re: evidence
Are you saying that you have evidence that shows that the statement "does not really stand up to close examination"?
It's self-evident, which is why I made that statement. From the article:
Several Iraq-bound soldiers confronted Rumsfeld on Wednesday at a base in Kuwait about a lack of armor for their Humvees and other vehicles...
...eight U.S. soldiers in Kuwait and Iraq filed a lawsuit challenging the military's "stop loss" policy...
...In October, up to 19 Army reservists from a unit based in South Carolina refused orders to drive unarmored trucks on a fuel supply mission along attack-prone roads near Baghdad, contending it was too dangerous.
To be sure, a lot of others who did not speak up have been complaining about the armor supply pipelines, or about driving vehicles with less armor than they'd like. Those who read military blogs heard about these armor problems a year ago, including personal armor issues. And to be sure, there are a lot of people unhappy about stop-loss procedures who aren't suing, but doing their duty anyway.
But still, out of the total number of military people who have actually been in Iraq in the entire course of this war, a number much larger than just the number of people actually there right now, how much of a "trend" is this? "Fearing" that something is the "tip of a larger iceberg" isn't exactly evidence either.
There isn't one sane soldier over in Iraq who, given his choice, wouldn't rather be home with his family trimming a Christmas tree right now. You think that's something new? It certainly isn't a sign of defeat.
However, my original statement that this entire Rumsfeld-question flap was politically-motivated sure has panned out, hasn't it?