 
Originally posted by: Grunt03
embedded reporter had helped frame a question

~article~

Yet still we think it is a good idea to allow reporters to attach with the operating forces?
I guess many of you also think that he didn't do any of this for personel gain. Just is just another example of a reporter trying to get the headlines. No matter the cost, I would like to see where the reporter stands when the soilder is pulled in and receives a counseling which becomes part of his perminate record. It will effect his promotion ability.
Great job jerk!!!!!!

So, even though it was a question that HAD to be asked, you're ready to string the reporter up for treason?

I weep for the present. The future's already gone.

 
Originally posted by: Grunt03
IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE REPORTER NEW WHAT THE RULES WERE, HE USED MILITARY SERVICE MEMBERS IN ORDER TO BE HEARD.
And as the applause from over 2000 other troops present clearly shows, both Spc Wilson and the reporter performd a great public service.

Like tallest1 I offer my respect to you for serving, but these guys were speaking the truth for the safety of our troops, including you.
Originally posted by: sandorski
FFS! Rumsy gets asked a tough question, balks, and certain people are upset about it? Boohoo.
Dumbsfeld didn't balk. He CHOKED! He couldn't come up with a rational answer for a life or death question about the safety of the troops he and the rest of this chickenhawk administration sent into battle.

Why? Because he doesn't have a good answer. :|

Why? Because they screwed the pooch and disregarded the warnings this would happen before they launched their misbegotten ego trip in the first place. :|
 
I'd like to add to my above post that the point also extends to not only Rumsfeld's reaction but the reaction of the soldier-filled audience and the american people. Sure, the media like to over-dramatize sometimes but wouldn't this all be a non-issue if Bush had done what he said he'd do over a year ago?
 
Originally posted by: tallest1
Sure, the media like to over-dramatize sometimes but wouldn't this all be a non-issue if Bush had done what he said he'd do over a year ago?
Wouldn't this all be a non-issue if the Bush whackos had kept the focus where it belonged, on Afghanistan, instead of cooking up a crock of lies to try to justify their adventure in Iraq?

Wouldn't this all be a non-issue if they had listened to then Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki and others that they would need around 400,000 troops to do the job before they launched the war?

Wouldn't this all be a non-issue if Bush-lite had understood what his father wrote in his memoirs about why he didn't pursue the Iraqi army to Baghdad?

In, A World Transformed (1998), written with Brent Scowcroft, on pp. 489 - 490, George H.W. Bush wrote:
Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
If only his idiot son could read! 🙁
 
Back
Top