Posted on 12/13/2004 7:03:15 AM PST by OXENinFLA
When they're saying November they mean Nov. of 2003.
The article was written in May of 04.
Take a look at the bills' progress here.
Why would they handcuff of DoD with the "at a rate up to" phrase.
yes
rocket-propelled grenades, most roadside bombs and mines.
No, no and no. Ok, they'll reduce the damage and injury. But stop? Nope.
Iraq death spurs push for Humvee armor
How they would get more, quickly, was unclear, since the Pentagon's original 2005 budget request included 818 up-armored Humvees. An unarmored Humvee costs about $75,000, while an armored one costs about twice as much. Of the total number of Humvees in Iraq, just over 2,000 are fully armored, according to an Army tally, about half of what it says it needs.
During WW2 we launched a liberty ship a day and today freaking armor is an impossible dream?
Get real.
Because that all that THE CONGRESS WOULD ALLOW!!!
[Becasue it was law, that's why]
does not appear to be totally correct.
Statements like that are pretty much pointless and useless.
Unless you are able to tell us why, don't bother.
If you bothered reading down a little ways, I explained it. But you're just in knee jerk mode. Maybe just in jerk mode.
But how's this: 5 and 7 ton trucks work well for supply convoys.
What? No explanation?
Or am I reading the "at a rate up to" part wrong?
Now granted the DoD may have only requested 450 per month, I don't know. But even if they did why would a bill be worded to put a limit on how many they could buy without putting in a line where the DoD could up the number if the situation called for it?
Not sure OXENinFLA. But it is up to the Army to ensure that the troops have what is needed for the battle.
Last week I recall one of the retired Colonels reply in an interview on one of the cable news shows, he stated that it was the responsibility of the top field commander.
I don't dispute the US can do better, but let's start with the legislative branch that wrote the language BEFORE we hammer the executive for failing to make it happen. I also think this has become a political football to no good purpose. Armor can degrade SA. Armor that can defend against multiple arty rounds won't be carried by a hummer. Let the pros make the call, let the Congress provide.
Strykers, maybe or the M1117,IIRC, the V-100's grandson. Am I correct here? I do agreee, an armored car just might be the ticket,with -58D's overhead...
And where was Kerry?
"John Kerry speaks out at fundraiser on June 23, 2004 in San Jose, California. Featured guests include Rob Reiner, Carole King, and Steve Westly."
He also gave a speech in San Francisco.
.
Also from June 23:
JOHN KERRY SHOULD APOLOGIZE FOR VIETNAM TESTIMONY -- (House of Representatives - June 23, 2004)
Mr. PITTS: Mr. Speaker, this week, the Vietnamese Government has weighed in on the Iraqi prison scandal, but the official Communist Vietnamese news agency is not citing the Geneva Conventions or the U.N.; it is citing testimony given by John Kerry in 1971 in condemning our troops.
Mr. Kerry testified that American soldiers from top to bottom committed human rights violations, ``cutting off ears, murder, rape, destruction,'' et cetera. The problem is, he relied on reports by a group of supposed Vietnam veterans who were not what they seemed. They claimed to be former Vietnam veterans. They were not. They were frauds. They were out only to discredit the military and our country.
But John Kerry never repudiated or apologized for his statements. Instead, he has excused his behavior to youth. Now his misleading, inaccurate, hateful words are being used by a government with an atrocious human rights record against the United States.
That was a difficult time in our history. Passion and tensions were high. Whatever one's opinion of Vietnam, our troops suffered because of this kind of false witness to their efforts in Vietnam; and as a Vietnam veteran, I think Mr. Kerry should apologize once and for all and disavow those statements as false before other nations decide to use them.
.
And more from June 23rd (He had a BIG day!)
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Kerry Flops in Rare Appearance at Work
Poor John Kerry. After months of refusing to do the job for which he is still on the American taxpayers' dole, he deigned to make a rare appearance yesterday in the U.S. Senate. But it was all for naught.
Kerry spent seven whole hours in Washington waiting to vote on a proposal to increase spending on veterans' health care, then finally took off to beg for money from his fellow travelers in San Francisco.
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle grumbled that Majority Leader Bill Frist said Kerry should not be allowed to "parachute down and have a vote" after skipping work for so long.
During his rare appearance in the Senate, Kerry took the floor to accuse Republicans of refusing Democrats the "normal courtesy" of voting on a proposal. He did not mention that he has repeatedly failed to display the "normal courtesy" of showing up for work and that Democrats have repeatedly refused the "normal courtesy" of voting on President Bush's nominees.
His handlers issued a statement claiming, "There is no group more important to John Kerry's presidential campaign than veterans, and there is no issue more important to veterans than their access to health care."
In reality, the liberal Boston Globe revealed today that Kerry has missed at least three votes on veterans' issues so far this year.
And the Globe disclosed that Kerry's absenteeism rate this year is not the previously reported 87 percent. It's 89 percent. Yet Kerry insisted again Tuesday that he would not resign from the job that he has repeatedly refused to do.
True. But Congress controls the purse strings.
Like I've said before I don't know how many up-armored Humvees the DoD asked for in their supplemental request to Congress or how they arrived at the 450 mark.
My point in this whole thing is that the press pounced on Rummy and the DoD for the number of Humvees they procured. And the way I read S 2401 it puts a limit on how many the DoD could procure and NOWHERE did I hear that reported.
Should every Solider have their own armored Humvee? Sure. But we can't snap our fingers and instantly transport the new up-armored Humvees off the production line over to the battle theater, logistically things don't work that way.
It just pissing me off that these Senators, Congressmen/women, and the press are coming out and castigating Rummy as if he didn't do all that he could, but when I read that the maximum number the DoD could buy per month was 450 and they were buying 450 per month. How is the DoD not doing all they could?
I don't know who you consider the pros, but I wish they'd shake up the starting line up, or maybe listen to the pros on the ground.
Remember, there is the 'salute and execute' that is done for public consumption, then there is the reality of what the 'top brass' really think. Falluja in April was purely political and botched, imo.
As far as 'hammering' the executive branch, stinging criticisms wouldn't be required if there was even the perception of an all ocut effort to support the troops as they and their families expect. The truth may be that all that can be done is being done (I don't believe that!) but that people don't see the effort or the results.
And I don't know of any armor that defends against multiple artillery rounds. Even if the armor isn't penetrated, the blast tosses the vehicle around and kills the occupants from the impacts. I think the HUMVEE is the wrong vehicle. Ok, I admit it, I've never liked it. Too big for a small personal transport; too small to really carry troops or cargo; too heavily built for routine use on base and highways; too open and lightwieght for known hostile environments.
Strikers may be overkill. But there are all kinds of armored cars that will work. Fast and with firepower. The South Africans have some designed to survive mines and IEDs.
Amen to that...they probably cost a lot less than the armored Hummers anyway...(perhaps we could get the Chi-Com's to open an M-113 production line...get 'em for peanuts...)
'And I don't know of any armor that defends against multiple artillery rounds. Even if the armor isn't penetrated, the blast tosses the vehicle around and kills the occupants from the impacts. I think the HUMVEE is the wrong vehicle. Ok, I admit it, I've never liked it. Too big for a small personal transport; too small to really carry troops or cargo; too heavily built for routine use on base and highways; too open and lightwieght for known hostile environments.'
'stinging criticisms wouldn't be required if there was even the perception of an all ocut effort to support the troops as they and their families expect.'
Troops/families aren't in the chain of command. War causes casualties. You admit armor is not a panacea, but continue to infer that there is one that DoD isn't implementing. Which is it?
If you don't know the difference between infer and imply how can you understand what you admit you don't understand?
'If you don't know the difference between infer and imply how can you understand what you admit you don't understand?.
Early AM. Change to imply, have an answer?
And by the way, your spelling sucked in the post I was replying to but we all make mistakes. Sometimes they need to be pointed out in snotty ways I guess.
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.