I just received an email from Wes Clark urging that I send letters to officials demanding body armor for US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Shortly before an email arrived from Hillary Clinton claiming lack of body armor "unforgivable" and called for a Congressional probe after 2,200 deaths and almost 16,000 wounded.
Haven't received any emails from Republicans, but then again I never do, and don't expect to although they, as the Democrats, have long been aware that our troops lacked the proper armor for personal protective equipment and combat vehicles.
You see, all this "sudden outrage" is not so sudden. I have sent at least 25 letters in the last year alone demanding to know why a trillion dollar plus war could (or would from a readiness stand-point) have soldiers in the field -- where IEDs are the weapon of choice -- without armor; why these soldiers taxpaying families at home were raising money to buy their fathers, husbands, and children armor that a $2 trillion war should have had in spades (families paid S&H too); why there was talk in some media and the Pentagon about reimbursing these families; and why lying Rumsfeld, who claimed "lack of production capacity" never responded to the armor-supplier CEO that declared his company could produce at a 20% higher production capacity than was OKed by the Pentagon. Rumsfeld was sorely taken to task on one of his "impromptu" talks with US troops while visiting Iraq (in his arsenal/bunker on wheels -- armored-to-the-hilt). Yet now after close to 3 years, it is a big issue. Reportedly, the armor has been available since 2003.
The truth is that a new Pentagon report concludes that "[e]xpanded armor can save soldiers' lives." So now the Dems get righteous and mine political "paydirt." The Bush Chickenhawk Neocons and GOP will stay with the Rove playbook and act shocked but say or do little. And many of the 2,200 dead families and the 16,000 wounded will wonder why and what could have been.
Shame on them all, Democrats and Republicans, with their whole families and "whole" family members who never set foot on Iraq or Afghan soil with or without armor, now clamoring for an accounting.
Amanda is a managing editor at OpEdNews and has worked with Rob Kall on the site since 2004. A retired research ethnographer specializing in organization and technological innovation and strategic business development, she now resides in Georgia where she builds and restores wooden and fiberglass boats with her husband, Tom, a retired electrical engineer. Amanda grew up in the Commonwealth of Kentucky on the 9AA that runs along the Ohio in an area that gave the world Larry Flynt, the Clooneys, Roy Rogers, Tommy T. Hall, Jesse Stuart, Henry Clay, and some of best bootleggers the Feds never caught.
Amanda Lang, PhD - Virginia Tech '93; US Army Veteran, E-5, 52D20
Since 2004, General Wesley Clark has called for more body armor and protection for our troops;
"We owe the men and women in the Armed Forces a tremendous debt of gratitude. And we owe them the proper equipment - armored vest, armored vehicles, and radios - so they can do the job safely. Yet, more than a year after the President sent them to battle, they still don't have this equipment. Some 200 lives might have been spared had they had the protective gear and armored equipment that the mission requires. 200 Lives. This is inexcusable. The Bush Administration should have addressed this issue long ago and must do so immediately. -Wesley Clark, 5.8.04 (Dem Radio Address)"
Please sign his petition here to demand for better body armor for our troops!;
"...The Times report continued, noting that "such armor has been available since 2003," but the Pentagon declined to supply it to the troops despite "calls from the field for additional protection."
More than 1700 American troops have died during combat. And according to the Times analysis, as many as 300 deaths could have been prevented if our soldiers were equipped with the right kind of body armor -- armor that costs as little as $260 per set. ..." -Wesley Clark, 1.11.06"
The following are just a few examples of Wes Clark's concern for the troops:
10/31/2004 General Wesley Clark released the following statement today:
"Vice President Cheney should be ashamed of himself for his last ditch efforts to mislead Americans about John Kerry. George Bush and Dick Cheney turned their back on our troops by attempting to cut their combat pay while our troops faced enemy fire on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. They turned their back on our troops when they sent them into combat without the body and vehicle armor they needed, and then opposed reimbursing families who were forced to buy their loved ones this needed body armor. They turned their back on our troops by cutting funding for VA hospitals and by reducing the availability of health insurance.
"The Bush administration has neglected our troops and used them. It has failed them. Troops need good leadership with a strategic plan and a vision for success. George Bush has given them neither. By failing to use all the tools of diplomacy to reinforce our military efforts in Iraq, George Bush has let the troops down.
"It's appalling that Dick Cheney has the audacity to question John Kerry's commitment to our troops. The Bush Cheney campaign is showing its desperation."
http://releases.usnewswire.com/...
27 May 2005
Today, America continues to face national security challenges. And as Democrats, we are resolved to meet those challenges and defend America from danger.
This starts with making sure that we have the right men and women in service and then equipping, training, and organizing them to be the most effective fighting force in the world.
That means our men and women in uniform should be paid fairly and they and their families should be taken care of while they are fighting overseas or serving at home. We should be spending every penny that they ask for on things like body armor and armored vehicles to keep them safe.
http://wesleyclark.meetup.com/...
Dec. 14, 2004 on CNN
ZAHN: But General, even the president has conceded, they made a miscalculation. There was no way to judge just how strong this insurgency movement was going to be, and they have said all along, if these commanders on the ground needed more troops, we'll send them. Do you see people crying for help over there right now? Maybe recently in the last couple of months we've seen, give us 15,000 more soldiers. CLARK: What I see is the weight of the administration trying to -- with multiple agendas on this. This administration came to office with the plan to cut the size of the ground forces, so it could invest in national missile defense. And then took that agenda and tried to constrain the use of the ground forces in Iraq initially. And then subsequently has retarded efforts to bring the ground forces up to strength and put the kind of capabilities in there we need. Frankly, I was astonished that their response of the armor plate manufacturers the other day, they hadn't been asked to work overtime and produced the armor plate, because anybody in a high position knows that the real strategic weakness for the American armed forces, when it's committed, is losses. We don't like to take casualties.
So if you're leading this force, the number one thing you're going to do is you're going to say, how do I avoid the casualties? Put that armor on there. Spare no expense. Work overtime.
ZAHN: SO when you hear that Pentagon spokespeople, spokesmen or women saying, they've got everything they need, what are they doing? They're lying?
Oct. 28, 2004
General Wesley Clark issued the following statement today: "For President George W. Bush to send Rudolph Giuliani out on television to say that the 'actual responsibility' for the failure to secure explosives lies with the troops is insulting and cowardly."
"The President approved the mission and the priorities. Civilian leaders tell military leaders what to do. The military follows those orders and gets the job done. This was a failure of civilian leadership, first in not telling the troops to secure explosives and other dangerous materials, and second for not providing sufficient troops and sufficient equipment for troops to do the job.
"President Bush sent our troops to war without sufficient body armor, without a sound plan and without sufficient forces to accomplish the mission. Our troops are performing a difficult mission with skill, bravery and determination. They deserve a commander in chief who supports them and understands that the buck stops in the Oval Office, not one who gets weak knees and shifts blame for his mistakes."
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
