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.
I was thinking about that on my way to lunch. Is there any where to find out?
Yeah, I was think the same on that point too.
It takes so long to get these appropriations bills through congress that from the time someone in the DoD contacted the manufacturer to the time this became law they may have made improvements and could do a higher number per month.
The thing that gets me is the "at a rate up to" wording.
It's almost like saying "not to exceed" 450 per month.
And since that wording is in the law, the way I look at it, the DoD is binded to that # in the contract unless Congress comes out and says otherwise.