Reply
Sat 6 Mar, 2004 05:35 pm
This is one of the worst and most deadly scandals of the Bush Administration. For several months, troop and officer reports have come back to the States of the lack of supplies and gear needed to save troop lives. For example, National Guard troops were sent to Iraq without necessary equipment for combat. Lack of body armor as well as open vehicles not armored against explosives have led to the killing and maiming of hundreds of our troops.
BBB
Kerry: Bush Shortchanges Troops on Gear
Mar 6, 11:11 AM (ET)
By DAVID ESPO
WASHINGTON (AP) - John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting, challenged the Bush administration Saturday to reimburse the families of U.S. troops "who had to buy the body armor" needed for protection in Iraq.
"If I am president, I will be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people and our vital interests," the Massachusetts senator said in the Democrats' weekly radio address.
"But I will never send our troops into harm's way without enough firepower and support."
The five-minute speech gave Kerry an opportunity to speak to a nationwide audience five days after wrapping up his party's nomination with a string of primary and caucus victories.
(AP) Supporters for John Kerry, including Laurence Mousky, left, cheer while watching returns from the...
Full Image
The choice of topics underscored his intention to challenge President Bush's conduct of the war on terror, and he accused the president of shortchanging the troops on items needed for their own protection.
Kerry said tens of thousands of troops arrived in Iraq "to find that - with danger around every corner - there wasn't enough body armor to protect them." Many families purchased the equipment and had it sent overseas, he added.
"Families should be sending pictures and care packages to Iraq - and the Department of Defense should be sending the body armor," Kerry said.
He called on the president to support a bill he has introduced in the Senate to reimburse families for their purchase of body armor. Similar legislation is pending in the House.
Kerry said acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee had testified before Congress that U.S. forces were "not prepared" for the present conflict in Iraq and they didn't have the preparation and hardware they needed to fight as effectively as they could.
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, Brownlee was asked why the Army took so long to produce adequate numbers of upgraded body armor and Humvees with extra armor plating.
"I also regret that we were not more farsighted here. We simply were not prepared for that kind of a counterinsurgency that attacked our convoys and our soldiers in the rear, as it has proven to be," he said.
In addition, Kerry said, "We hear reports that - in dangerous parts of Iraq - our helicopters are flying missions without the best available anti-missile system."
"At the same time, unarmored Humvees are falling victim to roadside bombs and small-arms fire. The Bush administration waited through month after month of ambushes and only acted to start manufacturing armored kits three months ago," he added.
No Surprise Here
Soldiers are cheap labor to robber barons, who see no need to invest in anything but the absolute minimum for the safety, protection and benefit of labor. This is more neocon nonsense coming to the foreground, and it is the underpinning philosophy behind all their ideological money-making schemes.
Bush defense budget not enough to provide protective gear
Posted on Fri, Mar. 05, 2004
Key Democrat says Bush defense budget comes up short
By Drew Brown
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee said Friday that President Bush's $401.7 billion fiscal 2005 defense-budget proposal needed an additional $12.2 billion to give the military the equipment it required to carry out the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Among those "unfunded requirements" are $2 billion the Army needs for protective equipment, including $900 million to add extra armor to Humvees, and money for 5,400 extra M4 carbines the Marine Corps says it needs for troops overseas, said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo.
Other programs include $23 million the Navy says it needs to move intelligence faster and train more linguists. The Air Force wants money to upgrade identification systems, to prevent aircraft from getting shot down by friendly fire.
Overall, Skelton said, unfunded requirements are: $6 billion for the Army; $2.5 billion for the Navy; $2.4 billion for the Air Force; and $1.3 billion for the Marine Corps.
But with a budget deficit projected to be as high as $477 billion, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, pressure is on to cut government spending. House Republicans have proposed cutting $1.2 billion from defense, which Skelton said would be a mistake.
"It goes without saying that this year's defense budget will not fully fund several of the programs and priorities in each of the services," Skelton said in a written statement. "But the services' unfunded-requirements lists urgently demonstrate why Congress must not make further cuts in the defense budget."
Skelton said his first priority was to keep the House Budget Committee from eliminating the $1.2 billion from the Pentagon's bottom line while the country was at war.
Even though the administration wants to spend $20 billion more on defense in 2005 than it is spending this year, critics say its priorities don't meet the needs of troops fighting an insurgency in Iraq and keeping pressure on al-Qaida and Taliban remnants in Afghanistan.
A senior aide for the House Armed Services Committee said it was customary for the ranking minority member to ask the military for a list of unfunded items the services want. While important, the aide said, the items sometimes aren't crucial. `"It's a wish list more than anything," said the aide, who asked not to be named.
The aide said top Republicans on the committee shared some of Skelton's concerns about unfunded items and hoped to restore some of them.
The administration didn't include projected operational costs to carry out the war in Iraq in next year's budget. The White House budget director estimated last month that those costs could run as high as $50 billion. The Pentagon contends that the costs of next year's operations are too early to project, and plans to cover them in a supplemental request after Jan. 1, a move Democrats and some Republicans oppose.
Last year, Congress approved two administration requests totaling $166 billion in supplemental funds for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Some critics, saying the military is stretched too thin, have proposed adding troops, a move that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and top service officials oppose.
On Thursday, Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., unveiled legislation that would add 30,000 troops to the Army's authorized strength. Top Army and Pentagon officials contend that the addition would cost at least $3 billion. Instead, they want to realign the service by shifting some support positions to civilian contractors and retraining other soldiers in needed specialties.
Ill bet Cheney and Halburton are for this 100%. More of a chance to overcharge the government for equipmant and food that isent delivered.
When I was on active duty we frequently bought our own field gear, since the army issued stuff was crap! I'm not surprised that families have been having to pitch in for flak vests. I went to both Saudi and Somolia without one, since the CIS facility in Karlsruhe never had enough. The first priority for such things were officers and senior NCOs. I guess they are harder to replace.
And just to help matters Kerry then voted no on the $87billion supplement to Iraq. Another both sides of Kerry example...
Kerry also voted for the Medicorp Bill, which is neocon all the way. Kerry and Bush are both neocons, they both belong to the Skull and Bones society, and they are more alike than people seem to think. Kerry's voting record may be the most liberal ever, but when it comes to the Bush agenda, Kerry has been voting right alongside it. Of 385 bills Kerry has put to Congress over the past quarter of a century, only three have passed, so his success record is as bad a Bush's in his own way.
Nonetheless, I will vote for Kerry over Bush anyday. I suspect it won't matter much, but at least the democrats kind of still pretend to appear like they are for the people instead of the corporations.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace