Bush Budget Causing Iraq Casualies (Bush withholds requested funds)

[papau]

http://daily.misleader.org/
BUSH BUDGET ANTICS CAUSING MORE IRAQ CASUALTIES

President Bush has promised to listen to military commanders and give the troops whatever they need to defend themselves in Iraq. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said last week that the "the President looks to the commanders in the theater to make the determinations of what is needed for our troops" (1). Yet the President continues to withhold funding that military officials say is desperately needed to plug shortfalls in armor and protection equipment (2). And, according to a new study, those shortfalls
have meant 25% more American casualties in Iraq (3).

According to Newsweek, an unofficial study circulating through the army shows that of the 190 soldiers killed by landmines, improvised explosive devices, or rocket-propelled grenade attacks, "almost all those were killed while in unprotected vehicles, which means that perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them." Additionally, "thousands more who were unprotected have
suffered grievous wounds, such as the loss of limbs."

Instead of following through on his promise to give the military the
protection equipment it needs, however, President Bush has left major
funding holes in the most basic areas. The situation has gotten so dire that military commanders last week desperately begged Congress to fill key shortfalls left by the President's budget. They described a $132 million shortfall for bolt-on vehicle armor, an $879 million in shortfall for combat helmets, and a $40 million shortfall for body armor. Meanwhile, according to the Chicago Tribune, the White House has "dramatically reduced the number of
Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles in Iraq" -- even as the fighting intensified, leaving troops to "ride in lightly protected Humvees, trucks and troop carriers" that are much more vulnerable to attack (4).

SOURCE:
1. Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, 04/21/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1338421&l=30741.
2. "War May Require More Money Soon", Washington Post, 04/21/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1338421&l=30742.
3. "The Human Cost", Newsweek, May 3, 2003, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1338421&l=30743.
4. "Insurgents' escalation taxing U.S. capabilities", Chicago Tribune, 04/24/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1338421&l=30744.

[central scrutinizer]

1. the "contractors" have all they need

of course, they are working on "cost-plus" contracts so they get all the armored Humvees.

[PsN2Wind]

2. Kerry needs to take off the gloves.

He should have a message out there "the money that Bush and Cheney saved in their taxes this year would have, by itself, paid for X sets of body armor for the troops in Iraq".

[Zhade]

10. Send this to Kerry. We'll see if he says anything.

Let's hope he does.

[TacticalPeek]

3. Shrub should be beat about the head and shoulders with this.

Short-changing the troops! Where is the outrage?!


DU thread: Pentagon officials asked to explain Iraq armor difficulties

[mbperrin]

4. Meanwhile, Karen Hughes is on TV smarming

with "Kerry shockingly criticized the military in 1971. I know my daddy did everything right in Vietnam."

Didn't she leave last year to raise her son? Grow fast, don't they?

The names of every casualty in this fiasco should be tattooed on the bodies of every executive branch member.

[Just Me]

5. Shame, shame,...screwing our soldiers for political purposes,...

,...which are used for personal gain!!!

BOOOOOO!

[symbolman]

6. I bring this all up

in my flash movie "Murder by Numbers"

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/murderby.html

I've coined the phrase "McSoldier" -- they get peanuts while the "contractors" get hundreds of thousands..

[TNOE]

7. How's this playing

in freeper world? Anybody checked........

[maddezmom]

8. even repubs are asking for info, maybe there is hope yet

<<Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he is concerned that the Pentagon’s defense acquisition system does not have “the ability to rapidly meet our soldiers’ needs” for force protection, especially protecting convoys against improvised explosive devices, or roadside bombs.>>

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=21815

[truthisfreedom]

9. US$879M SHORTFALL FOR COMBAT HELMETS???? LOOK AT THESE NUMBERS.

ok, we have 150k troops in Iraq? SO WE ARE SHORT $5860 PER MAN FOR COMBAT HELMETS?

who is supplying these helmets? WHAT KIND OF MAFIA? god, this is so corrupt... our national treasury is being emptied into the pockets of madmen and mafiosos.

[seasat]

11. There's even a good article in Newsweek on this.

The Human Cost

A breakdown of the casualty figures suggests that many U.S. deaths and wounds in Iraq simply did not need to occur. According to an unofficial study by a defense consultant that is now circulating through the Army, of a total of 789 Coalition deaths as of April 15 (686 of them Americans), 142 were killed by land mines or improvised explosive devices, while 48 others died in rocket-propelled-grenade attacks. Almost all those soldiers were killed while in unprotected vehicles, which means that perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them, the study suggested. Thousands more who were unprotected have suffered grievous wounds, such as the loss of limbs.
...
According to internal Pentagon e-mails obtained by NEWSWEEK, the Humvee situation is so bad that the head of the U.S. Army Forces Command, Gen. Larry Ellis, has urged that more of the new Stryker combat vehicles be put into the field. Sources say that the Army brass back in Washington have not yet concurred with that. The problem: the rubber-tire Strykers are thin-skinned and don't maneuver through dangerous streets as well as the fast-pivoting, treaded Bradley. According to a well-placed Defense Department source, the Army is so worried about the Stryker's vulnerability that most of the 300-vehicle brigade currently in Iraq has been deployed up in the safer Kurdish region around Mosul. "Any further south, and the Army was afraid the Arabs would light them up," he said.
...
The need for more armor—and possibly troops—erupted as an issue on Capitol Hill last week in combative hearings of the Senate and House Armed Services committees. "We are not structured for the security environment we're in," Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers told senators and congressmen, including some angry Republicans. As part of his 2005 budget request, Rumsfeld had originally cut the Army budget by 6 percent. But the Army has identified nearly $6 billion in unfunded requests—and more are on the way. "The costs are going to be staggering," says Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who has pestered the Pentagon for months for better estimates. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told the House committee that military operations in Iraq are now costing about $4.7 billion a month—a sum that approaches the $5 billion a month (on average) that the Vietnam War cost, adjusted for inflation.


Oops, didn't notice that link to this article already added to the bottom of the original post.

[Plaid Adder]

12. Well the point is really that Bush's *war* is causing Iraq casualties...

Every single American soldier who's died over there is his fault. There was no reason for them to be there at all, armored humvees or no armored humvees.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[NewYorkerfromMass]

13. Who sent troops into harm's way without body armor?

Bush did.

[Hobarticus]

14. Ah, but it was KERRY's fault....

...because he voted against body armor. Specifically. Yep, Kerry wanted our troops unarmed too, but polls showed that Americans wouldn't believe that claim, so they backed off.

This is the adminstration of integrity and responsibility, doncha know. It's just someone else's fault.