BS: Kerry on Body Armor

Subject: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: PoppaGator
Date: 01 Aug 04 - 02:31 PM

One of several things Kerry mentioned in his acceptance speech related to how things would be different in the America he envisions:

"No family should have to worry about whether they can afford body armor for their son if he is called to combat in Iraq."

I was amazed and horrified at the implications, and I was surprised that no one else seems to have taken note of this at all.

What the hell is going one here? The US Army **used to** equip its members with the best available protective equipment when sending them into danger. Now, apparently, underpaid enlisted men are offered the option to equip *themselves* with bulletproof garments, if and only if they have the funds to do so.

Of course, the US Army used to maintain its own mess halls and quartermaster facilities, too. Now, such support services are provided on a for-profit basis by Halliburton.

I'm glad [not] to hear that some fat-cat corporation has found a way to turn a profit by selling essential life-protecting equipment to those among American combat troops who can afford it.

Does this mean anything to you radicals and Naderites? (Not to mention you right-wingers who cry "Support the Troops!") Sure, it may be true on some level that "Republicats" are all the same, but on another, very important, level, the current worst-ever neocon Republicans are different indeed from the Democrats -- much more shameless and cynical than any bunch of American politicians have ever been before.

PLEASE get out and vote for "Anyone-But-Bush," no matter how you feel about his millions or his military past. The current gang of murderous thieves has GOT to go, and votes for third- and fourth-party cadidates are only going to help them stay in office.

Incidentally, on this morning's "Meet the Press" TV show, Tim Russert mentioned that National Guard units called into combat are being sent without body armor. Regular Army personnel apparently are issued the armor, but "citizen soldiers" (who are less well-prepared for combat to begin with) are burdened with the additional handicap of being left without protective equipment.

Russert said nothing about the option of buying one's own set of armor, presumably from Dick Cheney's business associates. Will this ever come up in the nationwide media?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 04 - 02:47 PM

It would be much better for the troops if Senator Kerry would promise to bring the troops home immediately upon taking office, rather than send a few of the boys some body armor.

The troops are MUCH safer here than they are in Iraq, with or without body armor.

BTW, what is Senator Kerry proposing we do about the Abu Ghraib torture scandal?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: PoppaGator
Date: 01 Aug 04 - 03:16 PM

The troops should never have been sent, certainly, but *NOBODY* of any party who has any chance of actually controlling the situation is at all likely to stage an immediate withdrawal, not would such a thing be possible, anyway. It took months and months to get them in there, as you might recall. Plus which, unlike when they were being assembled in staging areas, they'll be getting shot at while they withdraw.

Anyway, my point was not the comparative safety of staying home vs. wearing body armor in combat, but to decry the inhuman cynicism of offering soldiers essential protective gear ONLY AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE, and to reflect upon the profiteers behind this policy.

Beyond that, what would *you* propose to "do about" the torture scandal? Short of turning back the clock and causing it never to have happened, of course. The immediate perpetrators were dumb low-level enlisted personnel, not even full-time regular Army if I'm not mistaken, but reservists. The higher-ups who allowed it to happen and probably provided some tacit, highly deniable, encouragement -- there's no way of knowing just who to blame, how high up to look. Whoever is really guilty will probably get away with it.

Election of the Demo ticket would at least ensure the removal of Ashcroft, Rummy, et al, along with Bush and Cheney, so there would no longer be officials proposing that torture be officially sanctioned by the US of A. I'd prefer to see them rot in jail, of course (or in hell, better yet), but the best we can expect is to see them out of office and back in their comfortable corporate suites.

The only hope is to try and assure that it doesn't happen again.

Oh, and by the way: I didn't mean to say "The current gang of murderous thieves" -- I meant to say "gang of LYING murderous thieves."

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 04 - 03:16 PM

And as to the claim that the US army USED to treat the grunts better before George W. Bush came along...don't make me laugh.

Treated them well like when they used them for guinea pigs during nuclear bomb testing in Nevada? Or sprayed them and every other living thing with Agent Orange and then denied them and their children who were profoundly sick as a result of it, health care for their problems for decades?

How about depleted uranium? Ever heard of that shit, or maybe a little thing called "Gulf War Syndrome"? Do you have any idea how many people have been effected by it since Gulf War I? And many more of our troops are being exposed to it now in Gulf War II.

But don't take my word for it, ask some Gulf War vets here:

Gulf War Veteran Resource Pages

Or here:

Gulf War Syndrome II

What does John Kerry have to say about the use of depleted uranium shells RIGHT NOW by our troops, hmmm?

God you Anybody But Bush fanatics will stoop to any disingenuous depths of third world sewer to make your boy look like a saint, won't you?

And BTW, I am voting for Anybody But Bush. I'm voting for David Cobb of the Green Party. He is Anybody, and he isn't Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Aug 04 - 03:46 PM

Good point, GUEST. Bush I was almost as bad as Bush II. And the relevance of this to Kerry is..?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: PoppaGator
Date: 01 Aug 04 - 03:51 PM

I can't argue with you, GUEST, because I don't really disagree with you all that much. Except when you resort to something like this:

"God you Anybody But Bush fanatics will stoop to any disingenuous depths of third world sewer to make your boy look like a saint, won't you?"

I never claimed sainthood for Mr. Kerry (although I really admired him 30+ years ago, when he addressed Congress as a Vietnam Vet Against the War) -- I just propose that, this time around at least, there is a lesser of two evils and the difference is critically important. You obviously don't agree, and it doesn't look like either of us is about to persuade the other.

As for "disingenuous depths of third world sewer" -- are you referring to any specific thing I said/wrote? Or just being nasty?

Really, which of us comes off as a fanatic and which a realist? Anybody out there have an opinion? Has anyone else even looked at this thread? (I had hoped the subject/title would have attracted more than a single response.) Anyone have anything *interesting* to add on this topic?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 04 - 03:53 PM

What would I do about the Abu Ghraib torture scandal?

I'm glad you asked PoppaGator!

First, I would have the US join the International Criminal Court.

Then I would send Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz there to defend the soldiers accused of the torture allegations before that tribunal.

Then, I would work with the Iraqi government to immediately set up a war crimes tribunal to prosecute both the Saddam era war criminals, and the post-Saddam era war criminals, including the Coalition of the Willing forces, and their leaders back home.

I would immediately demand special prosecutors set up a special investigation into the cover-up of the abuse at the Pentagon, the White House, and in the US Congress.

And as to it being "impossible" to bring the troops home immediately, what you are really saying is that according to the White House, Congressional, Pentagon, and mainstream media propaganda line, it is impossible to bring the troops home immediately.

However, a number of former high ranking military leaders have already said that it can and should be done immediately, now that power has been transferred to the Iraqis, and NATO has agreed to go into Iraq to train Iraqi military and police (I believe the first NATO forces are to be on the ground with the next two weeks).

Yes, it would take months to get our troops home. But they could all be home for Christmas this year. Anyone who says differently is just a lying used car salesman of the Richard Nixon ilk.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: PoppaGator
Date: 01 Aug 04 - 04:21 PM

I agree that "home by Christmas" is probably realistic if movement could start today. Of course, Bush may not swallow his pride and do so immediately. If he doesn't, and even if the Dems are voted in, they won't take power until January and even the speediest withdrawal, if begun in early '05, would take a few more months. Of course, you can *start* withdrawal immediately (the only way to start *anything* at any time is to do so immediately), but I think we agree that it cannot *happen* immediately, but only over a period of several months. Whether it takes two to three months or six to eight, we'll have to see -- I hope we get to see!

I *like* your vision of having Rummy and that sanctimonious prig Ashcroft tried as war criminals, but I don't think that any American politician could possibly come down quite that hard on a rival, no matter how badly the guy might deserve it. Leaders of any national government are stuck with their predecessors, and have no choice but to acknowledge some degree of continuity (except of course where there has been a revolution).

Having special prosecutors come down hard on the liars who got us into this mess also looks like a welcome change from the days of Ken Starr. However, even if weilded in a cause with which I would agree, I've come to distrust the special-prosecutor approach, which seems to involve *huge* expenditures of government (i.e., taxpayer) money on revenge and political vendetta.

I'm outta here -- I'm past due for a break from this nonsense. It stopped raining, the sun is out, and I've spent too much time sitting in fron of this damn PC! If I respond, it'll be tomorrow or later.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 04 - 04:30 PM

Be prepared for Bush to announce the troops will be home by Christmas in order to trump Kerry's "I too am a war president" strategy to win the election as the war president hero.

If I can think of this on a Sunday afternoon killing time in an internet chat forum, what makes you think Karl Rove, who spends his entire life devoted to this shit, hasn't thought of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 04 - 05:02 PM

Shrub I was MUCH WORSE than Shrub II. Shrub I continues to be the only man to ever head both the secret US government (as head of the CIA), and then move into the West Wing as veep, and the Oval Office.

He was the man pulling Reagan's strings, and he is pulling his son's strings. Shrub I, Inc. has been calling the shots in this country since the mid-1970s.

Michael Moore should have made the film about the Carlisle Group. We would have learned a whole lot more about how power works in our country and who is calling the shots. Instead, he just barely mentions them, choosing to do the predictable liberal "Bash Dubya" thing instead. His film suffers for that schizophrenic presentation.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: GUEST,Don Firth (having log-in problems)
Date: 01 Aug 04 - 05:41 PM

Germaine to the original point, one of Bush's TV commercials says (among other things) that Kerry voted against body armor. A 1% truth twisted into a pretty disgusting, opportunistic lie. Kerry voted against the $87,000,000,000 re-up that Bush asked Congress for, which contained a line item about body armor, along with God knows how many other line items (much of it aimed at enriching Halliburton). Kerry knew the appropriation had more than enough votes to pass, so he voted "No" as a protest against the way Bush was handling the war. But a really disgusting truth of the matter is that, at the start of the war, when the troops were first sent into Iraq, many of them did not have adequate body armor, some, none at all. Part of the $87,000,000,000 appropriation was to supply the troops with the equipment they should have had before the war began.

You can be damned sure that if this war had been started on Kerry's watch, it would have been
1. absolutely necessary, not the whim of a bunch of neo-con imperialists, and
2. the troops sure as hell would have been properly equipped.

Having been in the military and having been shot at (and wounded), Kerry would never have let anything like this happen.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Aug 04 - 05:53 PM

It may be germane to review the position concerning British Troops and body armour. This supports Don's general point, and Poppagator's initial post, even though they were, I think, only thinking about US troops at the time of posting.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: Sorcha
Date: 01 Aug 04 - 06:44 PM

I am so sick of political threads......I know who I'm voting for and it's none of your bidness. Just keep it at home.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: DougR
Date: 01 Aug 04 - 09:15 PM

PG: Kerry voted against the appropriations bill that included purchasing body armor for the troops. That, it seems to me, emminently qualifies him as a expert on the subject.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 04 - 09:19 PM

Sorcha, if you are so sick of political threads, then why are you in one posting?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: GUEST,Don Firth (still having log-in problems)
Date: 01 Aug 04 - 09:30 PM

Doug, you're just repeating Bush's lie. Read what I what I wrote. If you really want, I can provide documentation.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Aug 04 - 09:34 PM

Doug, Kerry voted for the bill, which mostly included money for "reconstruction" contracts, when it included a way to pay for the $87 billion. He then voted against it when that provision was stripped out and the money bacame a direct addition to the deficit. Body armor, as such, does not appear in the body of the bill...this $300 million is part of the $1,078,687,000 designated as "Other Procurement-Army.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Aug 04 - 10:29 PM

Hey, Guest! How's ol' George and John and Tom? Say hi for me the next time you report, okay?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 11:31 AM

Only 4 senators voted against the 87 billion dollar bill which included body armor.   Kerry and Edwards were two of them.   Joe Biden said on national tv that Kerry was "dead wrong" in voting against it.   

During the 90's Kerry voted against a litany of military spending.   To now say that he would never send in troups without the proper equipment is BS.    Hearing some of you defend his vote is equally pathetic. No conservative spin doctor could make up a more stupid line than "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it"   Gee- that cleared it up.

A comment was also made that Kerry would only have gone into Iraq if "absolutely necessary"   I guessed you missed his comments during the Clinton administation where Kerry said there were WMD's and we needed to invade Iraq.    Some artists have their "blue phase". I guess Kerry had his "war phase"

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 11:49 AM

Kerry's vote was opportunistic and manipulative. It was purely to get the anti-war Democrats lined up behind him, so he could forget abut them come convention time, and court the same voters Republicans are courting.

You can't forget that there were millions of anti-war protestors in the capitals and big cities around the world at the time he voted for this.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 02:03 PM

Jesus, LarryK, your lack of understanding of the way Washington works is amazing. Kerry voted against a WHOLE BILL, not against "body armor for the troops" or even "the 87 million." The Bill was structured in such a way as to GIVE TAXPAYER MONEY DIRECTLY TO HALLIBURTON, and then to ADD THAT EXPENDITURE DIRECTLY TO THE DEFICIT. That's what he voted against.

Now I believe that conservative values do not include this kind of deficit taxation for pork-barrel programs. The previous version of the bill, which found specific sources for the money, and which Kerry voted FOR, was therefore MORE CONSERVATIVE.

This president can get away with any radical tax scheme he wants to. As long as the billions go directly to his cronies in industry, and we get meaningless 100 dollar refund checks, he remains the darling of conservatives. it's obscene!

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 07:46 PM

Tain't the way I heard it Art. Kerry voted to authorize the president to invade Iraq if the prez thought it was necessary. The prez requested 87 billion to pay for the war. Kerry voted AGAINST the appropriation (along with his playmate, John Edwards and three or four other Democrats, because they wanted to cut out 20 billion from the 87 billion so that the funds could not be used as discreationary funds by the president. The agginners didn't trust Bush with the 20 billion (they probably thought he would buy oil with it and give it to his vice-president or even better, give it to Halliburton.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry on Body Armor
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 09:32 PM

Sorry, Doug, but I don't think you can get impartial information from the Bush commercials. The vote for/against the supplemental appropriation, which included the "body armor" money somewhere in it, was a long time after the vote for/against the war itself. In addition to Mr. Kerry, 10 other Democrats and one Independent voted against the final bill. More information, including links to the roll call, is here.