AUTHOR: Slublog DATE: 12/09/2004 09:42:00 AM ----- BODY: A New Obsession - The media are using a question and answer session to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld against the administration. They are focusing on the question of one soldier in particular, who asked about armor for the Humvees. Rumsfeld's answer was typically artless, but sound:
As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
As I said, not the best answer he could have given, but he did recognize the need and promised more armor is on the way. As Instapundit notes today, the Army has always had to improvise on the battlefield. He also points out the amazing nature of the exchange - a low-ranking soldier was allowed to question a top cabinet official. Predictably, Democrats jumped on the opportunity to do some criticism. The Washington Post quotes Rep. Ted Strickland, Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Sen. Christopher Dodd. Let's see how these guys voted when it came time to support the soldiers: HR 3289 - Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan for FY 2004
Rep. Strickland - Nay
Okay, so Strickland is a craven opportunist. He called Rumsfeld's remarks "callous." What's more callous, Representative? Saying what Rumsfeld said or voting against a bill that provided for the troops? Now, to the Senate. S 1689 - Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004
Sen. Dodd - Yea Sen. Lautenberg - Nay
To his credit, Senator Dodd did the right thing. Why didn't the Democrats nominate him for president? Senator Lautenberg, who called Rumsfeld's comments "contemptuous," is also craven, and also an opportunist who doesn't seem to realize all of us little people can now Google the way he votes. His criticism of Rumsfeld is perfectly acceptable, but his behavior toward the troops he now 'defends' is contemptible. --------