PING...
Because that all that THE CONGRESS WOULD ALLOW!!!
Rummy was just following the law.
Once again the press isn't doing their job!!
It is a shame that Rummy didn't bring this up earlier. But, you are right, our press is for entertainment purposes only.
This won't sit well with the 'do all you can crowd'.
But once again a p-jammer was.
I can hear rather now......Damn!....don't these people ever sleep!.....
Good post!
Who in Congress did this??
So does anyone question whether this act could be overridden by the War Powers act?
I think so.
Yet another pyjama-clad buffoon who hasn't the proper education or training for reporting or journalism getting the facts straight. You should be ashamed of yourself.
So the MSM will blame the GOP-controlled Congress too. Greeeeat.
Well Let's just get the sumbetch from the Congress who is their spokesman to fess up to this little gem.
Bet the congressmen are hiding under their desks just about NOW.
Long Live the Bloggers and the P-Jammer crowd.
The Internet will prevail .
450 a month? That's just sad. We'd have never won WWII with odd little clauses like that.
Rush, Roger and all the rest take note - Kerry didn't bother to vote on this -
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00146
"Once again the press isn't doing their job!!"
Hmmm, me thinks the press is doing the job they think they are supposed to do - Make this Administration look bad.
5,400 up-armored HumVees a year sounds about right.
Even though with the added weight of up-armoring (The HumVess was never made to be armored. It's a Jeep!) The Center of Gravity shifts and the vehicle become much more prone to "rolling" in tight turns (One of the reason the wider stanced HumVess was created)
Start shipping the venerable, tracked M-113 APCs out of Germany and the US to take over herding the convoys!
Jack.
bump
Ping....if you have a list, please add me to it, thanks
Uh, not necessarily.
Do we know how many the Pentagon even requested? Because if the Pentagon said it only wanted 450/month, then its not quite accurate to say that's all that Congress would allow. Congress may very well have "allowed" more if the Pentagon had asked for them.
And along the same lines, was there ever any effort to request a supplemental appropriation for this?
Don't get me wrong -- I think the MSM spin on this is b.s. A story that got only a little press a few days ago had the company that made the armor admitting that it couldn't increase production until February or March, even if the military requested that they ramp up. I'm guessing the 450 figure came from the manufacturer, so that's why its the number in the bill. That's as fast as they could make them.
We've got good arguments to counter this. I hate to see good arguments weakened by a bad one.
** [Becasue it was law, that's why]&&
I haven't read the article -- but my first reaction was -- got to be a dimwit passed law.
Does FR have another "scoop" here?
Who said that we need more than 450/month? What is the actual number, 10,000/month (one per U.S. person in Iraq over a one year time span)? Maybe we should make a special one for each serviceman as a bonus when he gets home?