Kerry Voted Against Body Armor for U.S. Troops

Newsmax ^ | 3/8/04

[areafiftyone]

Likely Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry slammed President Bush over the weekend for not supplying U.S. troops in Iraq with enough body armor to protect them from attacks.

But it turns out, Sen. Kerry actually voted against supplying the troops with more body armor in 2002.

Addressing a Texas audience on Saturday, the Massachusetts Democrat said it was "shocking" that "tens of thousands of other troops arrived in Iraq to find that -- with danger around every corner - there wasn't enough body armor."

But Bush campaign press secretary Scott Stanzel told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg on Sunday that Kerry "voted against supplying body armor to our troops when it mattered most" - when President Bush including the request as part of the $87 billion appropriation for the Iraq war in 2002.

RNC Chairman Marc Racicot confirmed the Kerry vote against body armor, telling ABC's "This Week" that the funding bill "did everything from provide hazard pay for our troops in Iraq to body armor for our troops in Iraq."

"And yet has the audacity yesterday to continue to complain about the fact that there was no body armor,'' Racicot complained.

Asked about his vote not to protect the troops with new body armor, Sen. Kerry insisted he did no such thing.

"That $87 billion has nothing to do with the preparatory money" for protective gear, he told the Fox News Channel.

He then blamed President Bush for not supplying the body armor sooner, saying, "The president made the decision of when to go to war. If you make that decision, you have to make sure your troops are properly equipped."

[angkor]

WASHINGTON, Sept 8 (AFP) - Twenty billion dollars from the 87 billion that President George W. Bush is seeking for his Iraq campaign will be spent on rebuilding the country, the White House said Monday.

Some 51 billion dollars would go to supporting the US Army's engagements in Iraq, according to the statement.

[snip]

"Initial estimates are that Iraq will need between 50 and 75 billion dollars," for its reconstruction, the statement said.

[snip]

In total, the special budget request is expected to steer some 66 billion dollars into supporting US military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries, while 21 billion dollars will be set aside for reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Faced with mounting attacks in Iraq, the US administration will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on extra armour for the estimated 130,000 troops there.

It plans to request 300 million dollars for "life-saving body armor" and 140 million dollars for "heavily armored" Humvee transport vehicles.

[NutmegDevil]

Merriam-Webster's The Word of the Day for Mar 08 is:

volte-face \vawlt-FAHSS\ noun

: a reversal in policy : about-face


Example sentence:
The provisional government's volte-face on holding special elections in June instead of October took everybody by surprise.

Did you know?
Today, English speakers can choose between "volte-face" and the more English-sounding "about-face," but that wasn't always the case. Although foot soldiers have been stepping smartly to the command "To the right about face! Forward march!" for centuries, "about-face" didn't appear as a figurative noun meaning "a reversal of attitude, behavior, or point of view" until the 20th century. On the other hand, we've been using the noun "volte-face" with this meaning since at least 1819. "Volte-face" came to us by way of French from Italian "voltafaccia" (from "voltare," Italian for "to turn," and "faccia," meaning "face").

*Indicates the sense illustrated in the example sentence.

To sign up for Merriam-Webster’s Word of the Day:
http://www.startsampling.com/sm/wod/register.iphtml

[tracer]

"Heinz Loses"........

[7thson]

The $87 billion appropriation bill was in October of 2003. If you read the story, the quotes concerning the press secretary does not include the part of the appropriation bill in 2002. I believe the reporter screwed up.

[angkor]

www.whitehouse.gov
Home > News & Policies > September 2003

For Immediate Release
Office of the [White House] Press Secretary
September 8, 2003

Fact Sheet: Request for Additional FY 2004 Funding for the War on Terror

TODAY'S PRESIDENTIAL ACTION

[snip]

IRAQ

Operation Iraqi Freedom

[snip]

Troop Support. The Administration plans to request $300 million for life-saving body armor and $140 million to deliver heavily armored "Humvees" to protect U.S. forces.

[CalKat]

That sort of changes the premise of the article. When the $87 billion was proposed, in 10/03, major operations in Iraq were over, versus the article's insinuation that this vote took place before the war even started.

Also, some people may disagree with whether or not all soldiers had the appropriate ceramic plates for their vests, but the reason some did not was because the manufacturers could not make them fast enough, not because there wasn't money for them. When Gen. Myers was before Congress, he said it was supply problem, not a money problem.

I don't know why Newsmax even bothers.

[binger]

[finnman69]

OK, Kerry has officially bumped Bill Clinton off my worst,slimiest, scummiest politician s**t list.

Kerry is going to create a republican right backlash against him the like of which has not been seen ever if he keeps this kind of BS up.

[dixierat22]

During Viet Nam, some cambat troops were issued "flak vests" which were heavy and not very good. In the mid 70's, we (in the 2nd Ranger Batt) were issued more modern stuff for trials. The body armor is a more recent development and just keeps getting better.

[military cop]

Don't take this the wrong way, but Bite Me.

I just got back from Iraq in December. The new body armor is a replacement for Vietnam issue flak vest that were worthless in the desert. The new Interceptor vests are Point Blank Level I police body armor with three ballistic plates capable of stopping a 7.62 round (that's AK-47 for you who went "Huh?")

I'd MUCH rather be there with than without and I've seen the results of firefights where a young troop took a 7.62 from about 25 feet and walked away from it with nothing more than a deep bruise and a case of the ass.

Our troops deserve the best. MY President insisted on giving it to us. I'd follow the man to hell and back. So would the lion's share of my troops.


RLTW

[armymarinemom]

Body armor is a luxury item to be used only for police actions, NOT wars.

Sorry but they do have body armour. I wouldn't use that argument against a lib.

[LetsRok]

I don't care how you take this, but soldiers get shot at. If body armor is standard issue then fine. If not, then join then Navy and spend the war 30 miles offshore out of harms way.

[AndyTheBear]

Can't just tell us the truth about where he really stands! Its nuance, nuance, nuance! The people of America just don't understand the Socialism is the way to go, so its all nuance, nuance nuance. We stupid masses are beneath such a great man as this. How dare we criticize him!

[goldstategop]

John F. Kerry likes to have it both ways. You can never pin the lying weasel down. Weasel Cheri - his native habit should really be weasel-loving France!

[Flightdeck]

I don't understand why you disagree with body armor for soldiers, #1. #2, Naval aviators, SEALS, submariners, and yes, sailors, are not out of harms way during a shooting war.

[AndyTheBear]

I don't care how you take this, but soldiers get shot at. If body armor is standard issue then fine. If not, then join then Navy and spend the war 30 miles offshore out of harms way.

The new stuff is great, and should be standard issue for infantry period. The only problem is that anti-military types like Clinton, Kerry and other Rats don't like funding such stuff.

[AndyTheBear]

John F. Kerry likes to have it both ways.

Disagree slightly. He likes to have it the hard core Socialist way, while hiding this preference from the public.

[LetsRok]

I don't disagree with body armor for soldiers if it is recommended by the military, NOT Johnny's momma dictating who should get it and pay for it.

[military cop]

I think you've missed the point again.

Body armor makes and impact. It reduces casualties and increases combat effectiveness.

Don't make a comment that you know nothing about. I've been in the army for 16 years. Seen Central America, saw the desert in GW I, stood post in Korea, dodged bullets in Bosnia, and made another tour of Greater Iraq. I know first hand that soldiers get shot at. Kim Orlando was a personal friend of mine (if you don't know, do a search on this site)

I don't take those comments lightly. Body Armor should have been issued back when other Euro coutries were issuing it for their own soldiers. X42 refused to finance it. My President did. The bottom line is that it should have been standard issue long ago. Unfortunately, it takes an operation like this to loosen purse strings.

And I'm a bit too impatient to join the Navy. Too much waiting.