Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GIs Lack Armor, Radios, Bullets (hatchet job by CBS)
CBS ^ | Oct. 31, 2004 | CBS

Posted on 10/31/2004 5:00:40 PM PST by Former Military Chick

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 last
To: Former Military Chick
The sad fact is that all the statements made by the General and by CBS on this topic regarding shortages are true. One wonders how a country that could produce 40,000 Sherman tanks in WWII coudn't produce a few thousand vehicles and retrofit armor, not to mention bullets or radios. Most of the money was held up and not spent to stretch the $87 billion past the election. This is why the reconstruction money wasn't spent as planned, it was diverted to stretch the money through July-September of this year. A $25 billion supplemental was passed virtually unanimously through the senate and house and signed by Bush in August which put about $1.5 billion to work for various kinds of armor (body, retro, up). It finally got the plants producing near capacity, but that is about it. National Guard units still get shipped out with inadequate equipment and I will note that the plan to keep some forces in Iraq while others join them to get the full count to a peak between now and the January elections in Iraq means that the incoming troops will not have equipment given to them from the units that they will replace in country, so most will go without.

This country would have lost WWII with this kind of logistics planning. Right after the elections, watch for a huge request for funding that has been withheld to get us over the election. Sad to say some will die over election year politics.

61 posted on 10/31/2004 6:04:58 PM PST by Ranger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

*NOTE: I seem to remember back in the latter part of
Clinton's despotic reign, his administration replaced the
heavier armored tanks with lightweight ones. Some military
folks thought it was a bad idea, but some said they were
faster blah, blah, blah - - - more suited to the modern
types of warfare. I wondered about that at the time; and
it didn't make good sense to me, but I figured what did I
know? I also wondered what kind of campaign donation
debts Clinton MIGHT (not cerain) owe to some defense
contractor or the other on this tank purchase. That
tank purchase was too current, it would seem to me, to
be obsolete enough to replace so soon. Anyone remember or
know anything more about it?


62 posted on 10/31/2004 6:18:23 PM PST by Twinkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolverine

The Congress is spending that, even McCain said so


63 posted on 10/31/2004 6:39:11 PM PST by gidget7 (God Bless America, and our President George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ranger

Logistics bump!


64 posted on 10/31/2004 6:46:27 PM PST by First_Salute (May God save our democratic-republican government, from a government by judiciary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Ranger

Note reply no. 49.


65 posted on 10/31/2004 6:47:04 PM PST by First_Salute (May God save our democratic-republican government, from a government by judiciary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

Now imagine if you will what would happen if somebody on the Republican side had done this. It could be somebody running for school board in the middle of Montana. Immediately the mainstream media would pick it up, and the outrage would snowball. As it stands now, other than a mention here or there, the Democrats are getting a huge pass.

It would appear they're going to get away with insulting people with disabilities.

Remember...there are two sets of rules. One for Democrats, who can say anything they want without scrutiny from the media, and one for Republicans who can't say, "Protect America" without being ridiculed.

66 posted on 10/31/2004 6:49:33 PM PST by B4Ranch (┬┤┬┤Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; They are our teeth for Liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

Huh...all this hatchet job and the military still supports Bush by 80-90 percent.


67 posted on 10/31/2004 6:49:38 PM PST by Blue Scourge (Off I go into the Wild Blue Yonder...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
"Staff Sgt. Sean Davis from the Oregon National Guard was critically wounded last June when his unarmored Humvee hit an IED outside of Baghdad. He suffered shrapnel wounds, burns, and was unable to walk for six weeks. "

Is this JUNE 2003, 0R JUNE 2004? I recall seeinfg a brief story about the Oregon guard and the humvee issue a very long time ago (i;'m thinking summer of 2004) Worth checking to see if yhis is a VERY old story.

68 posted on 10/31/2004 7:19:44 PM PST by cookcounty (-Will John Kerry seek a 4th Purple Heart for fingers burnt in the Battle of Al-Qa Qaa?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

As if Bush is supposed to go in and personally micro-manage the Pentagon? If true, it sounds much more like a colossal failure of Congress than the White House.


69 posted on 10/31/2004 8:01:42 PM PST by DTogo (U.S. out of the U.N. & U.N out of the U.S.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
4Up-Armored Vehicle Effort Progressing Full Steam Ahead
 
If only our free (thanks to our troops, past and present), blind press would use their mighty pens for good. The villagers are going to revolt some day, pack AP reporters off to France, and pull the plug on their newswires (I have a dream..).

70 posted on 10/31/2004 8:06:15 PM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick; All
These guys don't seem to be lacking bullets:

Maybe they're using more than their fair share....

71 posted on 11/01/2004 6:56:29 AM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ranger

The General CBS cited critizing the Army is a National Guard General. Most people do not know that the Governor of the state appoints the General in charge of the state's national guard. In this case, the General is a Democratic appointee. http://www.governor.state.or.us/Gov/press_102003.shtml


72 posted on 11/01/2004 9:00:49 AM PST by superdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson