Take a look at this article about the GM limo Bush will ride to the inaguration in. It notes that:
The president's hand-crafted limousine is longer, wider and taller than the
production model, and it is equipped with state-of-the-art protection and
Now, what do you want to bet that one of the "protection systems" is armor? Of course, you say. What of it?
I'm just thinking about how Donald Rumsfeld, whom Bush is not holding accountable for his bungling of the war in Iraq, told us that "you can have all the armor in the world and a tank can still be blown up," basically saying that armor is useless and unimportant.
If Bush is standing by his Secretary of Defense's policies and statements, he shouldn't have any armor on his car. After all, armor is useless and unimportant. As Rumsfeld might say, "You can have all the armor in the world and a car can still be blown up."
This logic, after all, is Rumsfeld's justification for failing to provide sufficient armor for soldiers' vehicles in Iraq. So, either Bush's car is not armored, because he truly doesn't believe in armor as protection from attack, or Bush's car is armored, and Bush and Rumsfeld were just lying about the utility of armor, showing that simply chose not to provide our troops with sufficient protection intentionally.
Making speeches about protecting the nation and about the bravery of our troops, while simultaneously choosing not to provide them protection and trying to cut their combat pay is disgusting and wrong. The truth is that the Bush regime, and Rumsfeld in particular, don't care about our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen at all. The troops are just the children of the poor, after all, and the Bush regime cares nothing about anyone who can't contribute $250,000 to his campaign, isn't a Saudi prince, or doesn't play golf with Bush Sr.