posted on December 11, 2004 06:16:15 AM new
Army Seeks to Accelerate Armor Production
Updated 8:39 AM ET December 11, 2004
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Army has entered negotiations with an armor manufacturer in an effort to accelerate production of armored versions of the Humvee to get them to the troops more quickly, Army and company officials said.
Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey spoke with officials at Armor Holdings, Inc., based in Jacksonville, Fla., who told him Friday they could increase production by up to 100 vehicles a month.
Army officials had previously believed the factory was working at capacity until the company told the news media Thursday that it could make more. Democrats immediately criticized the Bush administration for not boosting production sooner.
Still, company officials said the Armor Holdings plant was not immediately capable of boosting output. Armor Holdings said in a statement issued Friday that it could increase its rate of production by February or March.
"During the interim period, we will continue to build as many vehicles as possible, as we have done to date. In fact, we are currently ahead of the Army's production schedule by more than 330 total vehicles," the statement said.
In addition, the Army would also have to go to Congress for additional funding if Armor Holdings sought more money, officials said.
The Army has ordered 8,105 of the armored Humvees, and 5,910 are in Iraq, Afghanistan and nearby countries. Armor Holdings is already producing 450 a month, meaning they would be finished sometime in the early spring. Any increased production by the company before then would accelerate the completion of the order.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfield, responding to a soldier's complaint about not enough armored vehicles for the troops, said Wednesday the Army was working to produce more armored vehicles, but it was "a matter of physics, not a matter of money," suggesting that production lines at operating at capacity.
But Armor Holdings spokesman Michael Fox said Thursday that the company recently completed an analysis after the Marines inquired about buying 50 to 100 armored vehicles each month.
"We determined it was doable," Fox said.
Armor Holdings said it expected to produce about 4,000 armored vehicles this year, compared to 500 in 2001, 600 in 2002, and 850 in 2003.
Cost of the armored Humvees is about $150,000 each.
Production has to be coordinated with AMC General LLC of South Bend, Ind., which produces the trucks used to make the Armored Humvees.
Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry, who continually decried the lack of equipment during his unsuccessful presidential campaign, on Friday called on Rumsfeld to investigate.
Several companies that manufacture protective equipment have indicated they can significantly boost production, Kerry said in a letter to Rumsfeld.
There are thousands more Humvees in Iraq that were built without the extra armor. The military has purchased thousands of kits with bolt-on armor, but several thousand Humvees, and thousands more heavy trucks, remain without armor for use against insurgent bombs, guns and rockets.
The soldier's question to Rumsfeld, at a town-hall meeting in Kuwait this week, has led critics to ask why the Pentagon has been unable to send enough armored equipment 21 months into the war. They said war planners had too rosy a picture of how the campaign would last and didn't think so many troops and so much armor would be needed for so long.
"This is about faulty analysis and a failed strategy," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a California Democrat who sits on the House Armed Services Committee. "We've never had enough troops on the ground since the fall of Saddam Hussein's government to deal with the insurgency because we didn't expect one."
""""""""""Loren Thompson, a defense industry analyst with the Lexington Institute think tank, agreed.
"We have pretty much miscalculated every step along the way _ why we went, how we should do it, what we needed, what support we would have, how long it would last _ we pretty much got it all wrong," he said."""""""""""""""""""
There was far too little advanced body armor and there were too few armored vehicles to deal with what the Pentagon has since acknowledged is a far stronger and longer insurgency than expected. Officials say more is being manufactured as fast as possible.
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights
And think of the troops killed and maimed for life because of an evil administration that was in such a hurry to go to war that they DIDN'T SUPPORT the TROOPS!
posted on December 11, 2004 08:09:51 AM new "We have pretty much miscalculated every step along the way _ why we went, how we should do it, what we needed, what support we would have, how long it would last _ we pretty much got it all wrong," he said"
But it wasn't ALL just a miscalculation as that comment would lead you to believe. The American people and congress were deliberately misled. The justification for the war was a deliberate lie. Shelves of books have been written describing the number of bungled actions in this war so far that were deliberate and cannot be dismissed or excused as "miscalculations". They can only be described as reckless, dangerous and inadequate leadership. Now we have the fact that the Pentagon has deliberately ignored the need for armored vehicles. Try to tell the troops who have had their arms, legs and faces blown off that this was just a "miscalculation"....that is, the ones who survived..
Isn't it interesting how all the little wingers to the right disappear when evidence appears that THEIR president is not supporting the troops??? Maybe they are out in the nice California sunshine driving their oil guzzling SUV's with the cute little support our troops bows attached.
posted on December 11, 2004 11:21:00 AM new
Okay, Helen and Crow, I admit that they got caught with their pants down.
I also am glad that the soldier asked the question after prompting from a TN reporter.
I'm also glad the TN reporter told the NYT reporter to find his articles on the internet when asked where the TN reporter came up with the information for his articles.
I hope they have learned from this to entertain more questions from the troops.
One thing is for sure. There will be plenty of armored vehicles over there soon.
Yes, someone screwed up big time!!!!! I hope someone is looking for another job.
posted on December 11, 2004 11:27:39 AM new
Calamity,
I'm also happy that the reporter was able to help with that question!!! Think of all the lives that his efforts along with that of the soldier who was brave enough to ask the question will save...and how many arms, legs and faces will not be blown off.
posted on December 11, 2004 11:43:42 AM new
Yep, I think it was a great Christmas present for them.
I was in the post office yesterday to mail Ebay stuff and a friend of mine was ahead of me mailing things to her son and daughter-in-law in Iraq. I was really surprised at how much paper work she had to fill out and how much it cost to send two boxes. You'd think the post office would make it easier and cheaper for the troops. Sorry, just thought I would throw that in.
crow, I think the count is back up to 9 but I'm not sure they jumped ship. I'm just sorry Kurik? dropped out for the Nat. Sec. post. I bet he can kick butt.
I need to get off here and get some Christmas stuff done. Yeah, right done. Let's change that to started.
posted on December 11, 2004 01:01:13 PM new
HA! This administration will place the blame on the soldier who stood up and asked the question !!!!!!!
BUSH and Company NEVER admit mistakes or apologize!
RUMSFELD and bush are responsible for the torture of Iraqi prisoners.....have THEY been fired or held accountable????????????
NO!
posted on December 11, 2004 05:54:10 PM new
Thank the CLINTON administration for all the cuts in military spending and combat readyness. Thank all the congressional libs for failing to pass military spending budgets to keep the troops in full readyness.
Once contractors lose military contractsin budget cuts, they move on into different areas and it take time to retool to provide the materials the military needs.
If you have a problem with the lack of military prepairdness, thank a LIBERAL.
Americans again prove Pres Bush is the best man for the job
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --John Stuart Mill
posted on December 11, 2004 06:16:10 PM new
Bullcrap, bear!
FIRST, don't ALWAYS blame Clinton, DICK(theprick) Cheney voted Many, Many times AGASIVST MILITARY SPENDING!
SECOND, you say, """""Once contractors lose military contractsin budget cuts, they move on into different areas and it take time to retool to provide the materials the military needs"""""
More bull! I just heard on the radio the head of one of those armor supply companies say he had to call the Army to ask when they'd be ordering more armor!
HE and his COMPANY, had been ready for MONTHS to step up supplies and the ARMY NEVER CALLED HIM!
AND the war started a long time ago, it should have been PLANNED and then maybe so many of our troops wouldn't be DEAD or MAIMED for LIFE......but then you neonazicons just love a war especially when you don't have to be IN IT!
posted on December 11, 2004 06:20:47 PM new
No, this is not Clinton's fault. Clinton was not waging war against countries that were not harming the US. Put the blame right where it belongs, with Bush and his gang. They made no plans at the beginning and they still have no plans.
I thought back in April they said they required more armor. Didn't they ramp up production then like they promised or is it that they can't begin to keep up because things are getting so much worse there? Or maybe they keep thinking they'll win soon so why bother? After all, it's not their hides on the line in the meantime.
I don't think anyone is in control in Iraq or in the Bush administration when it comes to this war...... it's happening day by day and there is no plan...... oh ya, almost forgot...... it's the 'stay the course, business as usual' plan ....... "Que sera, sera, whatever will be, will be".
posted on December 11, 2004 06:29:35 PM new
Who voted for the war, but voted against the armour.....
_________________
To Quote John Kerry in his concession speech. "But in an american election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans
posted on December 11, 2004 06:42:47 PM new
I don't think Dick Cheney had a vote. Please before you answer be sure that it is right. Dick Cheney did not vote because there wasn't a tie.
But John Kerry Did.
_________________
To Quote John Kerry in his concession speech. "But in an american election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans
posted on December 11, 2004 06:44:29 PM new
Libra63, it's not right to wage war and send your troops in unprepared for battle and then try to get funding and do catch-up after you've had a good many of them killed and maimed. It makes no sense at all and that's not showing support for your troops.
For the record, the body-armor money amounted to just over 1/3 of 1 percent of the $87 billion supplemental bill that Kerry opposed.
posted on December 11, 2004 06:48:30 PM new
Now lets get to the cabinet.
When a president is elected to a second term many of the people selected only wished to serve 1 term as I know Tommy Thomson is one of them. When he was asked by President Bush to be Health and Welfare he stated at that time that he would only serve 1 term.
Now compare Clintons first cabinet with his second one. How many of them stayed on.
Clinton's Cabinet - 1st Term
Al Gore, Vice-President, 1993
Warren Christopher, Secretary of State, 1993
Lloyd Bentsen, Treasury Secretary, 1993
Robert Rubin, Treasury Secretary, 1995
Janet Reno, Attorney General, 1993
Les Aspin, Secretary of Defense, 1993
William Perry, Secretary of Defense, 1994
Bruce Babbitt, Interior Secretary, 1993
Mike Espy, Secretary of Agriculture, 1993
Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture, 1995
Ron Brown, Commerce Secretary, 1993
Mickey Kantor, Commerce Secretary, 1996
Robert Reich, Labor Secretary, 1993
Donna Shalala, Secretary of HHS, 1993
Henry Cisneros, Secretary of HUD, 1993
Frederico Pena, Secretary of Transportation, 1993
Hazel O'Leary, Secretary of Energy, 1993
Richard Riley, Education Secretary, 1993
Jesse Brown, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 1993
Clinton's Cabinet - 2nd Term
Al Gore, Vice-President, 1997
Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State, 1997
Robert Rubin, Treasury Secretary, 1995
Lawrence Summers, Treasury Secretary, 1999
Janet Reno, Attorney General, 1993
William Cohen, Secretary of Defense, 1997
Bruce Babbitt, Interior Secretary, 1993
Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture, 1995
William Daley, Commerce Secretary, 1997
Norm Mineta, Commerce Secretary, 2000
Alexis Herman, Labor Secretary, 1997
Donna Shalala, Secretary of HHS, 1993
Andrew Cuomo, Secretary of HUD, 1997
Richard Riley, Education Secretary, 1993
Rodney Slater, Secretary of Transportation, 1997
Frederico Pena, Secretary of Energy, 1997
Bill Richardson, Secretary of Energy, 1998
Jesse Brown, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 1993
Togo West, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 1998
Hershel Gober, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 2000
So you see it also happened in Clinton's administration.
_________________
To Quote John Kerry in his concession speech. "But in an american election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans
posted on December 11, 2004 06:50:20 PM new
Kiara he still didn't support it no matter how big or small it was.
_________________
To Quote John Kerry in his concession speech. "But in an american election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans
posted on December 11, 2004 06:54:19 PM new
Libra your mind is wandering again...........DICK(head) cheney VOTED! ON BILLS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOOK IT UP!
SECOND, Ms Senility, what has Clinton's cabinet have to do with the GD topic?
AND ,DUH, BUSH STARTED the war, is in charge of the war, has the money for the war......
why hasn't HE supported the troops by providing them with LIFE saving equipment?
posted on December 11, 2004 06:56:28 PM newNow lets get to the cabinet.
Now compare Clintons first cabinet with his second one. How many of them stayed on.
What has that got to do with lack of armor for the troops and the government's screw-up when it comes to this war? Or is this a diversionary tactic so you don't have to face the reality that they messed up bigtime and innocent young people are dying and being injured severely forever?
This isn't Kerry's fault and it isn't Clinton's fault. Time for everyone to put the blame where it belongs.
posted on December 11, 2004 09:40:48 PM new
Keep telling yourselved CLINTON NEVER DID ANYTHING to undermine the US military forces. Just like Kerry has voted against EVERY military budget.
Americans again prove Pres Bush is the best man for the job
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --John Stuart Mill
[ edited by Bear1949 on Dec 11, 2004 09:42 PM ]
posted on December 11, 2004 09:42:46 PM new
Kiara, please read the entire thread again I think you miss a post by maggie.
How many of Bush's administration have jumped ship so far? Anyone keeping count?
_________________
To Quote John Kerry in his concession speech. "But in an american election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans
posted on December 11, 2004 09:56:23 PM new
Opps I made a mistake...This is taken from the Cheney - Edwards Debate.
DICK CHENEY: First they voted to commit the troops to send them to war – John Edwards and John Kerry. Then they came back and when the question was whether or not they should provide them with the resources they needed – body armour, spare parts, ammunition – they voted against it.
I couldn't figure out why that happened initially, and then I looked and figured out that what was happening was Howard Dean was making major progress in the Democratic primaries, running away with the primaries based on an anti-war record.
So they in effect decided they would cast an anti-war vote and they voted against the troops.
BTW Dick Cheney does not vote unless there is a tie...
_________________
To Quote John Kerry in his concession speech. "But in an american election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans
posted on December 11, 2004 10:03:00 PM new
Helen you begruge Linda a vacation? Did she forget to ask your permission to take one?
She is probably enjoying herself with her family in the nice warm weather. Not like us where it is cold and damp. We should be as lucky as her.
_________________
To Quote John Kerry in his concession speech. "But in an american election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans
posted on December 11, 2004 10:23:37 PM new
fenix, I want you know to know I just went back and read through the Denver thread, and with it your last reply which I initially skipped over because I knew it was going to be a bunch of crap, and just showoff sh*. But I will answer you now and the other readers of this board.
No one is protesting god. No one is protesting against Jesus. All that is being said is that there is a 30 year tradition...
First of all, your whole attitude by the words you use on the subject is clearly against God or Jesus in public places. And it is also evident that you DO have a retailer’s mind-set, When you start your sentence with “the retailers and their families”… So don’t try to play it like I am interpreting you wrong. And it is a negative to me when retailers can stage a cough, cough, family holiday parade to get patrons downtown to their shops, but sshh!shh!lets not use anything about Christ, Christmas or religion(except gay ‘holy’ Indians) in our event. As if any of that thought of Christmas is just too taboo for the Holidays! How ludicrous!.But -$Cha-ching$Dollars$ spend what you don’t have is good? You have the gall to refer to the Christians as pulling a publicity stunt. At least they weren’t seeking a monetary gain from it like the oh-so benevolent retailers. You know, just doing this for the community out of the goodness of their hearts, right?
You don’t even see the hypocrisy of your words!
If I posted here about, say, gay marriage, and said: "well, marriage between a man and a woman is a 30(000) year tradition!! why change it?! - its derisive to society!!"
- What does anyone with any real comprehension find my whole attitude toward gay marriage is?
-That I think its good? That I think its acceptable? More than twice your objections are over changing a tradition. Then you go on to infer that I, or (conservatives) wont respect others; but your obstinacy on this issue is the same thing! For the very same reason!
Now about all the other crap you posted.
1. I never insulted you, called you names, or labeled you. When long ago you typed you are a “self-professed freak” - I was kind to you. You dont really want to know what I think of you from your Attention deficit disorder-gimme-a-gadget-any-gadget-to-keep me-occupied posts, fenix. You are the one that has done the insulting and labeling in this thread so far. Not me. And if I'm a nut case for understanding that, you're the whole macadamia jar, kid. ...and then went on to make still another personal attack saying that I am the only one that cares about me.. You took that as a personal attack. It was a statement for [anybody] that no one is going to look out for, or take care of your livelyhood or how you feed youself, except yourself - so who is critizing you (?) In was in response to your "I AM a" statement...
2. I never said you should fear me. You proposed that if I argue with you, it would not be pleasant for me. And I answered: I have no doubt how ugly you are and your own ugliness will return grief to you - but I do not fear you, or that. Where does that say to you That I am saying you should fear me? You do the posturing, and make it sound now like I said it? - What are you trying to play kiara here? lol. That’s her game. I thought you were above that, but I see I was wrong.
3. I'm glad you feel sorry for me. Wish I could say the same for you, but thanks, I will take your pity and along with some spit, I'll shine my shoes with it. You're a young girl and you Dont have a sweetheart. All you have is 24/7 "Incoming! Incoming!" ...rat-tat-tat-….Television,… rat-tat-tat….CD's, …a-rat-tat-tat...DVDs', rat-tat-tat..Computer, rat-ta-ta-tat... ebay/internet...books... casino carpets (what kind of a retard goes around comparing carpets in the casinos?)…..a-rat-ta-tat.. – bacchi balls…whatever youre fumbling with to keep your mind lit.. Any interaction outside of inanimate objects, or remote people from the television, or the internet for you? It’s too bad there are only 24 hours to a day and three billion movies to watch, CD’s to listen to, television shows to suck down and laugh with, books to read on the middle east crises …so you can consider yourself informed to actually have a relationship with another human being for you!!. And you’re what? 28/30 something? If you had any idea what life is, or what it is about, you should be feeling very sorry for yourself, you dumb girl.
Now after I’m sure after you’ve enjoyed this post and MY Labeling for you, you’ll have to jump into kiara’s broken-wheeled wagon and hobble behind my every word and post like she does. (How hungry and covetous she is for my wealth.) And you, just like her, lack any genuniness. Maybe one of your alter-ego id’s can try to get your vindication across for you.
Oh the labels. Too bad I'm Not quite as refined as Libra here, nor as smart as Linda, but I can tell you what an emotionally void can of technio-junk you are; and I am as right as rain..
edited to add: rain that your goofy azz requested somebody to 'pray' for not too long ago.
posted on December 11, 2004 10:38:25 PM new
nerotic, get lost.
Libra, this ones for you.......
DICK cheney was a congressman BEFORE he was VP....his record shows many votes against defense spending!
AND:
John Kerry's Defense Defense
Setting his voting record straight.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2004, at 3:41 PM PT
Against defense? Not Kerry
Before George W. Bush's political operatives started pounding on John Kerry for voting against certain weapons systems during his years in the Senate, they should have taken a look at this quotation:
After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office.
The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992.
They should also have looked up some testimony by Dick Cheney, the first President Bush's secretary of defense (and now vice president), three days later, boasting of similar slashings before the Senate Armed Services Committee:
Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend.
Cheney proceeded to lay into the then-Democratically controlled Congress for refusing to cut more weapons systems.
Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them.
The Republican operatives might also have noticed Gen. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearings, testifying about plans to cut Army divisions by one-third, Navy aircraft carriers by one-fifth, and active armed forces by half a million men and women, to say noting of "major reductions" in fighter wings and strategic bombers.
Granted, these reductions were made in the wake of the Soviet Union's dissolution and the Cold War's demise. But that's just the point: Proposed cuts must be examined in context. A vote against a particular weapons system doesn't necessarily indicate indifference toward national defense.
Looking at the weapons that the RNC says Kerry voted to cut, a good case could be made, certainly at the time, that some of them (the B-2 bomber and President Reagan's "Star Wars" missile-defense program) should have been cut. As for the others (the M-1 tank and the F-14, F-15, and F-16 fighter planes, among others), Kerry didn't really vote to cut them.
The claim about these votes was made in the Republican National Committee "Research Briefing" of Feb. 22. The report lists 13 weapons systems that Kerry voted to cut—the ones cited above, as well as Patriot air-defense missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and AH64 Apache helicopters, among others.
It is instructive, however, to look at the footnotes. Almost all of them cite Kerry's vote on Senate bill S. 3189 (CQ Vote No. 273) on Oct. 15, 1990. Do a Google search, and you will learn that S. 3189 was the Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act, and CQ Vote No. 273 was a vote on the entire bill. There was no vote on those weapons systems specifically.
On a couple of the weapons, the RNC report cites H.R. 5803 and H.R. 2126. Look those up. They turn out to be votes on the House-Senate conference committee reports for the defense appropriations bills in October 1990 (the same year as S. 3189) and September 1995.
In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty.
Another bit of dishonesty is RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie's claim, at a news conference today, that in 1995, Kerry voted to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. John Pike, who runs the invaluable globalsecurity.org Web site, told me what that cut was about: The Air Force's National Reconnaissance Office had appropriated that much money to operate a spy satellite that, as things turned out, it never launched. So the Senate passed an amendment rescinding the money—not to cancel a program, but to get a refund on a program that the NRO had canceled. Kerry voted for the amendment, as did a majority of his colleagues.
An examination of Kerry's real voting record during his 20 years in the Senate indicates that he did vote to restrict or cut certain weapons systems. From 1989-92, he supported amendments to halt production of the B-2 stealth bomber. (In 1992, George H.W. Bush halted it himself.) It is true that the B-2 came in handy during the recent war in Iraq—but for reasons having nothing to do with its original rationale.
The B-2 came into being as an airplane that would drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. The program was very controversial at the time. It was extremely expensive. Its stealth technology had serious technical bugs. More to the point, a grand debate was raging in defense circles at the time over whether, in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range cruise missiles, the United States needed any new bomber that would fly into the Soviet Union's heavily defended airspace. The debate was not just between hawks and doves; advocates and critics could be found among both.
In the latest war, B-2s—modified to carry conventional munitions—were among the planes that dropped smart bombs on Iraq. But that was like hopping in the Lincoln stretch limo to drop Grandma off at church. As for the other stealth plane used in both Iraq wars—the F-117, which was designed for non-nuclear missions—there is no indication that Kerry ever opposed it.
The RNC doesn't mention it, but Kerry also supported amendments to limit (but not kill) funding for President Reagan's fanciful (and eventually much-altered) "Star Wars" missile-defense system. Kerry sponsored amendments to ban tests of anti-satellite weapons, as long as the Soviet Union also refrained from testing. In retrospect, trying to limit the vulnerability of satellites was a very good idea since many of our smart bombs are guided to their targets by signals from satellites.
Kerry also voted for amendments to restrict the deployment of the MX missile (Reagan changed its deployment plan several times, and Bush finally stopped the program altogether) and to ban the production of nerve-gas weapons.
At the same time, in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)
Are there votes in Kerry's 20-year record as a senator that might look embarrassing in retrospect? Probably. But these are not the ones.
Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate.
posted on December 11, 2004 11:52:44 PM new
Here is a little biography of Cheney. Where does it say he voted against armour? or for a war? Other matters but we are just talking about armour?
After he returned to his home state of Wyoming in 1977, Mr. Cheney was elected to serve as the state's sole Congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was re-elected five times and elected by his colleagues to serve as Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee from 1981 to 1987. He was elected Chairman of the House Republican Conference in 1987 and elected
House Minority Whip in 1988. During his tenure in the House, Mr. Cheney earned a reputation as a man of knowledge, character, and accessibility.
Mr. Cheney also served a crucial role when America needed him most. As Secretary of Defense from March 1989 to January 1993, Mr. Cheney directed two of the largest military campaigns in recent history - Operation Just Cause in Panama and Operation Desert Storm in the Middle East. He was responsible for shaping the future of the U.S. military in an age of profound and rapid change as the Cold War ended. For his leadership in the Gulf War, Secretary Cheney was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George Bush on July 3, 1991.
Following is an article about the voting record of Cheney and it is rather long. It does not state anywhere where he voted for a war? Or against armour.
Crowfarm you can post anything you want but his voting record still shows he voted for the war and against the armour. Swing it anyway you want. He just flip flops to what he thinks is proper at the time. Evidently he didn't think armour was needed.
_________________
To Quote John Kerry in his concession speech. "But in an american election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans
posted on December 12, 2004 06:45:02 AM new
Neuroticrotorooterranter, maybe try working your fat little azz off instead of sitting on it all day ranting fantasies about others who are too busy having fun garnering their own wealth to keep up with all your nonsense.
posted on December 12, 2004 08:37:37 AM new
Let's see. Bush won the election in 2000 and was in charge of the military at that point. It seems that he didn't have the brains of a hamster to know what military equipment was ready and available BEFORE he said GO!
Now, here we are 4 years later and still we don't have the basic equipment in the field for the safety of our troops. Why would it take 4 years to retool the plants to provide these things? If we used the train of thought in 1941, the world would be speaking German now.
Poor planning, poor excuses, poor reasoning, and a failed administration.
There are people here who always say they support the troops. However, when the troops point out the lack of proper safety equipment on national TV, these same people seem to always back their daddy.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
You're a young girl and you Dont have a sweetheart. All you have is 24/7 "Incoming! Incoming!" ...rat-tat-tat-….Television,… rat-tat-tat….CD's, …a-rat-tat-tat...DVDs', rat-tat-tat..Computer, rat-ta-ta-tat... ebay/internet...books... casino carpets (what kind of a retard goes around comparing carpets in the casinos?)…..a-rat-ta-tat.. – bacchi balls…whatever youre fumbling with to keep your mind lit.. Any interaction outside of inanimate objects, or remote people from the television, or the internet for you? It’s too bad there are only 24 hours to a day and three billion movies to watch, CD’s to listen to, television shows to suck down and laugh with, books to read on the middle east crises …so you can consider yourself informed to actually have a relationship with another human being for you!!. And you’re what? 28/30 something? If you had any idea what life is, or what it is about, you should be feeling very sorry for yourself, you dumb girl.
Prevent Bigotry through Education.