Say Anything Blog

The real issue with bodyarmor is the fact that Dems were the continual roadblock that stopped our military from having sufficient amounts of up-to-date bodyarmor in the first place. Thru out the ‘70s, ‘80s, and ‘90s senior Dems on Armed Services and Approp. Commitees fought tooth&nail to restrict the purchase and issue of bodyarmor, on the grounds it would make our military appear to agressive in the eyes of the rest of the world. Same reasoning that slowed our acquisition of dedicated APC/ACC vehicle system for deployment thru out our military, not just to a very few, elite units. Dems and chickenhawk Repubs need this issue rammed up their ass.

Thru out the ‘70s, ‘80s, and ‘90s senior Dems on Armed Services and Approp. Commitees fought tooth&nail to restrict the purchase and issue of bodyarmor, on the grounds it would make our military appear to agressive in the eyes of the rest of the world. Same reasoning that slowed our acquisition of dedicated APC/ACC vehicle system for deployment thru out our military, not just to a very few, elite units. Dems and chickenhawk Repubs need this issue rammed up their ass.

Please share your sources for these statements.

Congressional record, mcairhead.

Also Newsweek,WaPo,WaTimes,Journal of Foreign Affairs,NYT, etc,etc,etc.

That’s the best you can do? How about a link or two?

And do not forget Infantry Journal, the Artilleryman, Stars&Stripes, BBC, and American Legion Magazine.

I ain’t playing linktag with you. No matter what link I post you will immediately call it bullshit and lies. Go find it you self. Teddy Kennedy gave a rousing speech on this subject in 1982, should not be hard to find.

" President Bush’s original request included no more money for body armor…

The House version of an $86.7 billion Iraq spending bill passed last week would include $251 million for body armor"

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/13/220816.shtml 

I ain’t playing linktag with you. No matter what link I post you will immediately call it bullshit and lies. Go find it you self. Teddy Kennedy gave a rousing speech on this subject in 1982, should not be hard to find.

Translation: I can’t provide any evidence, but Ted Kennedy halted funding for body armor in 1982, a full 21 years before it would be needed in Iraq.

"bullshit and lies"? You make the call.

mcairhead, how long has bodyarmor, as an issue item in US military inventory, been around? Which governmental body restricted R&D on bodyarmor in 1986? How many years does it take to develop a new item of equipment for deployment and issue to the US military? And why does it take so long and cost so much? Why was Raytheon blocked from releasing their research results on cast ceramic bodyarmor in 1978? And who instigated that particular political manuever within the Armed Services Commitee? That ought to keep you hitting the search bar for about 10 minutes.

woofie, we are still using 30 year-old technology. Why is that? Who is responsible for that? Warmongering Repubs? Or peacenik Dems?

What gets appropriated in the Defense Budget is highly political. It includes bases and  weapons to which the military itself has objection . Approvals depend a great deal on whose district and whose benefactor .

More leftie lying.

Woof: From your socialist viewpoint, everything is highly political.

Socialism is welfare for the political class.

Hillary’s a carpet-muncher.

Robert108 on March 27, 2006 at 2:26 AM

So let me get this straight. You’re saying that the bush regime was slow to issue body armor, then finally supplied the troops with substandard body armor---but the problem is the DEMOCRATS?!

I expect you to be partisan but that’s just insane.

donnie, I did not say anything about Bush. Work on that reading comprehension.

I wasn’t talking to you, 2. I was talking to rob.

I ain’t playing linktag with you. No matter what link I post you will immediately call it bullshit and lies. Go find it you self.

Translation: I’m lazy and I’m talking out my ass.

TwoHotel9-  Thanks for the historical review.  Just today a report in the MSM newspaper from the Marines:  They have the armor, wear is optional per their commander.  Only 4 opted to use it.  The actual story of armor is an old one:  http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/2006/01/armor.html  The Democrats, however try to join any bandwagon of the day in their attempts to fool people into believing that they are strong on defense.  I can’t tell you how many good men left the military during Clinton’s affirmative action era and her "discouraging aggressive behavior" in the military !!!   What?  That’s right, let’s be nice to our enemy.  Wait, there isn’t one, they are just misunderstood.

20 years ago, when I was a high school student, I had the privilege of visiting the armor laboratory at West Point and seeing some of the neat things they were doing with composites--including some of the technologies they’re now using in military body armor.  Most of these concepts were available as a product by the time Bill Clinton took office, and there are records which demonstrate that vehicles and personnel were not receiving armor at anything approaching the rate at which the manufacturers could have produced during the Clinton years.

So yes, blame for lack of armor does need to be shared, and those who would (Kennedy, Clinton) demagogue the public on this issue need to be reminded that they were making policy in the years that the armor was not being ordered for the Army and Marines.

mcair: More leftie lying.

So let’s sum up the RW take on the issue:

The troops don’t need the armor because it’s too heavy, but if they did need it, it would be the Democrats fault for blocking R&D on it, although we can’t provide any evidence that they did. Any evidence can be found in the New York Times, who are usually leftie liars, but in this case they were telling the truth.

mcair:  Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

I figured a Kerry supporter like you would be a little more "nuanced", mcair.  :^)

But seriously, can’t we discuss this without descending to the level of name-calling?  Here are the facts: body armor is not always a wise tactical choice, and the government only began to order the full amount which could be produced about a year into the Iraq occupation--about a decade after it became available.  Hence, lots of people from both parties contributed to the delay in getting acceptable armor for our troops.

If we wonder why good men & women would rather go to Hell than to DC, we need look no further than the obtuse comments by Kennedy and Clinton (and lots of others), seeking to make political hay out of a situation they helped to create.

Robert P: there is undoubtedly a lot of name calling going on here.

If we wonder why good men & women would rather go to Hell than to DC, we need look no further than the obtuse comments by Kennedy and Clinton (and lots of others), seeking to make political hay out of a situation they helped to create.

a "situation they helped create"? Those responsible for the situation in Iraq are those that you folks on the right refuse to hold accountable. It ain’t Kennedy, it ain’t Clinton and it sure as hell ain’t the media responsible for the mess over there.

You’ll find the culprits occupying a large white building on Pennsylvania Avenue. More specifically regarding the lack of body armor, seek out the person responsible for this quote: "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you would like."

I’m serious here: it’s way past time for you folks to quit your bedwetting about whatever Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy has said. She is a senator in the minority party. She has no power. Neither does Charlie Sheen or the Dixie Chicks.

Mcair, in the time period when not enough body armor was being procured, Mr. Kennedy was a highly ranking Senator and Mrs. Clinton was the wife of the President, and one who greatly influenced policy.  Remember the healthcare commission?  I guarantee you that neither of them were objecting to a lack of good armor for our troops, even when a Ranger squad was shot up in Mogadishu.

So yes, they did contribute to the problem, as the armor was available and they weren’t introducing bills to buy more of it.  End of story, sir.

So yes, they did contribute to the problem, as the armor was available and they weren’t introducing bills to buy more of it.  End of story, sir.

You’re saying that the Pentagon was calling more armor, but only called on Ted Kennedy and the First Lady who subsequently irgnored their requests?

That’s quite a stretch.

No, no, take a look at the original link.  Even in this conflict, the Pentagon complaints about no armor came after those of the liberal politicians.  We must assume that these guys think they know more than the Army about how to fight a war, no?

Seriously, the Pentagon, like any organization, makes its requests based on its evaluation of its most urgent needs.  It’s a false argument to claim that because it wasn’t in the budget request, nobody there saw that it was needed.

We must assume that these guys think they know more than the Army about how to fight a war, no?

No, I’m not buying that. We’re reducing this to semantics, which won’t get us anywhere. I think the issue can be argued both ways. What I find disagreeable is the complete pass that Rumsfeld gets for having screwed up the post-invasion plan (and that would include provision for necessary materiel that he was advised would be required in the event of an insurgency), but he blew off all the advice and tried to do it on the cheap. It’s a little lame for those on the right to ignore Rumsfeld’s many acts of incompetence, and the lack of calls for his replacement in light of that incompetence and instead focus on some political grandstanding by Kennedy/Clinton. I’ll concede that if you are prepared to address Rumsfeld’s role.

So, the slashing of military appropriations during the Clinton regime was Rumsfeld’s fault? 

It should be noted that for any military decision, you will find at least one detractor upon whose words one can accuse the commanding official/general of being imbecilic. 

Senior Dems on Armed Serivices Commt. and Approp. Commit. obstructed the R&D and issue of bodyarmor begining in 1978, and continued to roadblock it on the grounds that issuing bodyarmor to our military would make us appear too aggressive in the eyes of the"World". Deny it till your methrush wears off, it still happened. I witnessed it. I am one of the troops denied bodyarmor on the grounds it would make me look too agressive in the eyes of the press. Surprise!!! We killed fuck out of those Sandanista cocksuckers anyway. Killed a pile of SMLN fucks to. Kiss my ass, you pathetic fucks.

2H9--  Don’t give them the satisfaction.   Many have never even been near a base, let alone in a combat zone.  The closest they came was a DODS school, maybe.  Dereliction of Duty pretty much summed up the situation during the Clinton years.  There are still plenty of GIs who will chime in on the "take the money and run" and affirmative action promotion policies.  What I personally do not like is people who blatantly lie.  I have been close to a few of them.  They are the REMF types who are "zero defect"/ pass the blame so I can get promoted perfumed princes.  Fortunately, most are being non-reenlisted.  If we can have a few more years of reality, we will win here and over there.