Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Sen. Clinton Says Lack of Body Armor is 'Unforgivable'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
jbfam4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 04:03 PM
Original message
Sen. Clinton Says Lack of Body Armor is 'Unforgivable'
Sen. Clinton Says Lack of Body Armor is 'Unforgivable'
She Has Called for an Investigation Into Why Soldiers Are Not Fully Protected

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/print?id=1489733

Jan. 10, 2006 — - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called the Bush administration "incompetent" when it came to protecting the troops in combat and called the lack of adequate body armor for soldiers and Marines "unforgivable."

So far in Iraq, more than 2,100 American troops have been killed. Critics like Clinton, D-N.Y., say that many of these deaths are the result of inadequate body armor. A secret Pentagon study of 93 Marines who were killed in Iraq found that 74 died after they were hit by a bullet or shrapnel in the torso or shoulders -- areas unprotected by the armor most are issued.


Clinton pointed to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney as the culprits. Some have said that supplying Marines and soldiers with armor that covers their sides is too expensive -- costing about $260 for each person. Clinton said that considering the United States' defense budget was half a trillion dollars, the additional protection was affordable. She said the administration had refused to listen to people in the field like Paul Bremer, former ambassador to Iraq, who said the United States needed more troops in Iraq to pacify the country.

"This is Bush/Cheney policy. … I've been one of the leading critics pointing out all the failures, the incompetencies," Clinton said. "I am just bewildered as to how this president and this vice president continue to isolate themselves from different point of views. He's got three more years in office. Some of us wish this wasn't the case."



The Defense Department and Army said that they needed more time to acquire the armor and that publicly discussing issues of body armor aided the enemy -- claims that Clinton dismissed as out of hand.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yeah, but how much can you wear and still function?
I think our people should have whatever they need, but when it comes to body armor for the foot soldier, there is only so much you can wear, especially in the heat of Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MidwestTransplant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Mobility is certainly important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. Murtha thought the best armor was in redeploying
But I guess the talking point has changed from redeployment to staying the course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JAbuchan08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
4. That's it Hillary! Pick your battles!
I'm glad she's found an issue she could sink her teeth into.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
5. So we're spending >$60 Billion and can't afford $260/soldier?? WTF? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC