an e-mail I got from a family member, states that they are recieving the armor...more and more. And that they understand that it takes time to produce the high end armor. It can not be fixed over night.
(Note: production facilities have increased production of the armor....by 26 fold. From around 15 sets a day...to over 400. They are working 2 12 hour shifts a day. That is now 24/7 for most. The steel itself has to be cut in a special manner...with out friction or heat { or it will get weak when it cools}.
So the issue, while serious, is being addressed. And has been "being addressed" for over a year. Which is more than happened under Clinton, as my family member tells me.
The family member informed me that if Congress did not have such convoluted regulations on the military bids process for companies.....it would move even quicker.
So the folks in Congress who are slamming others...need to be slammed themselves.
Also, it seems that a reporter wrote the question asked to Rumsfeld...and got the soldier to ask it. Drudge has been reporting this.
He took advantage of the soldier....and that is wrong. But that is to be expected from the media.
Bottom line....it is a serious issue. BUT it is, and has been addressed. And the media does not want to report that part.
I am under strict orders from my family member, who is in the sand as we speak, to ignore the main stream media. He says we are not getting the whole story on anything.
I will follow that family member's orders...because I trust him...and because he has the ability to stomp a mudhole in me.
correction...it is 400 sets a month...2 12 hour shifts a day.
Still...that is 26 fold increase....and could possibly be more...if Congress would not cloud the bid process with interest legislation.
Having heard many, many stories from my family's vets who served from WWI and WWII to Korea, Vietnam and beyond, I can say that all US wars of the 20th century had far, far greater supply and equipment problems. Not that any of us would want to face terrorist ambushes in Iraq without armor, who would? But liberal reporters who jump on this kind of thing ignore (or simply don't know) the facts that:
1) Clinton and Algore had 8 YEARS to get this kind of thing done, and didn't (an appropriate question should be, "Why weren't all US Humvees and trucks armored by the year 2000 if reporters think it's supposed to be required?");
2) Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson are obvious examples of DEMOCRATIC administrations that had far, far, far greater failings at various points resulting in vastly higher numbers of US military fatalities. For each of those 4 DEMOCRATIC presidents, not to mention the unmentionable Clinton, one can point to numerous ways in which they neglected the military at key points and/or place US forces into combat without proper support and equipment.
Also, until now it has never been considered an expected, required part of Army/Marine equipment even to have armored Humvees (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's the case). In previous conflicts we had vast numbers of troops being transported in jeeps, 2 1/2 ton trucks, unarmored helicopters, etc. Yes, it's now become critical to have a lot more armored vehicles in an environment like Iraq, but never before in military history (of any nation) has ALL of an army been required to travel in armored vehicles. Neither NATO nor the Soviets, nor the well-equipped Wehrmacht and SS panzer divisions in WWII, ever required that all troops travel only in armored vehicles.
So, while I certainly want to keep whipping the supply chain bureaucrats to get this kind of thing accomplished more quickly, it rings so hollow and hypocritical when coming from liberal/left reporters and columnists who never cared about properly equipping our military before it was a handy "talking point" against Bush and Rumsfeld.
Thanks for that detail, explains some of the slowness in getting production ramped up!