More on Rummy
I'm sure by now you've heard/seen/read about the armor question that Rumsfeld took the other day in Iraq. But are you aware that his reason why was incorrect? Well here is the question and answer:

Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. My question is more logistical. We’ve had troops in Iraq for coming up on three years and we’ve always staged here out of Kuwait. Now why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromise ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles and why don’t we have those resources readily available to us? [Applause]

SEC. RUMSFELD: I missed the first part of your question. And could you repeat it for me?

Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. Our soldiers have been fighting in Iraq for coming up on three years. A lot of us are getting ready to move north relatively soon. Our vehicles are not armored. We’re digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that’s already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat. We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us north.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I talked to the General coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they’re not needed, to a place here where they are needed. I’m told that they are being – the Army is – I think it’s something like 400 a month are being done. And it’s essentially a matter of physics. It isn’t a matter of money. It isn’t a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It’s a matter of production and capability of doing it.

First of all, I'm no physics major but what would physics have to do with it? And second, It seems it isn't a matter of production and capability:

Jacksonville, Florida-based Armor Holdings last month told the Army it could add armor to as many as 550 of the trucks a month, up from 450 vehicles now, Robert Mecredy, president of the company's aerospace and defense group said in a telephone interview today.

``We're prepared to build 50 to 100 vehicles more per month,'' Mecredy said in the interview. ``I've told the customer that and I stand ready to do that.''

Uh oh! It's hard for me to believe that this is not a lie. Since as you can see from Rumsfeld's answer he is pretty good with remembering figures. He knows that, "something like 400 a month are being done". So from that I take it that he knew more could be done as well. I call Rumsfeld a liar, I'm sure that shocks you. So it seems to me he still has not answered the question. Maybe it should be asked again but like this:

Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. A few days ago you answered a soldiers question about lack of armor saying that, "It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it." The next day we found out that actually the company that puts armor on the vehicles could armor 22% more than it was doing but was not given the go ahead. This refutes your answer about production and capabilily being the reason. So, now that we know that, would you mind telling us what the real answer is for why the troops vehicles are not being armored?

I'll be waiting for that one to be asked at the next Pentagon briefing.

[Update]

I saw this after I posted.
U.S. Stance on Armor Disputed

Washington - Despite Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's assertion that the military is outfitting Humvees with armor as quickly as possible, the company providing the vehicles said it has been waiting since September for approval from the Pentagon to increase monthly production by as many as 100 of the all-terrain vehicles, intended to protect against roadside bombs in Iraq.

- posted by Mom/Dad @ 6:27 AM