Did Kerry's Vote Against the $87 Billion Delay the needed Body Armor?

http://www.rnc.org/news/read.aspx?ID=4099 ^ | 2004.10.19 | TeleStraightShooter

[TeleStraightShooter]

Did Kerry's Vote Against the $87 Billion Delay the needed Body Armor?

Did the Democrats in the Congress fillibuster/ or otherwise delay the needed body armor?

I have compiled a timeline of the how the administraion reacted to the battlefield need for body armor.

Spring 2003: Operation Iraqi Freedom successfully completed. - "Mission Accomplished"

Summer 2003: Intell suggests that a Syrian/ Iranian backed Terrorist Offensive is looming.

The Bush Administration requests that Congress expeditiously pass the $87 billion needed for extra parts & armor to meet the impending terrorist threat that they suspect will be launched around Ramadan.

October 17, 2003: Kerry and Edwards vote against the $87 billion, holding up(?) the extra parts and body armor.

November 2003: The Syrian/ Iranian backed Terrorist Offensive is launched, coinciding with Ramadan. Kerry and Edwards vote for the $87 billion, and what ever roadblocks that was delaying the money for extra parts and body armor is approved, and signed into law.

December 2003: Due to the bureaucratic nature of the DoD, the extra parts and body armor have not all arrived in Iraq. General Sanchez notes this in a minority report, but the needs are fully met soon there after.

Did Kerry and Edwards "no" votes hold up the needed extra parts and body armor, for partisan reasons, at the expense of our troops?
(S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay)

That's what Senator Schumer (D) NY was talking about when he suggested that Kerry left our soldiers high and dry.

[TeleStraightShooter]

On the Sept. 14, 2003, edition of CBS's Face the Nation, Kerry spoke at length about an amendment he and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., were offering which would have paid for the $87 billion by delaying some of the recent tax cuts.

Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."

Kerry argued that his amendment offered a way to do it properly, "but I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."

Only problem is that Lurch did just that!

He voted against the $87 billion and the needed body armor after he said soing so would be irresponsible and the same as abandoning our troops.

Shades of 1975 Saigon

[Puppage]

I understand that the body armor in question (at the time) was a proto-type version and that was the reason for the delay......they were waiting for the final version.

[TeleStraightShooter]

Yes, the manufacturers took a while to meet the volume needs of the DoD, and those were not fully met until early 2004.

Could the DoD put out procurement requests before congress approved it?

[TeleStraightShooter]

Do you know anything about how Kerry's vote against the $87 billion delayed the need body armor?

[TeleStraightShooter]

The Iraq/Afghanistan Supplemental Funding bill provided approximately $65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance and $1.3 billion for veterans' medical care. The bill provided $10.3 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraq, including $5.1 billion for security and $5.2 billion for reconstruction costs. The bill also provided extra money for body armor for soldiers.

[Grampa Dave]

It is a complicated story. The site below sheds some light on this.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155

[TeleStraightShooter]

"It's not a question of money, it's a question of capacity to manufacture these devices," Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard B. Myers told a Senate committee last month. "We're making them as quickly as we can.

[TeleStraightShooter]

Thanks, that does help fill in the blanks.

It's interesting that General was telling Congress that the extra body armor was expected to reach Iraq by Nov 2003, in time for the expected Ramadan Terrorist offensive.

Turns out it was a supply chain problem.

[woodb01]

lunchtime bump for later read

See the new Anti-DNC portal:

http://www.noDNC.com/

[TeleStraightShooter]

wow

that's a powerful story.

such a contrast to WJC.

[GailA]

There was also a $1.3 Billion Veterans Healthcare package included in that $87 Billion package.

[Criminal Number 18F]

I understand that the body armor in question (at the time) was a proto-type version and that was the reason for the delay......they were waiting for the final version.

Nope. The design of the IBA was final in 2001 and combat troops had it in 2002. It continues to get tweaked -- the web loops were changed from vertical to horizontal in 2002 production, and shoulder pads were added in late 2003. But these changes are made as a running change on the production line, and refit in the field.

What held the armour up was: (1) not enough production capacity, coupled with (2) the Army deciding that all troops must have the best armour, not just troops whose mission was direct ground combat.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F