« Duke Lacrosse Rape Case - Alleged Victim's Credibility Sags | Main | Taking a shotgun to the illegal alien problem »

Democrat Talking Points Killing U.S. Soldiers

In a story we've been following here at Wizbang, more and more evidence is coming in from the field that up-armoring Humvess is killing more soldiers than it has been saving.

Report: Armor Causing Humvees to Roll Over
Report: Heavy Armor Intended to Protect Troops Is Causing Military Humvees in Iraq to Roll Over

DAYTON, Ohio - Thousands of pounds of armor added to military Humvees, intended to protect U.S. troops, have made the vehicles more likely to roll over, killing and injuring soldiers in Iraq, a newspaper reported.

"I believe the up-armoring has caused more deaths than it has saved," said Scott Badenoch, a former Delphi Corp. vehicle dynamics expert told the Dayton Daily News for Sunday editions.

Since the start of the war, Congress and the Army have spent tens of millions of dollars on armor for the Humvee fleet in Iraq, the newspaper reported Sunday.

That armor much of it installed on the M1114 Humvee built at the Armor Holdings Inc. plant north of Cincinnati has shielded soldiers from harm.

But serious accidents involving the M1114 have increased as the war has progressed, and the accidents were much more likely to be rollovers than those of other Humvee models, the newspaper reported.

An analysis of the Army's ground accident database, which includes records from March 2003 through November 2005, found that 60 of the 85 soldiers who died in Humvee accidents in Iraq or 70 percent were killed when the vehicle rolled, the newspaper reported. Of the 337 injuries, 149 occurred in rollovers.

"The whole thing is a formula for disaster," said Badenoch, who is working with the military to design a lighter-armored vehicle to replace the Humvee. ...

Gunners were killed in at least 27 of the 93 fatal Humvee accidents since 2001, according to the newspaper's analysis.

I genuinely hold the Democrats who demagogued this issue responsible for these deaths. The Humvee was commissioned by war planners and designed by engineers to do specific tasks very well. When the Democrats decided they wanted to Bash Bush, they forced the Pentagon to add additional weight to the vehicle damaging the dynamics. That decision has killed people.

We've had evidence for over a year now that the armor might be killing more people than it saved. It now appears to be the case. - You can also read why up-armored Humvess roll so easy on that same link

It might be worth also noting that we at Wizbang knew that randomly up-armoring Humvess was probably not a good idea from the beginning.

You might also want to read the Stupidest News Story Ever Reported. - That one still takes the cake.

In the end this policy is like most liberal policies. It sounds good and gives people advocating it a warm a fuzzy feeling.... It probably just does the opposite of what it is intended to do.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Democrat Talking Points Killing U.S. Soldiers:

» WILLisms.com linked with Surprising Iraq Casualty Stats

» The American Mind linked with Charlie's Show Prep #114

» The Thunder Run linked with Web Reconnaissance for 06/12/2006

» Loaded Mouth linked with Fighting 101st Keyboards...

» Dadmanly linked with The Cost of Armor

» whereIstand.com/adamelijah linked with Politicians Cried, People Died

Comments (51)

Dateline: Washington<... (Below threshold)

Dateline: Washington

Congress approves bill that would ban Humvee rollovers

In response to increased rollovers by up-armored Humvee vehicles used by forces in Iraq, both houses of Congress passed a join resulution banning such rollovers. Any future vehicle rollovers will result in the unit commander being held personally responsible.

Senator Arlen Sphincter also announced hearings to investigate any violation of Humvee rights in the application of the armor.

Body armour is OK up to a l... (Below threshold)
serfer62:

Body armour is OK up to a limit. Then it becomes burdensome. But Combat is something Kommiecrats think is like PC, enviromental protection, global warming.

Same with vechicles, too much and unexpected consequences rears its head.

Senator sphincter. LOL. That and McAss...

An analysis of the Army'... (Below threshold)
mantis:

An analysis of the Army's ground accident database, which includes records from March 2003 through November 2005, found that 60 of the 85 soldiers who died in Humvee accidents in Iraq or 70 percent were killed when the vehicle rolled, the newspaper reported. Of the 337 injuries, 149 occurred in rollovers.

Well, aren't the unknown numbers here the ratio of casualties to armored Humvees vs. unarmored (less armored) Humvees hit by IEDs and the number of IED attacks on armored Humvees? The numbers cited in the article only seem to deal with accidents, not attacks. It would seem that if the number of soldiers protected during attacks is greater than the number injured or killed in accidents, than it would be worth it, right?

I understand this is simplistic utilitarian equation, and doesn't necessarily take into account other consequences of increased armor that Jay pointed out in 12/04, but from the simple standpoint of casualty numbers, shouldn't you at least take into account the benefits of the armor, and not just the drawbacks?

Paul"Dem... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Paul

"Democrat Talking Points Killing U.S. Soldiers"

There wouldn't be any "talking points" if the Chimp hadn't been responsible for killing all 2500 Americans by starting the Iraq War in the 1st place.

The whole thrust of your post just goes to show what dumb asses the Right are that you people go to such an absurd extent as your hate garbage above, thinking that you have scored some point.

You are functioning on the same level as the Bitch of Bile, Ann Cunter with your preposterous take.

some armor, if only added t... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

some armor, if only added to the bottom of the hummers, would actually decrease rollovers by lowering the center of gravity. and this would still protect from some IED blasts.

so what should the army do? say to gunners, "sorry, armoring the top of the vehicle can cause a rollover, so just be aware that you are more susceptible to small arms fire."

that seems like the only solution to this and then let the unit decide what they feel the bigger risk is, rollovers or shoot-outs?

blaming this on Dems is a pretty flimsy argument.

If by Chimps you mean Sadda... (Below threshold)

If by Chimps you mean Saddam Hussein & Co. refusing to allow complete and unfettered inspections which would have avoided the war altogether, I would have to agree.

So you're blaming Saddam fo... (Below threshold)

So you're blaming Saddam for this? All Saddam did was deny responsibility for 9/11 and deny foreign powers (re: USA) to enter his country on a fishing expedition. To date, the fact that absolutely no WMD have been found indicates he was telling the truth.

Place the blame where it belongs. Saddam may be a dictator who ruled with a brutal fist, but he didn't have a stockpile of WMDs with which to attack America.

Bush initiated this war/occupation because he was either clueless, irrationally reactionary, or allowed his common sense to be overtaken by the pissing match with Saddam over the UN search squads.

The fact is, it's been proven that invading Iraq was a mistake. Now the only question is, are we going to stay there another few years and lose hundreds of young American men and women every year, or will we pull out soon?

mantis I have been clear fr... (Below threshold)
Paul:

mantis I have been clear from the begining that we need to determine if there is a "body profit." (grusume but true) It is begining to look like we are not.

-----

some armor, if only added to the bottom of the hummers, would actually decrease rollovers by lowering the center of gravity.

Um not quite... There is WAAAY more to it. That's fine in a static model but a 4WD truck bouncing thru the desert being shot at is far from static.

You complelty ignore the issue of momentum which is how the vast majority of vehicle rollovers occur... After all they don't roll while sitting still. (see my earlier post)

As counterintuitve as it sounds simply adding armor only to the bottom may well increase roll overs.

Now- If you moved the same mass (weight of armor) from the top to the bottom THEN your statement would be correct. ADDING weight changes everything.

So you're blaming Saddam... (Below threshold)

So you're blaming Saddam for this?

Every single tiny bit. Even the little tiny bits under that pile of camel dung over there (pointing).

Saddam had right up to the very last minute to avoid the whole thing. He would still be there running his little show like a happy little dictator and his sons would still be alive raping the local chicks and torturing soccer players just like old times.

We were pretty clear in what the choice was, the choice was his and he chose war. He thought we were bluffing. He probably thinks that's a trick noose on that gallows too and that after he drops through the trap door, he will appear on a Las Vegas stage or something.

It's his fault, all of it.

Looks like old "mak-i-e 44 ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Looks like old "mak-i-e 44 2/3" has him another pucker pal in "overworm" (or is that "cluelessworm?)

Saddam Hussein is responsib... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Saddam Hussein is responsible for the deaths of 2,000,000 people. And here we have a couple of silly liberals whinning about WMDs again. And although Saddam used them, he didn't really need them to be a bad guy. Hitler didn't have the peaceniks favorite acronym either. Liberals are blissfully content to stand by while people die by the sword and the gun, while pretending they actually care about a little poison. Come now. We'd all be dead by now if we let liberals defend us.

You are functioning on t... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

You are functioning on the same level as the Bitch of Bile, Ann Cunter with your preposterous take.

Yes, Ann Coulter is the one full of bile.

So you're blaming Saddam for this? All Saddam did was deny responsibility for 9/11 and deny foreign powers (re: USA) to enter his country on a fishing expedition.

Ironically, Saddam had no power to deny entry --- seeing as how the ceasefire he signed guaranteed open access which he NEVER honored at any point.
-=Mike

Mike, I have to disagree wi... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Mike, I have to disagree with you.

Mak44's refusal to acknowledge the reality you bring up -- that Saddam had no right to deny inspections -- is not "ironic." It is deliberate denial of simple facts that would impinge on his world-view. And when reality contradicts what mak wants us all to swallow, then actual, historical facts need to be omitted, forgotten, buried, or outright rewritten.

And when all else fails, go for shock value and outright profanity, coarseness, and gratuitous personal insults.

Sorry to ruin your standard tactics, mak, but they really are getting old and tiresome.

J.

Sorry to ruin your... (Below threshold)
Marc:
Sorry to ruin your standard tactics, mak, but they really are getting old and tiresome.

J.

Then talk to Kevin and ask why the troll is still around.

He should have been gone long ago.

As counterintuitve as it... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

As counterintuitve as it sounds simply adding armor only to the bottom may well increase roll overs. Paul

That may is an important clarifier, indicating either of us could be correct. But I would say more likely is my hypothesis; lowering the center of gravity makes things more stable. There's no way around that.

Hitler didn't have the peaceniks favorite acronym either. Mccain

I believe this is totally false. He did not have nuclear, that's for sure, and probably did not have biological considering mankind's knowledge of bacteria and viruses is exponentially greater today, but he certainly had chemical. Chlorine and mustard gas were definitely in Hitler's arsenal.

We'd all be dead by now ... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

We'd all be dead by now if we let liberals defend us. Mccain

Missed this. This also is totally false, without liberals, our country and way of life wouldn't exist.

Mccain throws out these talking points cause they sound good, but have absolutely zero factual basis. Not too much different than the real Mccain.

Paul,The only thin... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

Paul,

The only thing I would be critical of at this point is studying the source of the main quotes in the article--Scott Badenoch.

I say this because of the the following:
"I believe the up-armoring has caused more deaths than it has saved," said Scott Badenoch, a former Delphi Corp. vehicle dynamics expert told the Dayton Daily News for Sunday editions."

Who is Delphi, what is their association with uparmoring contracts and why is Scott an ex-employee. They felt it important enough to point out he was an ex-empoyee in the article so what is the rest of the story?

Next quote:
""The whole thing is a formula for disaster," said Badenoch, who is working with the military to design a lighter-armored vehicle to replace the Humvee. ..."

Now, when I was active duty the words "working with the military to design..." was another way of saying "trying to win a defense contract". Scott's quote is just TOO condemning which raises a red flag. I don't think Mr. Badenoch is merely a military expert rendering an opinion here. It seems as if he has more of vested interest in this issue.

Would be interesting to get more on his story. The Army's report should have been enough evidence to support the statement that uparmored Humvee's are more dangerous for rollovers--why all the push for info from this guy?

So you extreme Kooks want r... (Below threshold)
mak44:

So you extreme Kooks want ro be able to make the absurd allegation that is the point of this thread and then when someone objects to your absurdity, make a post like Jay's?

The accusation of Paul's thread is beyond absurd. And Jay's position reflecting that Bush can simply dictate to the world or to Saddam and if someone doesn't jump to his demand, he has the right to invade. Problem is, Bush is too busy w/ his delusion that he is listening to a "higher Father" and confuses the voices in his head that are actually coming from a cabal of AEI neo-con war-mongering fools.

Inspections were taking place w/ no results to show that Saddam was holding WMDs. Bush couldn't wait any longer to honk his lying war to the American public , so now the world has the Iraq War. Funny Jay, but most of the rest of the world did not see the need for invasion. Even Colin Powell cautioned against it, at least until he was dutifully sent to the UN to make a fool of himself w/ purported intelligence developed from Chalabi & "Curveball.".

Paul makes a slimey attempt to blame Democrats for deaths caused by up-armoring the Humvees. My point was, in that case, blame Bush for all 2500 American deaths because he started the war.

If my linkage of this sort of hate-writing w/ Coulterism is to "go for shock value and outright profanity, coarseness, and gratuitous personal insults," it is well-deserved because this is the same kind of hate-thought that Coulter constantly spreads around.

Coulter is beyond insult and any insult directed her way is more than merited. And there is no way to "profane" her name and no insult to this creature of hate is "gratuitous." She is a piece of human scum and has demonstrated so from rhe first time she ever opened the sphicter on her face.

I think Jay's problem is that he really likes what this bitch writes but knows it's just not too cool, or defensible for that matter, to publicly state that.

The suggestion that this is an insult to or a personal attack on this woman is just too ridiculous. Coulter's badge is Insult & Profanity.

Coulter is beyond insult an... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Coulter is beyond insult and any insult directed her way is more than merited. And there is no way to "profane" her name and no insult to this creature of hate is "gratuitous." She is a piece of human scum and has demonstrated so from rhe first time she ever opened the sphicter on her face.
--------------------------------------------------
I am not sure mak44 is one of those despicable people who compared Ann Coulter to Zarquawi.

If mak44 is intellectually honest, mak44 would not have tried his hardest to defend the corrupt left.
I may be wrong, can someone point me to sth mak44 has written about the "human scums" like Zarquawi and Michael Moore. Why did the liberal left and the Dem party embraced human scums like Michael Moore and even John Kerry as their presidential candidate?

The Dems and the liberal le... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

The Dems and the liberal left are despicable in that they are willing to serve as a propaganda service for the terrorists and other enemies of America just to gain political power. Just look at the carping about the death of Zarquawi. This is good news for America but bad news for them. What a sick party and movement!

Micahel Barone (via Hugh He... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Micahel Barone (via Hugh Hewitt)
These people are beyond parody. It is sick.

http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/06/11-week/index.php#a002415

A substantial part of the Democratic Party, some of its politicians and many of its loudest supporters do not want America to succeed in Iraq. So vitriolic and all-consuming is their hatred for George W. Bush that they skip right over the worthy goals we have been, with some considerable success, seeking there -- a democratic government, with guaranteed liberties for all, a vibrant free economy, respect for women -- and call this a war for oil, or for Halliburton.

Successes are discounted, setbacks are trumpeted, the level of American casualties is treated as if it were comparable to those in Vietnam or World War II. Allegations of American misdeeds are repeated over and over; the work of reconstruction and aid of American military personnel and civilians is ignored.

In all this they have been aided and abetted by large elements of the press. The struggle in Iraq has been portrayed as a story of endless and increasing violence. Stories of success and heroism tend to go unreported. Reporters in Iraq deserve respect for their courage -- this has been an unusually deadly war for journalists, largely because they have been targeted by the terrorists. But unfortunately they and the Bush administration have not done a good job of letting us know that last pertinent fact.

We are in an asymmetrical struggle with vicious enemies who slaughter civilians and bystanders and journalists without any regard for the laws of war. But too often we and our enemies are portrayed as moral equivalents. One or two instances of American misconduct are found equal in the balance to a consistent and premeditated campaign of barbarism.

All of this does not go unnoticed by America's voters.

Mak44's refusal to ackno... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

Mak44's refusal to acknowledge the reality you bring up -- that Saddam had no right to deny inspections -- is not "ironic." It is deliberate denial of simple facts that would impinge on his world-view. And when reality contradicts what mak wants us all to swallow, then actual, historical facts need to be omitted, forgotten, buried, or outright rewritten.

Rhetoric.

And the annoited kneejerk l... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

And the annoited kneejerk liberals in the Democrat party think they should be running our national defense (along with everything else). Aside from voting for "Chimpy's War", I can't think of a single positive contribution they have made to the country. After 8 years of truly repugnant behavior, they honestly believe they should be returned to power.

I can still remember Harry Reid beaming when he announced his "victory" over the Patriot Act. And don't even bring up Nancy Pelosi, Dean, Kerry, Clinton, Schumer, Kennedy, Byrd, Durbin or the rest.

It disturbs me that the DNC still thinks it deserves leadership when they haven't shown any since we stole both elections.

LoveAmerica Immigrant</b... (Below threshold)
mak44:

LoveAmerica Immigrant

"Just look at the carping about the death of Zarquawi"

What "carping" in which of your delusional worlds?

And "The Dems and the liberal left are despicable in that they are willing to serve as a propaganda service for the terrorists and other enemies of America just to gain political power
"

No doubt you've seen the contractual arrangements that al-Qaeda & the Dems are holding. Or are you just hearing voices like George does?

What "carping" in which of ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

What "carping" in which of your delusional worlds?
--------------------------------------------------
You are one example of such carping! NO joy on your part about the death of Zarquawi

No doubt you've seen the contractual arrangements that al-Qaeda & the Dems are holding. Or are you just hearing voices like George does?
---------------------------------------------------
Actions speak louder than words. That is even more shameful. The liberal left and the Dem party are willing to provide free propaganda service for these "human scums" jihadist terrorists simply because they hate George Bush. You are a perfect example of that propaganda service.

I don't know you are defending a party that embraced "human scums" like Michael Moore. Can you be intellectually honest enough to agree on that?

The liberal left and the cu... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

The liberal left and the current Dem party is despicable in their actions. Any well informed and decent AMerican would have run from them as fast as he/she can.

mak44,If ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

mak44,

If my linkage of this sort of hate-writing w/ Coulterism is to "go for shock value and outright profanity, coarseness, and gratuitous personal insults," it is well-deserved because this is the same kind of hate-thought that Coulter constantly spreads around.

Wow. By your own admission you use the same tactics as Coulter. Maybe you should write books and become a millionaire. That's Coulter's real motivation; to make money and lots of it, something the combination of her outrageous comments and good looks readily facilitates.

Do us all a big favor and stop giving away your stock in trade for free.

LeeAnd you were nail... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lee
And you were nailed on your bullsh*t in the third comment. Pathetic. Why don't you go post a while on Whizbang! Pop. Your skills at careful analysis are better suited to the question of what color eyeliner Brittany Spears is wearing these days. Leave matters of war and the safety of US soldiers to the adults.
---------------------------------------------------
Lee was one of the first people who tried the hardest to smear the US military with Haditha before kwnowing all the facts.

Lee, if you are intellectually honest, you must admit that the liberal left and the Dems are despicable in their actions. They don't care about the safety of the US troops at all. They take every opportunity to smear the US military.

I am still waiting for your correction about Haditah in tandem with the Times. Also please explain your support for a party that embraced a human scum like Michael Moore (using Mak44 's terminology).

We all know the reason - yo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

We all know the reason - you haven't analyzed this completely, or you're lying.
-------------------------------------------------
Lee, this is a good description of yourself. YOu are either lying on behalf of the corrupt left and the Dem party or you are simply drinking too much of their Kool-aid.

Democrat Talking P... (Below threshold)
Krusty Krab:
Democrat Talking Points Killing U.S. Soldiers

Where's the news in that?

The main premise of this st... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

The main premise of this story is "I believe the up-armoring has caused more deaths than it has saved" -- Scott Badenoch. The problem with such a statement is that we have no means of knowing if it's true or not apart form randomly alternating armored and unarmored Humvees for the same patrols and then comparing death rates.

It may well be that in areas where the major threat is from roadside bombs, speed and agility is more important than armor. On the other hand, if the major threat is from small arms fire, then armor is the way to go. Knowing this, insurgents likely change their tactics depending on what type of vehicle is being used for patrols.

Maybe an unarmored Humvee that has been made to look like an armored Humvee would work the best, at least until the insurgents got wind of the ruse.

Mac, The main premi... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Mac,
The main premise of the story should be that the Dems have been playing politics with the armored humvee just like the terrorist surveillance program. They simply want to score political points against Bush and they don't care much about the pros and cons of armored and unarmored Humvees.

The bottom line is that the Dems cannot be trusted with national security issue, esp the security of our troops.

LoveAmerica Immigrant,... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

LoveAmerica Immigrant,

There's certainly a political component to the armored vs. unarmored Humvee debate, but it's not the only factor.

Our own military has stated that the insurgents are smart and adaptive in their methods and tactics, so when we deployed unarmored Humvees, the tactic was ambush with small arms fire. When armored Humvees showed up, tactics changed to attack by RPGs and IEDs.

Given a choice, I believe most solders would prefer patrolling in an armored vs. unarmored Humvee. Given a skilled quick thinking driver, the rollover problem can likely be controlled.

In addition to adding 2000 lbs of armor, the up armoring process should include adding electronic stability control like we now see on new SUV and other vehicles. Rollover tests demonstrate that electronic stability control greatly reduces the tendency of a vehicle to roll over in emergency maneuvers.

LEE Leave Brittany... (Below threshold)
virgo1:

LEE

Leave Brittany Spears alone! all She's ever done is support the Chimp..

Mak-44

Not even worth the finger power to argue with this protoplasmic ameoba anymore..

Mac, The military w... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Mac,
The military was producing armored vehicles as needed for different environments. The Dems just ignored all the facts. All they care was to demagogue the situation. The military will adapt to different fighting envs as needed.

The bottom line is still that the Dems only care about politics regardless of the cost to the troops in the field. This example wrt the Humvee questioned given to Rumsfeld was another demonstration of the dishonesty of the liberal media.

Looks like you agree that the Dems can't be trusted with national security or the safety of our troops.

Not even worth the finger p... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Not even worth the finger power to argue with this protoplasmic ameoba anymore..
--------------------------------------------------
Virgo1,
Thanks for admitting that mak44 and Lee have no arguments to make at all. They simply have to hide behind personal insults to mask the intellectual and moral corruption of the modern liberal ideology.

LoveAmerica Immigrant,... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

LoveAmerica Immigrant,

If I remember right, the troops in Iraq were adding armor to Humvees themselves. That suggests an unfilled need. The Dems may have been motivated by gaining a political advantage, but it got quick action in getting armored Humvees to the troops. When the troops in Iraq start taking the armor off, then we'll know the rollover risk is real.

My point is lets give the troops what they want. Maybe it's not scientific, but it's their lives on the line. We'll sort the politics out later.

Democrats are absolutely co... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Democrats are absolutely complicit in this problem. No, they don't hate America, no they don't want more troops to die. They are simply so focused on "BUSH SUCKS" that anything bad for him is good and any other consequences are irrelevant at best.

The reason they demanded more armor is twofold. One, protection for the troops. Unfortunately, the majority of the dems have no concept of how the military and combat works so they don't understand that this has both pluses and minuses depending on the situation.

Second, and far more importantly in their minds, it's a great opportunity to bitch about Bush and demonstrate that they're really the ones who want to help us poor dumb soldiers so they don't care whether it's really good or bad. If it can be used to "get" Bush, that over-rides any and all other considerations. Inconvenient reality is ignored.

By the way, I was blown up in a HMMWV that had been partially upgraded with a locally produced armor kit. Had I been in a purpose built M1114, I probably would have been completely uninjured. By an IED anyway. Of course, if we were rolling along buttoned up in our armor, who shoots at the guy that jumps out in the road with an RPG?

Cost-benefit analysis, situation dictates, etc. There is no one answer on what we should drive or wear. Attempts by people who have no concept of combat to dictate such matters invariably fail. Attempts by people who have no concept of combat to dictate such matters in order to score political points are despicable.

Mac, The military ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Mac,
The military had the armored humvees in production already to meet the need. The story about the troops adding the armor themselves was just a planted story by the press. They fed the question to the troop to ask Rumsfeld. That 's what so despicable of the liberal press. They simply trumped up any charge to attack Bush. The Haditha incident proved that the liberal press would smear the military with some allegations from the enemy. The Dems went along with the Murtha smear also. They didn't care much about the troops at all.

So I agree with you that we should supply what our troops need to protect themselves and let the politics take care of itself. That 's why the politicizing by the Dems is so despicable.

Mike,
The Dems were wishing for more troops to die so that they can attack Bush and claim how the IRaq war is a disaster and so on. They were complaining about doctors saving more lives on the front line so that the casualty in the Iraq war is so low.

Mike, BTW the liber... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Mike,
BTW the liberal left hates the AMerica based on the founding principle of inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as endowed by the creator. This American creed is opposite to their ideology of secular statism. THat 's why they sided with the communists during the cold war. They are constantly driving for the failing socialist model in Europe and Canada for example.

LoveAmerica Immigrant,... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

LoveAmerica Immigrant,

The story about the troops adding the armor themselves was just a planted story by the press.

That seems to be at odds with what Mike wrote.

By the way, I was blown up in a HMMWV that had been partially upgraded with a locally produced armor kit. Had I been in a purpose built M1114, I probably would have been completely uninjured.

I'm not defending the Dems, but I feel there are important factors involved here that go beyond politics. Also, I don't what to get into the mode of being against anything the Dems are for and being for anything the Dems are against. I want to remain independent of both major parties. There are lots of things I disagree with Bush on, but Iraq is not one of them. It was the right thing to do at the time and I don't withdraw my support just because things haven't gone as well as they could have.

LAI:The left does ... (Below threshold)
Mike:

LAI:

The left does not hate America. They most certainly DO have a lot of very strong (and wrong in most cases IMO) objections to how we go about some things here. (They do, for the most part, hate the Right though!)

Let's not descend to their level. We don't have to demonstrate that they want to destroy the country, just that their policies are wrong and unhelpful. Not a very high bar to clear.

Mac Lorry, well said. Let'... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Mac Lorry, well said. Let's not follow the dems lead.

Inspections were taking ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Inspections were taking place w/ no results to show that Saddam was holding WMDs.

The same inspections where Saddam got hours of advanced notice? Where they were only allowed entry to SOME sites? Where he blocked access constantly?

Yeah, THOSE --- those are the actions of somebody with nothing to hide.

ush couldn't wait any longer to honk his lying war to the American public , so now the world has the Iraq War. Funny Jay, but most of the rest of the world did not see the need for invasion.

Google "Oil for Food". Heck, read anything by Claudia Rossett.

If my linkage of this sort of hate-writing w/ Coulterism is to "go for shock value and outright profanity, coarseness, and gratuitous personal insults," it is well-deserved because this is the same kind of hate-thought that Coulter constantly spreads around.

For all of her faults, Coulter NEVER applauded when somebody had cancer.

Lefties DID applaud when Ingraham had cancer.

Rhetoric.

Rhetoric? Read up on the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam signed a ceasefire to save his butt.

One of the MAIN provisions was completely open inspections with no interference.

He NEVER honored his part of the bargain. By any standard of int'l law --- this war was quite justified.

No doubt you've seen the contractual arrangements that al-Qaeda & the Dems are holding. Or are you just hearing voices like George does?

Al Qaeda has openly admitted that they are fighting this war to get the media and opposition groups to win it since they cannot win the war themselves.
-=Mike

Mac, I am not going... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Mac,
I am not going to deny that the Humvees were all perfectly armored. There was a need for armored humvees and the military already had a plan to quickly produce the required armored humvees. This is an example of the "perfection ploy" used by the liberal press to attack Rumsfeld and Bush. That 's all.


I am not afraid to be partisan. I don't agree with Bush and the Reps on everything. But in real life, I have to make a choice. Right now, the Dems must be kept from the levers of power. When we have an overall better party than the Reps, I would be the first to switch. I am not going to pretend to be independent of the two party. The Rep party will give me more conservative policies than the Dems. THat 's the choice for me at this point.

Hey Faithy if you're sti... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Hey Faithy if you're still around

You make some good points. I blogged the story quickly as I have much on my plate.... I plan to do some digging and see what info I can find and doing some more "first hand reporting" rather than simply blogging an AP story.

My thing is that Congress should (ahem the Democrats should) stay the hell out of micromanaging the military and engineering military equipment in order to "win" the latest news cycle.

That the decision to up-armor humvess was political and not tactial is a given. And that's just wrong.

So far, from the (admittedly few) numbers we have, it seems like it might be doing more harm than good.

EVEN IF you can one day do the math and we turn a small"body profit" you still can never calculate the opportunity cost of slowing down your combat troops. (Could we kill more bad guys if we got there faster? Would that have saved lives?) -- AND mind you so far it looks like the numbers are swinging the wrong way.

Obvisouly I'd like to live in a world where waving a magic "armor wand" saved lives. But we don't. The Humvee was designed over like 15 years. It is one of the best thought out pieces of equipment made. Hillary Clinton has not the skills to make it "more better." Leave that to the military and the engineers.

You might be interested to ... (Below threshold)

You might be interested to know that the "specialist" that declared the extra armor on the Humvees responsible for rollovers and deaths, has a financial interest in replacing said Humvees with his own project/product. Interesting ain't it?

Maybe people should do a bit better research prior to committing themselves.

Quite the smoking gun ya go... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Quite the smoking gun ya got there SQN.

From the link you cite: "The Office of Naval Research and the Marine Corps War-Fighting Lab are funding an approximately $1.9 million project to develop the Ultra Armored Patrol vehicle and its more advanced sibling, the Ultra 3T." Ah yes, that notoriously profit hungry Marine War-Fighting Lab.

But wait, he just wants to sell his companies crap to them, right. Let's see he's the project manager for the research at the Georgia Tech Research Institute. From their site: "Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) is the nonprofit, applied research arm of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, GA." Okay, guess not.

Yup, he definitely has a financial interest. Prolly works for Halliburton, too.

Might wanna do a little of your own research before you make your "Busted!" post. Took me a good 70-80 seconds to look that up.

Mike, Badenoch has worked f... (Below threshold)
tas:

Mike, Badenoch has worked for at least one for-profit corporation, since the AP article notes that he used to be employed by Delphi. And we can make the assumption that if GIT gets full funding to develop these Ultras, production of them would have to be given to a defense contractor since their the only entities that have the factories needed to build such machines. I don't think it's too much of a stretch of the imagination that a defense contractor would offer Badenoch a position, given his expertise with the Ultra project.

Hence, a payday for Badenoch.

You may call that some wild speculation or whatever. Fine. We'll stick to the facts:

1) Badenoch is complaining about a lack of funding for his pet project, which just happens to be a vehicle that replaces the Humvee

2) Badenoch is speaking out against Humvees

3) It appears that Badenoch is obfuscating the facts about Humvees since, as my blogger Mark found out, Humvee rollovers in Iraq have actually decreased since the new armor was introduced

And if you're up for some reasonable speculation again: there's a good possibility that Badenoch did not tell the Dayton Daily News, or AP, about his previous employment.

Any way you look at this, Mr. Badenoch has a conflict of interest. He's tooling to get his pet project to replace Humvees funded and speaking out against Humvees. Maybe you don't think this is something to worry about, but the fact that you can't deny is that this is a conflict of interest.

I'll allow that Badenoch ha... (Below threshold)
Mike:

I'll allow that Badenoch has an interest in the new vehicle. And he is most likely overstating the case. However, research into this has been going on for quite sometime. What he is saying is quite true. Standard HMMWVs (not purpose built armored M1114s) most definitely become top heavy and prone to rollover when additional armor is added. I've driven all variants and can attest to this.

HMMWV's were not designed (originally) to be armored. Armor has since been successfully added, but their original mission was to replace the jeep.

The new vehicles they're looking at are designed from the ground up as light armored vehicles. WHile their at it, they can ALSO take the place of the unarmored HMMWVs.

mantis said: "Well, aren... (Below threshold)
Lee:

mantis said: "Well, aren't the unknown numbers here the ratio of casualties to armored Humvees vs. unarmored (less armored) Humvees hit by IEDs and the number of IED attacks on armored Humvees? The numbers cited in the article only seem to deal with accidents, not attacks. It would seem that if the number of soldiers protected during attacks is greater than the number injured or killed in accidents, than it would be worth it, right?"

He's absolutely correct, and how does Paul reply?

Paul replied: "mantis I have been clear from the begining that we need to determine if there is a "body profit." (grusume but true) It is begining to look like we are not."

So you've looked at the ratio, Paul? Why not include the ratio in your post then? Is this a case where the trust blows Humvee-sized holes in your pathetic attempt to blame one political party of American soldiers' deaths? You are slime. We're talking about the loves of US soldiers and you are spinning BS for political gain.

So where are the numbers? Where is the analysis? Where are the facts that support your statement that "It is beginning to look like we're not" Paul?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy