Think Progress

Body armor

By Judd Legum on Jan 30th, 2006 at 2:43 pm

Body armor

likely saved the lives ABC News Anchor Bob Woodruff and his cameraman Doug Vogt.

Comments
30

30 Responses to “Body armor”

dano347 says:

“But the hatch was open!!!!!!!!”
(current wingnut spin)
January 30th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
yankeluh says:

They probably took their own body armor and did not depend on government issue like our soldiers. A pretty boy gets a knock and gets huge headlines, our soldiers get squat. A real logical society we live in.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Lisa says:

I wonder if Disney can spring for the body armor to protect our troops. The Pentagon certainly has shown that they haven’t. It was much more important to buy $80 toilet seats for Rummy’s can.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Zookeeper says:

Wow! I bet if it saved them, it would save troops’ lives, too! They must not have realized it; I’ll call them.

/sarcasm off/
January 30th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Bill says:

When Rumsfeld made the comment “You go to war with the army you have…” Why do you think he made that comment? Here’s the clue. He was slamming the Clinton adminstration for their cuts in the military budget. Clinton was able to achieve surpluses in areas he didn’t deem necessary i.e. the military. I believe every soldier deserves and needs this armor. Its too bad it took someone with such a high profile to finally make the left realize that they made a mistake in cutting what the military needs to function. I support the troops and want every last one to come home safely.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
dlet says:

#5,
I guess Clinton didn’t realize that the next person would be a nutjob and invade a country the size of Iraq and occupy it while fighting another war in another country. I guess he thought that the next president would be rational and use the armed forces for protecting America not subjugating others.

But you have your opinion…for what its worth…blame Clinton.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
Wayne A. Schneider says:

Like all intelligent and loyal Americans, I also support the troops and want every last one of them to come home. It is absolutely true that defense spending went down during the ’90s, but that’s because the Cold War ended and we were all supposed to start enjoying a “peace dividend”. And everyone in Congress, including the Republicans, went along with this thinking.

And I reject the silly idea that it was the “left” who “made a mistake in cutting what the military needs to function” as being some kind of excuse for why this administration was so ill-prepared to fight a war they chose to fight. We just about ran out of bullets at one point, for Christ’s sake, because this administration thought they could fight a war on the cheap.

No, it is clearly the fault of the Bush Administration for any shortfalls in military needs for this unnecessary and illegal war. They were told by people who knew what they were talking about what they would need and they ignored it.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Mark says:

#5 have you absolutely no sense of the 1990’s and the reality that occured during that time period? Just wondering.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
dlet says:

And anyway, wouldn’t you think it would be the Secretary of Defense’s job to ensure that the force to be used fit the mission and vica verca. But hey who can we blame for bringing Rummy into the picture….oh yeah Reagan. Let’s all start blaming Reagan for this.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Spudge_Boy says:

Bill,

Washington Post
August 9, 2001
Rumsfeld Mulls Two Options: Status Quo or 10% Military Cut

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is weighing two sharply differing proposals for the future shape of the armed forces, including one from his civilian subordinates that would substantially cut the military, Pentagon officials said yesterday.

The proposal developed by civilian analysts in the Pentagonâ€™s Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation concluded that the armed forces could be reduced by well over 10 percent, with the Army losing about two of its 10 active-duty divisions, the Air Force eliminating as many as 16 of its 61 fighter squadrons, and the Navy eventually giving up one or two of its 12 carrier battle groups.

So, when Bush and pasl got into office. They were on the same exact page as Clinton and friends.

You are 100% incorrect.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Wayne A. Schneider says:

Nice one, Spudge! I can’t wait until Jane and I can finally do this from home. It sucks having to sneak in a look and quickly post something before your boss walks by your desk. Of course, there’s the very real danger that a lot of household chores won’t get done when we start posting from home, but I guess that’s just the price of freedom we’ll have to pay. :)
January 30th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Jane E. Schneider says:

Bill, #5, apparently this is your first time paying attention to this ‘war.’ We on the left have been decrying the lack of body armor for YEARS now. Get with the program and complain to your masters Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Ask THEM why the troops don’t all have body armor or vehicle armor. Sheesh!
January 30th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
True Blue says:

Hey Spudge,

I thought I heard an “Ooof!” come out of my computer.
It was you knocking the wind out of that arguement!!

Kudos.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Gregor Samsa says:

Its too bad it took someone with such a high profile to finally make the left realize that they made a mistake in cutting what the military needs to function.
Comment by Bill â€” January 30, 2006 @ 3:19 pm

This post makes no sense -since when it is the function of the military to launch wars against countries that pose no threat? You seem to be in denial of the fact that the invasion of Iraq was a war of choice; it didn’t need to happen.

It is also time you held your Supreme (mis)Leader accountable for his choices and stopped blaming everything wrong with his administration on Bill Clinton.

I support the troops and want every last one to come home safely.

No, you don’t. If you were sincere about it, you would have been against this war of choice from the very beginning instead of sending the guys off to kill and die -while you stay home, hand-wringing, paying lip service to your “support for the troops”. Speaking of which, how’s that “I support the troops” bumpersticker look on your car, anyway?
January 30th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Lisa says:

Excellent posts everyone. Al Franken was also very eloquent about this as well. 5 years into it, Bush&co needs to take responsibility for their own brain farts.

One gets a blow job, and they’re at fault for all the world’s ills! It’s a new abstinence campaign, I’m tellin ya!
January 30th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Mark says:

#6 Exactly, today no one on the right will admit to ever hearing the phrase “Peace dividend”. Once the east crumbled economically we all wanted to know when our taxes could be cut because we no longer felt the need for a 500 ship navy and 500,000 troops in Germany. Back then they used it to their political advantage, now they seem to forget that congress (the house) was controlled by the right who was just as eager as anyone to reap the peace dividend and that the right was just as active cutting spending during that period. Though one thing over time has remained consistent and that is that the right will use the 1990’s military cuts for political advantage.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Wayne A. Schneider says:

#12 Jane,

You remember when we saw that interview with the guy from the company that makes the armor. He said (contrary to administration claims) that he wasn’t producing at full capacity and was unable to keep up with the demand. He said that he could produce even more but he wasn’t being asked to by the Bush administration!

The lack of body and vehicle armor is purely the fault of the Bush administration, and no one else’s.

Bob and Doug, if you’re out there reading this, we all wish you both a speedy and full recovery and we hope to have you back on the job soon. Get well soon, gentlemen. We all thank you for risking your lives to get us the truth, which is more than some of the trolls who post here would do.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Jean B. Stowe says:

#7 – u are right on the button..Bush (er Cheney) started this illegal war so why cld they not have protected the people that were getting killed? my observation is that Dumbya hates the military and it was the furtherest thing from his little itty bitty brain since all he was concerned about was “I’m a war president” which does not translate to “i’m a war prez and I will certainly take care of my boys serving for me and the USofA”. tmi for Dumbya. Senior Dem
January 30th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Spudge_Boy says:

I will find the one about body armor, but here is the one form the Humvee armor makers:

Seattle Post
December 10, 2004
Humvee makers dispute Rumsfeld remarks

The manufacturer of Humvees for the U.S. military and the company that adds armor to the utility vehicles are not running near production capacity and are making all that the Pentagon has requested, spokesmen for both companies said.

“If they call and say, ‘You know, we really want more,’ we’ll get it done,” said Lee Woodward, a spokesman for AM General, the Indiana company that makes Humvees and the civilian Hummer versions.

January 30th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Jane E. Schneider says:

Wayne, the interview that we saw was with the contractor who was armoring the Humvees, not providing the body armor. It’s part of the same pattern of lies about “if the generals ask for it, they get it”, whether is enough soldiers, edible food, body armor, or, as it now appears, potable water (anybody else see the news that our soldiers were apparently given tainted water for about a year? Just another cover-up in the ol’ Bush administration!)
January 30th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Jane E. Schneider says:

D’oh! I should have known that Spudge_Boy would come up with something! Thanks for the article!
January 30th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Spudge_Boy says:

Always welcome Jane and Wayne.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Abby says:

Condi Rice:
The Bush I “Russia expert” who did not see the internal collapse of the Russian empire even while it was happening, the National Security Advisor who thought the August Memo warning about 9/11 was insignificant because date, time and flight numbers were unknown, has, as usual, missed the obvious once again. The emergence of Hamas is a direct result of Bush’s efforts to undermine the power and influence of Mr. Abbas, the successor to Arafat.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Wayne A. Schneider says:

Thanks, Spudge (and Jane). I knew it was a manufacturer of armor, but I wasn’t sure whether it was body or vehicle armor. But I knew that the reason he wasn’t making more is because he wasn’t asked to.

So, that solves the mystery of why the humvees are so slow to get their up-armoring. What’s their excuse for why the soldiers have to buy their own armor?
January 30th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Democrat Soldier says:

The sad fact of the matter is that the current administration set their priorities when they entered office: tax cuts for rich people, war for oil.

They had numerous opportunities to successfully purchase body armor that would protect our military, but they didnâ€™t do it. They had numerous opportunities to armor the vehicles, but they didnâ€™t do it.

Since Sec. Rumsfeld made his infamous quote about the Army he â€œwish he hadâ€, he has not made efforts to armor our troops nor their vehicles.

When it comes down to taking personal responsibility, the Republican party is now the party of â€œblame anyone else!â€ and â€œIt was all Pres. Clintonâ€™s fault!â€

I wish the elected Republicans would practice what they preach instead of trying to pin their blame on someone else.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Clif says:

BTW wasn’t the military cuts of the 90’s part of the BRAC commissions which were voted on by the congress which, if my memory hasn’t failed me yet was republican controlled in the house since 1994 and they didn’t vote NOT to cut the military. Since a double negative is not good grammar, I’ll say it another way, the republican house voted to cut the military in every BRAC related vote since 1994. And since all financing of the federal government STARTS with the appropriations committees of the house and since they have been dominated by the republican party and since the defence committee did not appropriate enough money for the necessary armour for the Humvee or adequate body armor for the troops then the fault lies at the feet of the REPUBLICAN PARTY for their failure to the AMERICAN SOLDIER.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Democrat Soldier says:

#26 – Be careful! If we educate the trolls about how the party responsible for the miliitary cuts in the 90’s wasn’t just Pres. Clinton, they may all have a major shock of reality! It might be too much for their health, and they might all experience heart attacks!

This would put an even greater strain on our stretched healthcare system!

Oh well, go ahead and tell the truth. I’m sure the trolls will salve themselves with more lies of “Pres. Clinton did it!” and “The Democrats hate the military!”

Once you start living in a right-wing fantasy world, it’s impossible to voluntarily remove yourself. Youâ€™ve got to be pulled out kicking and screaming into the light!
January 30th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Clif says:

#27 BTW what was the party affiliation of Sec of Def Cohen, the pentagon leader during the second term in Clinton’s administration.
January 30th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Jane E. Schneider says:

Clif, I’m pretty positive that Cohen was/is a Republican.
January 30th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
Clif says:

#29 Yes and that small fact is lost on all the wingnuts who attack Clinton for everything that happenedin the late 90’s
January 30th, 2006 at 6:30 pm

Body armor

Body armor

30 Responses to “Body armor”

Blogroll