Posted on 12/09/2004 2:07:54 PM PST by dandelion
It's a great question: why don't we have enough armor? Kind of like it's great to see a contestant win a lot of money on a game show - but it's a LOT better when it's not manufactured.
Fixed. Staged. Chroreographed.
Whatever you want to call it, the news is always better when the reporter doesn't insert himself into the mix, as Edward Pitts has supposedly done.
According to Drudge:
From: EDWARD LEE PITTS, MILITARY AFFAIRS Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2004 4:44 PM To: Staffers
Subject: RE: Way to go
I just had one of my best days as a journalist today. As luck would have it, our journey North was delayed just long enough see I could attend a visit today here by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. I was told yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions so I brought two of them along with me as my escorts. Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have. While waiting for the VIP, I went and found the Sgt. in charge of the microphone for the question and answer session and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd.
There was this thing, and we called it "journalistic ethics". But enough about ancient history - when the chips go down the press will always say "it doesn't mean the story/question/incident/expense report isn't true". Fair enough, it's a great question and it deserves to go on the editorial page. It does not deserve on the "news" page when a soldier (who was coached by the reporter) is picked by the mic man (who was also coached by the reporter) so other reporters can specifically target an individual with the administration. These Q&A sessions have been held in the past, but always without the Old Media present. This is the reason why.
But on to the great question: yes, they should ask this, and they should get an honest answer. Do you really want to know why we don't have enough armor? Let's find out why Dick Durbin (D, PA) says we don't have any armor...
From the Congressional Record, Feb. 11, 2004. (PDF):
We should do better. I said to the Secretary of the Army: Isn't this a priority? He said: It is our highest priority to build the 8,400 doors for these Humvees. He told me that many will be made in my State at the Rock Island Arsenal . I visited the Rock Island Arsenal and saw the first sets of doors come off for the Humvees, and the workers were so proud. They knew they had done something significant.
I said to the commander at the arsenal : How long will it take us now? We need 8,400 sets and we are also doing them at Anniston. He said: We are going to get these doors built in one year.
One year? In World War II, we were building bombers in 72 hours and ships in 30 and 60 days, and we need 1 year to make the armor-plated doors to protect the Humvees so that fewer of our men and women in uniform will have to go to Walter Reed Hospital for prosthetic devices and medical treatment.
I said: Why is it taking one year? He said: Because there is only one steel-fabricating plant left in America, and it is in Pennsylvania. It makes the steel that we can convert into the armor plating for these doors. We are using everything they produce as fast as they produce it.
So when the issue comes up about loss of manufacturing jobs, and loss of American jobs, and loss of our industrial base, it is more than a cold discussion of statistics; it is a discussion about the reality of our economy and the reality we face. Whether you live in North Carolina, where we have lost textile jobs, or you live in Illinois, where we have lost steel jobs, the fact is, as we lose these jobs, we lose our capacity. When it comes to something as basic as steel, that capacity plays out so that our soldiers in Iraq today are more vulnerable to enemy attack because we cannot produce the steel in America.
What makes this all the more damning is the fact that this information came from a Democrat in the now-dashed hope of making the economy a priority in an election year. Never mind that Durbin never points to the fact that this decimation of American Steel and the manufacturing industry happened as a whole under the Clinton Administration. Obviously, American products should be used to create American Armor, so as to avoid any chance of sabotage or low quality. But now we have to buy the vast majority of our steel from foreign countries, many of whom may disagree with our policies, and to whom we have to pay top dollar. Americans weren't supposed to do that anymore, remember? We were all going to work in those new Hi-Tech industries, we were all going to have cushy high-paying service jobs, so Clinton gave away our manufacturing jobs and all the contracts to foreign governments. Now most of our steel comes from China. Remember?
The real recipient of this question should be ever member of Congress who let American Steel die - NOT Donald Rumsfeld. A real reporter would ask the question of those who are responsible, not send in a stooge to ask it of those they'd like to see blamed for this mess.
Why don't we have armor?
Because we only have ONE American factory that makes steel for our armor, that's why. IF we want more American armor, we need to manufacture more American Steel.
It's really too bad the Old Media doesn't ask this question of those who could do something about it. But it appears they are only interested in manufacturing the news...
This can't be true, Lawrence Kudlow said so.
interesting. thanks for the post
but it's so blatantly not true, that it's a disgrace.
And even if we didn't have any steel in America, I'm sure we're smart enough to know where to buy it.
This is a total result of deindustrialization. Absolutely. Our founding fathers knew these perils.
Can't we just buy more steel for armor from China?
/ sarcasm
In the 70s some union contracts obligated the company to pay for eyeglasses for worker's kids. That's abusive...
Yep, Liberals gut defense budgets and hurt our national security while republicans gut our business infrastructure to hurt our economic and security interests. One's as bad as the other.
Actually, I don't think socialism was a high priority for President Clinton at all, though it was for his wife. I think Bill was really more interested in the 'perks' of office than in the powers and responsibilities thereof.
Theres an ex Republican rep on Scarborough right now who claims his firm which creates 65% of body armor(ceramic) and HUMVEE armor is not working at capacity and that they could easily increase capacity by 20% w/o increasing production.
The ex rep was Matt Salmon from AZ.
http://www.armorworks.com/
They make the HMMWV Ballistic Advantage Kit, armor for the FAV ,FMTV ,M915, and body armor including Small Arms Protective Inserts (SAPI) and other systems including; Airsave, Vehicle Body Armor Support System (VBASS), and NIJ level IV systems.
Our founding fathers were truly wise to perceive the perils of deindustrialization decades before the Industrial Revolution began.
Wow, the vast majority? Over 50%? I don't suppose there's any solid data showing this stat?
Yeah, I agree. Bill was more interested in riding around on Air Force 1 and having a good time in the "back office." Hillary is the one who really wants socialized health care, women in combat, and strict regulation of political speech on the internet (God forbid.)
Good Lord, what happened in here while I was gone? I go to a junior high orchestra concert, and things were civil (if a little heated) in here.
I come back and find this thread has swelled to three times it's previous size, with the corpses of three deleted posts littering the battlefield.
I dunno what happened here, but it must have been fun. I'm sorry I missed it...
Thanks for the ping!
According to Page 7 of the USGS document "Iron and Steel Statistics" the number of U.S. imports for steel in the year 2002 stood at about 30%, give or take a few percentage points. Check me please, I'm no mathematician.
However, according to the trade doc "Paradise regained for scrap prices"U.S. imports rose by almost 20% in 2004 - despite an increase of U.S. steel production of 3.2% - due to a increase in demand of 12%. This is borne out by the simultaneous increase of Chinese exports by 20%, which could be construed as being produced to fill the American demand gap. The forecast, according to this trade publication, is for imports to rise dramatically - equal or greater to the percentage of this year's increases - in the immediate future.
Now, here's where my head swims. I'll admit that I'm no mathematician, but I see their numbers and it tells me this year we'll see imports rise above 50% for foreign steel. I could be wrong.
Since you appear to know more about this than I do, how about you crunch these numbers for me and I'll change the statement if your hypothesis is born out. I'm no Dan Rather, and I don't have to worry about "fixing" a printed error or begging my editor; I'm just a Blogger, and I just fix it.
How about it? Do you have the statistics for imports on armor grade steel? Do you have anything to back up your statement that this article is "blatantly false"? If you do, spit it out - if not, go find some documents to bear out your allegations, or else renounce them. I've based this article on documents and statements from the congressional record, but if you've got something real I'm ready to hear it...
If you don't have the statistics, then perhaps you should let me know on this thread.
According to Page 7 of the USGS document "Iron and Steel Statistics" the number of U.S. imports for steel in the year 2002 stood at about 30%, give or take a few percentage points. Check me please, I'm no mathematician.
However, according to the trade doc "Paradise regained for scrap prices"U.S. imports rose by almost 20% in 2004 - despite an increase of U.S. steel production of 3.2% - due to a increase in demand of 12%. This is borne out by the simultaneous increase of Chinese exports by 20%, which could be construed as being produced to fill the American demand gap. The forecast, according to this trade publication, is for imports to rise dramatically - equal or greater to the percentage of this year's increases - in the immediate future.
Now, here's where my head swims. I'll admit that I'm no mathematician, but I see their numbers and it tells me this year we'll see imports rise above 50% for foreign steel. I could be wrong.
Since you appear to know more about this than I do, how about you crunch these numbers for me and I'll change the statement if your hypothesis is born out. I'm no Dan Rather, and I don't have to worry about "fixing" a printed error or begging my editor; I'm just a Blogger, and I just fix it.
How about it? Do you have the statistics for imports on armor grade steel? Do you have anything to back up your statement that this article is "blatantly false"? If you do, spit it out - if not, go find some documents to bear out your allegations, or else renounce them. I've based this article on documents and statements from the congressional record, but if you've got something real I'm ready to hear it...
If you don't have the statistics, then perhaps you should let me know on this thread.
Yes, we had a minor dust-up while you were gone, but nothing really unusual for FR.
This level of intensity regarding responses to this story really surprised me. I'm amazed; this was just a story about how the Old Media is manufacturing more than the steel industry, and I really expected the Media hawks to swoop in. Instead, the steel guys and industry people got into a fistfight!
Doggone it - missed it again. Nobody was banned permanently I hope...
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.