As White House Plays Anti-Military Card, Troops Go Without Guns, Supplies, Armor
As White House Plays Anti-Military Card, Troops Go Without Guns, Supplies, Armor
The Bush administration claims that any congressional resolution opposing escalation would hurt the morale of U.S. troops. “It would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops,” Vice President Cheney said last week.
Cheney should spend less time on non-binding resolutions and more on equipping our forces. An audit by the Pentagon’s Inspector General released to Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) shows that U.S. soldiers have had to go without the necessary weapons, armor, vehicles, and equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan:
The Inspector General found that the Pentagon hasn’t been able to properly equip the soldiers it already has. Many have gone without enough guns, ammunition, and other necessary supplies to “effectively complete their missions” and have had to cancel or postpone some assignments while waiting for the proper gear, according to the report from auditors with the Defense Dept. Inspector General’s office. Soldiers have also found themselves short on body armor, armored vehicles, and communications equipment, among other things, auditors found.
“As a result, service members performed missions without the proper equipment, used informal procedures to obtain equipment and sustainment support, and canceled or postponed missions while waiting to receive equipment,” reads the executive summary dated Jan. 25. Service members often borrowed or traded with each other to get the needed supplies, according to the summary.
More bombshells are likely to come soon. Following a letter last year from Slaughter to the Pentagon, the Inspector General’s office reported two ongoing audits into the procurement of armored vehicles and body armor for American soldiers. “The results of those studies will be available in July and October of 2007, respectively,” Slaughter’s office says.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
79 Responses to “As White House Plays Anti-Military Card, Troops Go Without Guns, Supplies, Armor”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
If this isn’t an act of treason, then what is?
January 31st, 2007 at 4:54 pmAnd they send them to the death, with their every lying breath…
January 31st, 2007 at 4:54 pmIf accurate, this is troubling and unaccepatable. It is time for the President to propose and Congress authorize and appropriate a massive increase in defense spending. As President Ronald Reagan proved in the 1980s, when his military policy proved instrumental in defeating the Soviet Union and winning the Cold War, our forces must have the equipment and supplies to deter and, if necessary, defeat the enemy.
January 31st, 2007 at 4:55 pmOh no we all got floating posts on here. What the heck is going on?
January 31st, 2007 at 4:57 pmOff Topic BREAKING NEWS: Jason Leopold at Truth Out is reporting that Cheney’s hand writen notes in the Libby trial implicate Bush. Can we get a new post up on this TP ?
January 31st, 2007 at 4:59 pmThe Inspector General found that the Pentagon hasn’t been able to properly equip the soldiers it already has. Many have gone without enough guns, ammunition, and other necessary supplies to “effectively complete their missionsâ€
And this Administration accuses desenters of not supporting the troops.
Frankly, I do not know why more troops refuse to deploy without the needed equipment. If they had done this in the first gulf war, I would have refused. Outragious.
The Bush regime is filled with totally idiotic incompetent asswipes.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:00 pmSupport the troops my ass.
This totally ticks me off.
Exley, maybe we should have planned and prepared this war better. Also, massive increase in the defense budget would lead to:
A. A tax increase, especially for the top tiers that CAN afford it.
B. Cuts in programs that have already been hit by Bush’s “compasisionate Conservatism” (see cuts in benefits for Vets AFTER and IF they make it home, cuts in education, helath care, etc.)
C. Tell Americans to do more shopping to improve our economy and mortage our defense against the future of the country.
D. Spin one of these into an easily digestable tonic (Kool-Aid?) for the Hawks to embrace!
Thoughts?
January 31st, 2007 at 5:00 pm#4 - Jay Randal,
January 31st, 2007 at 5:01 pmThey must start on GMT when a new thread is opened.
How is it possible that with all of this money from broken contracts and money wasted on projects that are not going to be finished, there hasn’t been enough money to properly arm our troops with either vests, weaponry or vehicles? I guess Halliburton’s bottom line is more important than the lives of young men and women and thier arms and legs? And then there begs the question of VA benefits, once the vets come home. Pensions have been cut, medical care and rehab opportunities have been slashed, etc. It is so crazy that there has been no oversight or consideration directed at any of this problem, for the ones who have given the most.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:01 pm#5- ABSOLUTELY TRUE! Bush is the one at the top!
January 31st, 2007 at 5:03 pmEveryone should be asking those advocating an escalation, “what are these 21,500 troops going to use as weapons…rocks?” Sounds like our troops are having to also deal with IWD’s…Improvised Weapon Device.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:08 pmTweedster,
I agree that there should have been better planning for this war. Moreover, on and in the days after September 11, I believed it was quite likely that we, as a nation, would be asked to sacrifice (financially, personally) to serve the greater good of defeating the enemy who had perpetrated such a horrible and heinous act. I was and continue to be disaapointed that there is not more of a shared sense of responsibility in this country in the war against Al Qaeda. If higher taxes are needed to equip our troops adequately and defeat the enemy, I am all in favor of it….
However, given the tremendous amount of waste and pork in our government spending, I am not yet convinced that higher taxes are necessary. The first step should be to cut wasteful spending. If the money saved is insufficient to fund the necessary military build-up, then taxes should be raised.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:09 pm“Duh, I’m the Decider, and, uh, um, I’ve decided to Support the War, Not the Troops. Heh-heh.”
What a STUPID LITTLE MAN.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:09 pmExley, all Ronald Reagan proved in the 80’s is that you can borrow and spend enough to make your economy appear healthy while running up record debt that your children and grandchildren have to pay off.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:11 pmOff Topic BREAKING NEWS: Jason Leopold at Truth Out is reporting that Cheney’s hand writen notes in the Libby trial implicate Bush. Can we get a new post up on this TP ?
Comment by Kid Clu
HAPPY-HAPPY JOY-JOY!
Shot down in flames…
January 31st, 2007 at 5:11 pmKid Clu,
You mean the Jason Leopold who falsely reported that Karl Rove had been indicted back in May, 2006? I wouldn’t put too much stock in what Mr. Leopold has to say.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:12 pmComment by unbelievable — January 31, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
Wow, I am talking to a future version of myself…
Maybe the Egyptionas were on to something with their notion of Eternal Return? LOL
January 31st, 2007 at 5:12 pmSorry, I know this is completely off topic, but I couldn’t resist.
From the rhelms of the completely idiotic (no, not Bush)
On topic, Drop groups like Blackwater from the Government payrolls and invest in Dragonskin for the troops!
January 31st, 2007 at 5:13 pmOff Topic BREAKING NEWS: Jason Leopold at Truth Out is reporting that Cheney’s hand writen notes in the Libby trial implicate Bush.
Comment by Kid Clu — January 31, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
Can we Impeach this moron already? Damn…
January 31st, 2007 at 5:14 pmComment by Exley — January 31, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
If accurate, this is troubling and unaccepatable.
This isn’t the first time this has happened. Remember when families were raising money to send armor to troops overseas?
It is time for the President to propose and Congress authorize and appropriate a massive increase in defense spending.
We could triple our already bloated defense budget and accomplish exactly nothing as long as these people are in charge.
As President Ronald Reagan proved in the 1980s, when his military policy proved instrumental in defeating the Soviet Union and winning the Cold War, …
Ronald Reagan proved nothing in his enitre 8 year reign, except that he could outspend a nation already in economic quicksand. That the Soviet Union collapsed on his watch was just a lucky break for the neocons. It had been collapsing under the weight of its own internal corruption and expansionist ambitions for years. Post cold-war, our stupid and ignorant foreign policy has us now facing a Soviet resurgence under the control of former Kremlinites. Want Reagan to take credit for that too? Maybe GHW or Dumbya? Oh, wait, it had to be Bill Clinton’s fault.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:14 pmExley, this isn’t the first time you have stated things like “As President Ronald Reagan proved in the 1980s, when his military policy proved instrumental in defeating the Soviet Union and winning the Cold War”.
This is false. The Cold War ended when the Soviet Union drove thier economy into the shitter because of a very large military. Reagan just happened to be President at the time. Please review this fact.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:17 pmRe: Exley, comment #3-
Congress and the White House give $400 billion a year (not including war costs) to the Defense Department. Operation costs in Iraq are estimated at $5.6 billion per month in 2005. How much more is needed?? I suggest it isn’t the need for massive new spending for Iraq and our troops, but better allocation of funds. The closest country to us in military spending is Russia at 65 bil.
On another issue look what can be done with just some of our billions:
To put the level of U.S. Defense Spending in perspective.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:21 pm• $19 billion is the annual shortfall to eliminate starvation and malnutrition globally.
• $12 billion is the annual shortfall to provide education for every kid on earth.
• $15 billion is the annual shortfall to provide access to water and sanitation.
• $23 billion is the annual shortfall to reverse the spread of AIDS and Malaria
Guns—no.
Bullets–no
Proper equipment–no
CASKETS–YES
There will never be a time when caskets are in short supply.
John
January 31st, 2007 at 5:22 pm#24
No Jay, why would anyone worry about all the munitions and money that have vanished like mirages in the desert??
Everyone knows it was Sandy Berger who is responsible for all this.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:22 pm#16- I’ll wait for the subpoenas and indictments before I bring out the liquer. I will add, however, that I am mildly optimistic and look forward to the falling of the axe with great anticipation.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:25 pmYikes, You are half right: “The Cold War ended when the Soviet Union drove thier economy into the shitter because of a very large military.”
Correct. But what you fail to mention is that the USSR was spending so much of their GDP on the military in the 1980s because they felt compelled to keep pace with the U.S.’s military buildup, initiated by President Reagan. If President Reagan had not increased defense spending as he did, the Soviets would not have had to keep pace and would not have had to ruin their economy. Thus, Reagan’s plan to outspend and essentially bankrupt the frail Soviet economy succeeded.
But this is all academic and off-topic — The point is that if we are to wage an effective war against Al Qaeda, our military, law-enforcement, and intelligence agencies need to be funded and equipped adequatley.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:25 pmBut we are the best country in the world! Our troops should have titanium armor, gold plated hummers, and caviar to eat. Seriously. There never, ever should be a shortage of anything for our troops on the ground. This is plain assinine.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:25 pm#16 Exley
You mean the Jason Leopold who falsely reported that Karl Rove had been indicted back in May, 2006? I wouldn’t put too much stock in what Mr. Leopold has to say.
Until you know exactly what happened, don’t pretend that you do. The White House was desperate to keep Rove from getting indicted. He was supposed to secure a win for the GOP in the mid-terms. With all the meetings between Rove and the prosecutor and the grand jury, and even Gonzales going down to talk to Fitzgerald, there’s every reason to believe a deal was worked out to stave off an indictment. This thing isn’t over, yet.
And, if you’re a fan of Fox Noise, don’t even start questioning the reliability of other sources.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:26 pmand this all happened when Rumsfeld, the “Best Defense Secretary Ever,” was in charge!!!
January 31st, 2007 at 5:28 pmTime for Congress to get more money available for our troops. Congress supports our troops I hope.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:29 pmhttp://www.usatoday.com/ news/ washington/ 2007-01-31-iraq-reconstruction-aid_x.htm?csp=34
Let’s start raising money for body armor by cutting funding for Olympic sized swimming pools.
This is what happens when draft dodgers and deserters run things.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:31 pmwhat’s up with the time warping in the threads? weird.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:32 pm#28- Good for you, for speaking right up. MWA!
January 31st, 2007 at 5:32 pmThus, Reagan’s plan to outspend and essentially bankrupt the frail Soviet economy succeeded.
Comment by Exley
You mean, the same way the terrrrists wanted to get our mighty Military in a quagmire in the Middle East, in order to bankrupt us? Seems like it might be working if our own Military personal lack sufficient gear.
Be careful of what you teach your enemies by your own actions…
January 31st, 2007 at 5:32 pm#35
Sadly, Congress is the body of government responsible for providing funds for our troops. This failure lies right at the feet of the Dems that control those houses. I hope this wake up call is good enough to get these anti-troop folks in congress to step up and provide the funding the really need.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:34 pmIt is hard to believe that this can happen with our incredibly bloated defense budget. Where is all the money going? I blame the war-profiteering defense and reconstruction contractors. If we can’t have wholly prepared super high tech armed forces with a $400 billion dollar budget, then we better just give up the game or something. Man, Bush’s government can’t do anything right, Jesus Christ.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:34 pmThis is what happens when draft dodgers and deserters run things.
Comment by KikiD
Corruption? Hmm, wonder where they learned that?
January 31st, 2007 at 5:35 pmExley: “But this is all academic and off-topic ”
It’s also false, revisionist conservative history. As early as 1978, the intelligence community was telling President Carter that the Soviet Union would collapse under its own weight by the late 80’s. The cold war ended because people in the communist bloc wanted blue jeans and hamburgers. For the purpose of our challenges today, Reagan should be remembered for what he did in Lebanon in 1983, for his support of Saddam Hussein and for his sale of weapons to terrorists.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:36 pmThis failure lies right at the feet of the Dems that control those houses. I hope this wake up call is good enough to get these anti-troop folks in congress to step up and provide the funding the really need.
Comment by Roger_Roger
EAT SH*T LIAR. The underfunding goes back to you Repuke controlled 109th.
F*CK OFF, YOU STUPID TOOL.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:37 pmBlueDog,
Actually, the intelligence community was telling President Carter that the Soviet Union COULD collapse under its own weight by the late 80’s if they were pushed….They needed to be pushed….Reagan did the pushing.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:39 pmRepukes are SUCH SORE LOSERS, I LOVE IT!!!!!!!
Give me more of your “whine”, I’m getting thirsty…
January 31st, 2007 at 5:39 pmSadly, Congress is the body of government responsible for providing funds for our troops. This failure lies right at the feet of the Dems that control those houses. I hope this wake up call is good enough to get these anti-troop folks in congress to step up and provide the funding the really need.
Comment by Roger_Roger — January 31, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
Yeah, they’ve had control for what, all of three weeks now? Must be their fault.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:41 pm#35 Roger_Roger
Sadly, Congress is the body of government responsible for providing funds for our troops. This failure lies right at the feet of the Dems that control those houses. I hope this wake up call is good enough to get these anti-troop folks in congress to step up and provide the funding the really need.
Could you please try not to be such an idiot?
January 31st, 2007 at 5:48 pm#26 Yikes, You are half right: “The Cold War ended when the Soviet Union drove thier economy into the shitter because of a very large military.â€
Correct. But what you fail to mention is that the USSR was spending so much of their GDP on the military in the 1980s because they felt compelled to keep pace with the U.S.’s military buildup, initiated by President Reagan. If President Reagan had not increased defense spending as he did, the Soviets would not have had to keep pace and would not have had to ruin their economy. Thus, Reagan’s plan to outspend and essentially bankrupt the frail Soviet economy succeeded.
Um, their spending in the 80’s had nothing to do with an occupation of a little place called Afghanistan, would it? Ironic how an occupation can affect an economy and weaken a military power. This administration not only is repeating our blunder in Vietnam, but the Soviet blunder in Afghanistan.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:55 pmWhat a bunch of snakes.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:56 pmThe troops are quite literally turning into cannon fodder. This administration is criminal. Bring the troops home and send these criminals to Iraq — with no guns, supplies or armor.
January 31st, 2007 at 6:01 pmBuckarooBanzai (Great movie, by the way)…Absolutely, the Soviets invasion of Afghanistan had a big part to play in the fatal strain put on the Soviet economy in the 1980s. But U.S. aid to the Afghan resistance helped drive up the price of the Soviet’s invasion and occupation. Actually, it appears that today Iran is emulating the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Iran is funding and supplying Iraqi “insurgents” in an effort to drive the U.S. out of Iraq by making our mission there bloodier and more expensive.
January 31st, 2007 at 6:03 pm“Ad campaign triggers bomb scare in Boston”
Expect Bush Jr. and Fox news to tell us all that an Al Qaeda plot has just been thwarted.
January 31st, 2007 at 6:08 pmEvery time I think republicans can’t possibly get any more ignorant. I read a post by ranking_rodger. The good news is, kids like ranking_rodger are getting into politics as young as 13. The bad news is, they are dumb as dirt.
January 31st, 2007 at 6:09 pm#12 Exley - I was and continue to be disaapointed that there is not more of a shared sense of responsibility in this country in the war against Al Qaeda. Comment by Exley
I hope you don’t even hint at the occupation in Iraq is remotely a part of any war on terror!! You would sorely disappoint me if so. All but the last 28% of this country and the rest of the world aren’t that f@cking stupid.
January 31st, 2007 at 6:11 pmActually, it appears that today Iran is emulating the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Comment by Exley — January 31, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
If that were true - then it would demonstrate what a bitch karma can be…
January 31st, 2007 at 6:13 pmExley, would you rather debate the fall of the Soviet Union 20 years ago or address the complete failure that this adminstration has guided in Iraq now? Republican controlled Congress pushed thru the last 6 budgets and we have soldiers being sent into hostile environments that aren’t properly equipped and armed. All the while pushing the mantra of “It’s the right thing to do”.
How can this be the Fight for our times if they don’t even supply the soldiers? You are defending an administration that allows this. You stand behind GW and Cheney when they allow millions (if not billions) to dissapear into no bid contracts. Those contracts that were supposed to provide armor, housing, food and water to our troops. It’s been wasted and plundered by the corporate pirates. All with the blessing of this administration. And you support that.
How can you even attempt to hold an argument with that on your head.
The call for impeachment will only grow and the evidence for it will continue to snowball. If hiding a bj is impeachable, this could be jail time.
Any true Republican would join in for the good of the country and support Impeachment of the President and the Vice President.
January 31st, 2007 at 6:13 pmBut U.S. aid to the Afghan resistance helped drive up the price of the Soviet’s invasion and occupation.
Comment by Exley — January 31, 2007
And by “Afghan resistance” you mean Islamist extremist terrorists. Those are great guys to give rocket launchers to.
January 31st, 2007 at 6:15 pmIf accurate, this is troubling and unaccepatable.
Comment by Exley
Is this the real Exley or is it memorex?
But Spend more? I think we have spent plenty, its oversight they are lacking.
January 31st, 2007 at 6:17 pm#35
Sadly, Congress is the body of government responsible for providing funds for our troops. This failure lies right at the feet of the Dems that control those houses. I hope this wake up call is good enough to get these anti-troop folks in congress to step up and provide the funding the really need.
Wow, what a retard
January 31st, 2007 at 6:39 pm#16 Exley:
January 31st, 2007 at 6:46 pmTruthout has posted a photo enlargement of a Justice Dept. document in Cheney’s hand writing on their main page. Is the Republican controlled Justice Department a good enough source for you?
The karma here is daunting; I can’t wait for the carnage to end. A report sent to Slaughter and more bombshells to follow?
January 31st, 2007 at 6:48 pmThis is a direct quote from an active duty Staff Sargeant in Aghganistan:
“I am tired of out of touch general officers, senators, congressmen and defense officials who think that giving me some more heavy body armor to wear is helping me stay alive. Speed is life in combat and wearing 55 to 90 pounds of gear for 12 to 20 hours a day puts me at a great tactical disadvantage to the idiot, mindless terrorist who is wearing no armor at all and carrying an AK-47 and a pistol.”
From Blackfive Blog. Google it and learn.
January 31st, 2007 at 6:55 pmWhat in the S.O.B. hell is this administration doing with all that money being authorized for Iraq…funneling it into Halliburton’s pocket. 300 or more billion dollars and our soldiers don’t have life saving equipment. Congress has got to intervene….they have got to put a stop to the war profiteering.
January 31st, 2007 at 7:03 pmSoldiers have also found themselves short on body armor, armored vehicles, and communications equipment, among other things
In the immortal words of Donald Rumsfeld: “You go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish you had.”
But, could this sorry situation (perish the thought!) hurt the troops’ morale?
Could this lack of proper equipment (gasp!) embolden the enemy?
Nah -the guilty party is anyone who criticises the Dear (mis)Leader…
January 31st, 2007 at 7:04 pmstevish, the cultist will always search for answers which tend to absolve their cult leader of guilt in any issue.
January 31st, 2007 at 7:10 pmAnd equipping 21,000 more will be accomplished , how…?
January 31st, 2007 at 7:19 pmSending trooops to battle without full armament is complete dereliction of duty, not to mention manslaughter.
As a certain famous ww2 general said.
“WAR IS HELL”
January 31st, 2007 at 7:23 pm(except for the cinc who has no problem sleeping at night)
Cheney is a wimp, a coward, a true poofter….who did not have the stomach for his own war…..
Cheney’s Five Draft Deferments During the Vietnam Era Emerge as a Campaign Issue
[snip]
He said he “never served” because of deferments to finish a college career that lasted six years rather than four, which he attributed to subpar academic performance and the fact that he had to work to pay for his education.
He added that he “would have obviously been happy to serve had I been called.”
Away from the hearing room, he told the Washington Post that he had sought his deferments because “I had other priorities in the 60’s than military service.”
“I don’t regret the decisions I made,” he added. “I complied fully with all the requirements of the statutes, registered with the draft when I turned 18. Had I been drafted, I would have been happy to serve.”
But others contend that Mr. Cheney appeared to go to some length to avoid the draft.
“Five deferments seems incredible to me,” said David Curry, a professor at the University of Missouri in St. Louis who has written extensively about the draft, including a 1985 book, “Sunshine Patriots: Punishment and the Vietnam Offender.”
“That’s a lot of times for the draft board to say O.K.,” Mr. Curry said.
In February 1962, when Mr. Cheney was classified as 1-A — available for service — he was doing poorly at Yale. But the military was taking only older men at that point, and like others who were in college at the time, Mr. Cheney seemed to have little concern about being drafted.
In June, he left Yale. After returning home to Casper, a small city in east-central Wyoming, he worked as a lineman for a power company.
At that point, the Vietnam War was still just a glimmer on the horizon. In 1962, only 82,060 men were inducted into the service, the fewest since 1949. Mr. Cheney was eligible for the draft but, as he said during his confirmation hearings in 1989, he was not called up because the Selective Service System was taking only older men.
But by 1963, ferment in Vietnam was rising. Mr. Cheney enrolled in Casper Community College in January 1963 — he turned 22 that month — and sought his first student deferment on March 20, according to records from the Selective Service System. After transferring to the University of Wyoming at Laramie, he sought his second student deferment on July 23, 1963.
On Aug. 7, 1964, Congress approved the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which allowed President Lyndon B. Johnson to use unlimited military force in Vietnam. The war escalated rapidly from there.
Just 22 days later, Mr. Cheney married his high school sweetheart, Lynne. He sought his third student deferment on Oct. 14, 1964.
In May 1965, Mr. Cheney graduated from college and his draft status changed to 1-A. But he was married, which offered him some protection.
In July, President Johnson announced that he was doubling the number of men drafted. The number of inductions soared, to 382,010 in 1966 from 230,991 in 1965 and 112,386 in 1964.
Mr. Cheney obtained his fourth deferment when he started graduate school at the University of Wyoming on Nov. 1, 1965.
On Oct. 6, 1965, the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting married men who had no children. Nine months and two days later, Mr. Cheney’s first daughter, Elizabeth, was born. On Jan. 19, 1966, when his wife was about 10 weeks pregnant, Mr. Cheney applied for 3-A status, the “hardship” exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent parents. It was granted.
In January 1967, Mr. Cheney turned 26 and was no longer eligible for the draft.
Of the 26.8 million men who were eligible for the draft between 1964 and 1973, only 2.2 million were drafted while 8.7 million joined voluntarily, according to “Chance and Circumstance: the Draft, the War, and the Vietnam Generation,” a 1978 book by Lawrence M. Baskir and William A. Strauss. Mr. Cheney was among the vast majority of 16 million men — about 60 percent of those eligible — who avoided the draft by legal means.
The deferment process proved controversial, discriminating against men who were black or poor, and a lottery was introduced in 1969. President Nixon did away with student deferments in 1971 and the draft ended in 1973.
But the deferments left such a bitter after-effect that the Selective Service says on its Web site (www.sss.gov) that if a draft were reinstituted, it would be conducted much differently and there would be fewer excuses for people to get out of it.
At the time of his confirmation hearings as defense secretary, Mr. Cheney said that he had not taken any action either for or against the military during the Vietnam War. But, he told an interviewer at the time, “I think those who did in fact serve deserve to be honored for their service.”
Of American involvement in Vietnam, he said: “Was it a noble cause? Yes, indeed, I think it was.”
{Keywords: OVP, Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney, Richard Bruce Cheney, Vietnam, Draft Deferment, Selective Service, White House Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton Energy, American Enterprise Institute, Cheney and the draft, CIA leak grand jury investigation, United States v. Libby, Harry Whittington,
January 31st, 2007 at 7:28 pmAnd where will the supplies and ammo for the next 21,500 come from, is W gonna pull em out of his ass?
January 31st, 2007 at 8:01 pmAs much as I hate to feed the off-topic derailment, Exley is propagating a myth from the 1990s.
The Soviets never increased their military spending to match the US - Soviet spending increased slightly, jumped briefly in 1985 when Gorbachev took power, then went down. Yes, even with their war in Afghanistan.
Commenters, if you disagreed with Exley without bothering to do the research to find out if his basic assertion was correct - shame on you.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:41 pmThe Inspector General found that the Pentagon hasn’t been able to properly equip the soldiers it already has. Many have gone without enough guns, ammunition, and other necessary supplies to “effectively complete their missionsâ€
YET THINKPROGRESS POSTERS scream to CUT OFF THE FUNDING!!
Cut off the fundiong will bring an end to all of this they say!
You people are sick.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:54 pmThe Inspector General found that the Pentagon hasn’t been able to properly equip the soldiers it already has. Many have gone without enough guns, ammunition, and other necessary supplies to “effectively complete their missionsâ€Madrassa Moran
That’s the existing troops, you ninny. We’re talking about stoping funds for the escalation.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:33 pmIf the Bush Regime is so worried about the troops being compromised, then hell, bring them home where they won’t be shot at by irrational people who think death in battle is rewarded.!
January 31st, 2007 at 9:52 pmThe White House is backing up our troops - right against the wall.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:53 pmWhy as late as July? This should be front and center news right now, and the Democrats should be trumpeting it from the rooftops.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:53 pmHas anyone in DC bothered to ask where the billions of dollars already allowcated dissappeared to? Seems to me that a lot of the money is going into Bush’s cronies pockets. Dubya is robbing this nation blind!
January 31st, 2007 at 9:53 pmOK, just my 2 cents here.
In the two tours I have served over in Iraq, guess how many troops I saw without body armor?
Zero. In 2003, what we had was not the best, but we had it! the stuff we had in 2005 until now is a hell of a lot better. If we can ever get people to push the funding, Dragonskin would be the near ideal stuff. Light weight, SUPER protective. Great stuff.
Now, guess how many troops I saw without weapons?
Zero. We are still using many of the same weapons that we were using in Viet Nam. ( 9MM have replaced .45s, M240s for the most part have replaced M60s)
Guess how many I saw without ammo?
Zero. We were lousy with it.
Vehicle Armor is a different story, but then we have other problems. We went in with basically none. Then soldiers did what they do best, they Improvised. They scrounged every junkyard in Kuwait for scrap metal. Hey, it worked. Looked like hell, but saved lives. Now we are getting armor for all the vehicles. Not only that, we are getting armor upgrades. Problem is, the crap is too heavy for the HMMWVs (Hummers), so we need better trucks. As a side, there is a CENTCOM order that unarmored vehicles are not to leave the secured compounds. So, yes, we now ride in unarmored vehicles ON bases over there, but not off. If it happens it is the exception, not the rule.
Communications gear and Electronic Counter Measures are always a headache. Comm gear is fragile. The stuff we have breaks all the time. For those not familiar with the military, take your cellphone, expose it to extreme heat (115+ F) and constant sand. Then throw it on the ground a few time a week. See how long it lasts you. ECM’s, they can not get them fielded fast enough.
In short, a year ago they surveyed 1100 troops. These 1100 told them all the woes of the 130,000 in Iraq and the 12,000 in Afghanistan. If those 1100 had time to take a survey and answer question, they are not the trigger pullers and truck drivers I would be willing to bet.
Don’t bank everything on this survey.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:01 pmAnd yet another wall in the Bush administration’s glass house shatters into millions of tiny fragments…
Then again, this really should be no surprise. These chuckleheads have underestimated just about everything related to the War In Iraq — the number of troops that would be needed on the ground, the length of time it would take (remember Rummy’s preposterous claim that it would only take six days or maybe six weeks?), the amount of insurgent resistance, etc., etc. — so it actually makes sense, in a twisted and horrific sort of way, that they would underestimate this as well.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:08 amHas congress passed a bill finally giving our troops the funds they need or are the Dems in congress still against our troops?
February 1st, 2007 at 9:18 am#73,
I read that the dragon skin is excellent, but the Pentagon is holding it up because they want the contract to go to a favorite manufacturer.
February 1st, 2007 at 10:29 amSadly, Congress is the body of government responsible for providing funds for our troops. This failure lies right at the feet of the Dems that control those houses.
Nice try Roger. One of the most corrupt and lazy Congresses ever (the 109th) accomplished zilch and has not supported our troops since day 1.
Also, where would the funding come from? Maybe they should rescind your tax cut, you lil economic royalist. :-D
February 1st, 2007 at 11:17 amNo amount of funding is going to stop the Iraqis we train and equip from killing our soldiers. Training and equiping foreign armies has never worked and it’s not working now. We should get our soldiers out of there and send money in for rebuilding and humanitarian missions alone. The people who say giving the military more money is supporting the troops do not know what “support the troops” really means.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:20 pmI was there, 367 days in that hellhole, and I’ve seen it all firsthand. Although I have neither the liberty nor inclination to go into great detail, believe me — we often could not get even the bare essentials to accomplish our missions through military channels. We depended on local economy resources (out-of-pocket, of course), getting stuff mailed to us through care packages or Internet ordering, borrowing, trading and sharing between units, etc. And many times, we still had to do without. It was apparent to me from day one that nobody had thought this through or made any effort to adequately prepare for it.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:19 pm