Posted on 03/13/2006 2:50:17 AM PST by SuzyQ2
The story did not simply specify that there were unprotected areas of the body perceptively protected by existing body armor, but it highlighted those areas in both content and a color graphic, which illustrated in red exactly where bullets and shrapnel had previously struck and killed Marines. Certainly, any terrorist training camp where the bad guys are learning how best to kill American soldiers could make use of such a graphic.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Since the MSM and Libs see America and it's military as the enemy they see nothing wrong with the reporting.
It's probably not that big a deal. Most of the shooters in Iraq probably can't hit the side of a barn and the competent ones probably know where to aim anyway.
Maybe it's time to upgrade existing armor or deploy new armor designs instead of shredding the First Amendment again.
They're not going to get The People motivated against the War unless the Iraqi Resistance can get The Number up over 3000. Every little bit helps...
Maybe it time for the Junk Journalist to accurately and factually report the matter for a change.
Yes they do.
Perhaps it's not that big a deal to you.....
but it is to me.
Excellent Article Ping.
"The Times story also took issue with DoD’s contracting of Ladson, S.C.-based Force Protection, Inc. to manufacture blast-and-mine protective vehicles like the Buffalo and the Cougar, currently in service in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The story criticized a Force Protection deadline-extension for delivery of vehicles to DoD on a "string of blunders."
Force Protection officials have since vigorously denied the characterization and said the "so-called string of blunders" was nothing more than "growing pains" experienced by many start-ups. The story also discussed the fact that two disgruntled former employees had filed a false claims case against the company for allegedly falsifying records "to cover up defective workmanship."
True, the allegations were made; and the Times did contact Force Protection about the allegations prior to publishing the story. But, according to company officials, the sheer fact that the allegations were eventually published led to a 48-hour pulling-off-the-line of several Cougar vehicles that placed soldiers and Marines who would have had to conduct missions in lesser-protected vehicles at greater risk. Yet no defects in the vehicles were found during the inspections.
Of course, blame for the stand-down of vehicles can’t be laid at the doorstep of The New York Times. But it is interesting to note that some of the vehicles inspected had already been through more than one enemy attack and all passengers had survived without injury.
"There has never been a compromise in terms of the ballistic and armor integrity of that vehicle," says Lt. Col. Mike Micucci, the Marine Corps’ project manager for the Cougar.
"Force Protection is doing a great job," adds Catto. "They have done everything they’ve said they were going to do except meet their production schedule. Quality control is good. The Marine Corps as an institution is very happy with the Cougar. Their product is great."
-----snip-----
"Reporting needs to be fair, objective, and interesting. But we need to look beyond Pulitzer Prizes, who’s scooping whom, and the newspapers’ bottom-lines. We need to look to our readers. We need to write for our readers, and we need to remember that they – and we – are Americans first, and our country is at war for its very survival."
LX, you might want to invite this feller over for dinner ; )
Sounded like a plan, but then I realized you've got to go back to the drawing board, cobra ; ) They can't bite the hand that feeds them.
BTW, Nephew was hit by IED in a Buffalo, and is only safely back home after deployment because of the Buffalo.
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.