Majority of GOP Senators vote against uparmoring humvees in Iraq

[Secretariat]

Why did 39 GOP Senators just vote against the procurement of uparmoring humvees in Iraq? Only 1 Dem Senator voted against it.

Here’s a few who voted against the uparmoring. So much for protecting our troops I guess.

Chambliss - GA
Dole – NC
Frist – TN
Hatch – UT
Sessions – AL

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00108

Maybe i'm missing something here, and Isbets I am interested on your opinion on this.

[ljb]

For shame, for shame.

[PaceAdvantage]

Once we get a definition as to what exactly "uparmoring humvees" entails, I'm sure the situation will become clearer to the clueless among us (I include myself in this group). Buzzwords just don't do it...I need meat before I can comment.

I also eagerly await lsbets' comments, as I'm sure he's probably one of the few, if not only one around here who is qualified to comment with authority.

[DJofSD]

Let's just take a wild ass guess. There was likely some kind of liberal democratic pork attached to the bill.

Wouldn't be the first time that would make a legit bill go south.

DJofSD

[Tom]

Probably some cash in that pork barrel for vallium for Howard Dean!

[lsbets]

Sec, go look up the link on the text of the amendment and tell me how much pork is in it. Maybe the vote was based on other items attached to it. From what I saw, it looked like a whole bunch of unrelated stuff was piled on. That's one of the problems with DC - nothing is straight forward.


Even the term "up armoring humvees" is unclear. I'm willing to bet not too many people could tell me what level 1, level 2, and level 3 up armor is, and what percentage of vehicles have what type of armor, and what issues are associated with each. I can tell you the difference in protection between a level 3 and a level 1 is negligible, there is only so much steel you can put on a humvee and have it be able to run at high speed. The opinion in the field is not that more armor is needed, but that bigger, turbo charged engines are needed, because the existing armor weighs the vehicles down and makes acceleration slow as hell.

Here are the three basic levels:

Level 3 - hillbilly armor, madmax armor, whatever you want to call it. The locally acquired and designed steel bolted on the vehicle. It was all over the place when I got there, and most of it (90%) was replaced with level 2 or better by the time I left.

Level 2 - factory designed kits placed on the vehicles locally. Includes ballistic glass on the windshield. Very heavy, causes lots of suspension problems.

Level 1 - factory direct, heavier suspension on the vehicle. They cost a ton of money and have tendancy to roll over, and are slow as hell. We hauled a ton of these around, and there were hundreds waiting to go north when I left.

Basically, the level 1 and 2 armor kits are the same. There are a few differences, but like I said, the improvement in armor balances out with a loss of speed. And I can tell you, our greatest ally when getting hit by roadside bombs is speed. I would much rather be going 60 miles an hour in a level 3 humvee than 30 miles an hour in a level 1. If you have a 155 round go off right next to your vehicle, it doesn't matter what level armor you have on, you're dead. 155 rounds were made to destroy tanks, and tanks weigh 60 tons. It is physically impossible to put enough armor on a humvee to protect against those. That's why convoys move as fast as possible. Over 40 miles an hour, IEDs are pretty ineffective. It is amazing some of the explosions we drove through where no one was hurt. Why? Because we were going fast. I would not trade down on speed any day. Before they throw more and more armor on humvees, they need to get bigger engines with better acceleration. And a decent seat cushion would be nice too. The VA is denying my disability claim for a flat ass, but 13 months in the seat of a humvee is hell on one's bottom.

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by Secretariat

Chambliss - GA.

This one is a real piece of work

[Secretariat]

Interesting, yet many GOP Senators as well did vote for the bill and it passed.

Remember when Kerry made the statement I voted against the bill before I voted for it kind of resonates with some of the comments above. As Kerry said often I voted against that resolition because it wasn't paid for fiscally. He submitted an amendment to make sure that it would be paid for and the "pork" stripped out of it. That amendment was defeated, and they passed a resolution loaded with "pork." Now, when Kerry votes for a bill to protect our troops, which is passed, despite some far-right neocons trying to stop it, and now the claim is "pork". You can't really have your cake and eat it.

The Bayh amendment was bi-partisan sponsored, and passed with almost a 2/3rds majority, yet without any research many here jump to defend their partisan neocons without any personal research of their own. I put up the link from the Senate site showing how each member voted, and where you can do your own research. Rick Santorum voted for the bill. A very conservative senator and a staunch supporter of the Iraq War. So who is wrong, him or Chamblis or Liddy Dole?

Frankly, I'm glad to see the uparmoring. It should have been in the first Iraq War resolution before we put troops in harm's way, but I guess there was a rush to find the WMD's back then so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

[lsbets]

Sec, what are you glad to see about the uparmoring? What level of up armor exists now? What is it about the up armor in this bill that makes you happy and how is it different from the current up armor?

[Secretariat]

Originally Posted by lsbets

Sec, what are you glad to see about the uparmoring? What level of up armor exists now? What is it about the up armor in this bill that makes you happy and how is it different from the current up armor?

I am happy about the uparmoring because the need is based on a 142 page report from the non-partisan General Accounting Office (GAO) which is the basic reason for the Bayh Amendment.

The budgeting for the armor does not specific the type of armor to use, it is up to the Pentagon and procurement to determine the most efficient type of armor to purchase. That's their job. As you can see "cost" was cited by the Army as one reason they didn't make purchases.


Aw, heck, read it yourself. Here's the link and some peices from the artice:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...n/11387212.htm

Posted on Wed, Apr. 13, 2005

Military `deficiencies' slow funding of vehicle armor, GAO says
BY TOM INFIELD AND JOSEPH TANFANI
Knight Ridder Newspapers

PHILADELPHIA - (KRT) - The U.S. military was slow to provide funding for armored Humvees in Iraq and did not make full use of the industrial capacity available to produce them, a new congressional study says.
….
The GAO said, however, that some solutions proposed by the Pentagon after reviewing a report draft might not be sufficient. Irwin could not say Thursday whether revised solutions have been offered.
….
The 142-page report, which was dated Friday and landed Wednesday at the House and Senate armed services committees, concludes that "unless the Defense Department improves the availability of critical supplies in wartime," soldiers in future wars WILL LIKELY FACE SIMILAR SHORTAGES.
…
The Army, as of last month, had provided at least some protection for all 35,000 of its vehicles using Iraq roads. But 11,700 of these vehicles were protected only by cut sheets of steel - armor that is inadequate by military's own standards and is scheduled to be upgraded by late this year.
….
Humvees are a kind of bigger, tougher version of Jeeps and can be equipped with machine guns or other weapons, but were not designed as frontline vehicles. When the Iraq occupation began in 2003, few Humvees had enough armor to stop the homemade bombs that insurgents used in increasing numbers against U.S. troops.

The GAO reported being mystified at why the Army - after gearing up to produce 3,998 humvee armor kits per month at its own depots - slowed production after April 2004.
…

The GAO also said the Army, at one point last year, rebuffed an Army facility run by a private contractor - unnamed in the report - that had offered to produce an additional 800 armored door kits for Humvees per month. The Army cited PRICE and "timing" as issues in not accepting the offer, the report said.

...

The Bayh amendment was in response to the GAO Report, and reflects an intention of the Senate to remedy the problem the GAO reveals. The Senate does not determine the specific products to buy, only addresses the need as pointed out by the GAO Report. Hopefully, the Army will not be able to cite "price" again as the reason they did not uparmor sufficiently. Let's just hope that Hatch, Chamblis, and Dole get on-board with supporting our troops and actually reads the GAO report next time.

[lsbets]

I didn't read the report you linked to, but from the excerts you put there don't tell me anything. So the Army said based on price and timing (I wonder what the timing referred to - oh yeah, the attacks going way down after April 2004 might have something to do with it), they did not get extra kits from one contactor.

But, you don't care what the guys in the field have to say - so what if the enw vehicles have problems such as the ones I outlined before. It sounds good to say "voted against up armored humvees". Sure, more armor is nice, but address the other issues the soldiers are talking about involved with the armor. Maybe that's what the Army has been trying to do, and maybe politicians get in the way of that to mollify people such as yourself.

But, who am I to speak about up armored humvees. I guess you'll say I don't support the troops.

[Secretariat]

No Isbets, I'm saying the GAO rmade the recommendation to Congress, and the Senate acted upon it. I'm wondering why Hatch, Chamblis, and Dole rejected the GAO recomendation to help support our troops. Please show me where I questioned your support of the troops. You know that is not true.

I would think you would be proud of Senators (both Dem and Repubs) who allocated 213 mil to protect our servicemen, and address the Army's and GAO concern regarding "price".

[lsbets]

I'm not interested in politicizing the force protection of our soldiers as you seem to be. I laid out the realities of the armor situation on the ground in as much detail as I feel I can go into, I don't give a crap what some bean counters in the GAO have to say. I want to see the issues of rollovers and speed addressed before we force everyone into a vehicle that is politically pleasing. Like I said, I love the armor, but there are other concerns. When the GAO report said the Army mentioned price and timing, I notice you stayed away from the timing issue. I have no idea what they were referring to when they said timing, and without an understanding of that, I cannot comment on the accuracy of the GAO report.

Saying that someone is against supporting out troops because they voted against an amendment to a bill which was loaded with other items in it is ridiculous and only designed to politicize the all too important issue of taking care of our soldiers. Its a ridiculous statement, and you know it, but hey it feels good to grandstand, doesn't it?

Sec, I have a serious question for you - are you on the payroll of the DNC? Because you sure as hell sound like a politician.

[Secretariat]

Originally Posted by lsbets

Saying that someone is against supporting out troops because they voted against an amendment to a bill which was loaded with other items in it is ridiculous and only designed to politicize the all too important issue of taking care of our soldiers. Its a ridiculous statement, and you know it, but hey it feels good to grandstand, doesn't it?

You have got to be kidding me. That's all the Republican party did and said during the election about Kerry's vote. And all Chamblis said about Max Clelland. "They weren't supporting the troops." Don't accuse me of politicizing it when that is all the Republican party did during the 2004 election. Here is the GAO making a recomendation on a failing of the Army and the Senate responding by addressing it, and you call it grandstanding. Problem is if they didn't address the GAO report ,you'd most likely infer inaction, and in that I would have agreed.

As far as the GAO report, they are non-partisan and you are aware of that. The logistics of implementation are left to the armed forces. The appropriation has been addressed unless Bush vetoes which I doubt he'll do. Again I stated right wing nutcase Santorum voted for the bill supporting the armor appropriation. Why couldn't Chamblis, Hatch and Dole?

See this is what bugs me. If the Dems voted against this armor appropriation recommended by he GAO, you'd be all over them. I'm simply asking why did these Senators reject the GAO recomendation, while other GOP senators passed on it. You attack the messenger...but you may want to attack either the GAO or Chamblis, Hatch, or Dole...or maybe Santorum depending on where you stand, but you can't have it all ways.

[ljb]

Sec,
This is the most common approach used by the neocons when they are cornered by the truth, attack the messenger. You have done a good job, thank you.