The 62nd edition of the Wizbang Podcast is up for your listening pleasure. Here's what I thought you'd like to hear about today:
- The Body Armor Scandal - NBC is Scaring Families into Buying their Own Body Armor that Doesn't Work
- The Gonzales Pseudo-Scandal - Democrats are Firing Blanks
- Restarting Iraqi Industries -Get Ready to Buy Iraqi Made Clothing at your Local Retailer Soon
The big story of this week's podcast is the scandalous NBC Dateline broadcast that claimed that the Army is failing to supply proper body armor to the troops in Iraq. The real story is that an unscrupulous contractor is trying to scare families into buying inferior body armor, with their own money, to send to soldiers in Iraq. This is armor that failed multiple Army tests, and could kill anyone who wears it in theater. It's nasty, and I have the details in the podcast. Go and listen!
Download the show, turn off your computer, and go for a walk while you listen to this installment of the best audio from around the web.
Note: Even if you don't use iTunes, a podcatcher, or any other fancy tech gizmo's, if you have speakers on your computer you can listen to a streaming version of the show via the Hipcast control at the top of the story.




Comments (12)
NBC actually does have it r... (Below threshold)1. Posted by The Listkeeper | May 24, 2007 2:34 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
NBC actually does have it right with the body armor story.
1. Posted by The Listkeeper | May 24, 2007 2:34 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 24, 2007 02:34
2. Posted by The Listkeeper | May 24, 2007 3:04 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
And in case you didn't know, the US Army procurement system is set up to protect their existing vendors. What's happening to Pinnacle right now is what typically happens to the new kid on the block when they try to break into the Army's Sekrit Vendor Buddies club.
2. Posted by The Listkeeper | May 24, 2007 3:04 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 24, 2007 03:04
3. Posted by Charlie Quidnunc | May 24, 2007 10:54 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
How can you possibly stick up for Pinnacle in this case? Have you heard the testing procedures the Army uses? Why did Pinnacle fail them? Why do they refuse to participate in competitive bids? Why do they go around the procurement process with the crazy Bake Sales for Body Armor marketing effort? If their stuff is so good, then the Army would love to test it again. If it meets standards, the Army will buy it.
3. Posted by Charlie Quidnunc | May 24, 2007 10:54 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 24, 2007 10:54
4. Posted by Charlie Quidnunc | May 24, 2007 10:56 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I have lots of friends who sell to the guvmint, and they get tremendous support from the Pentagon for their leading edge stuff. Optics, night vision, robotics are hot there now, and the Pentagon is spending up a storm. Don't assume that just because it's the army, the don't want to look at new stuff. They just want to make sure it works, and not just as slideware on a presentation powerpoint.
4. Posted by Charlie Quidnunc | May 24, 2007 10:56 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 24, 2007 10:56
5. Posted by The Listkeeper | May 24, 2007 10:59 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
How? Because Dragonskin has met everybody BUT the US Army's "testing standards", including those of SOCOM, the US Navy, FBI, and numerous law enforcement agencies throughout the country. The Army procurement system is designed to protect existing vendors while strongly discouraging new vendors and innovation. The rest of the services got rid of such protectionist practices a long time ago. The Army prefers to keep its buddies happy.
5. Posted by The Listkeeper | May 24, 2007 10:59 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 24, 2007 10:59
6. Posted by Charlie Quidnunc | May 24, 2007 11:45 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Dear Listkeeper,
I would recommend that you listen to the discussion of Gen. Mark Brown in the podcast. Then come back and tell me there is something wrong with either the testing procedure or the Army. The procurement system is not designed to protect buddies.
6. Posted by Charlie Quidnunc | May 24, 2007 11:45 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 24, 2007 11:45
7. Posted by The Listkeeper | May 24, 2007 12:00 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I've listened to Mark Brown. He's full of it. If he isn't, why are his staffers lying about whether Dragonskin has passed the other services testing?
7. Posted by The Listkeeper | May 24, 2007 12:00 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 24, 2007 12:00
8. Posted by charlie quidnuc | May 24, 2007 2:42 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
listkeeper:
Dragonskin may have passed some, less rigorous tests, for example the CIA, but it also failed repeated Army & Air Force tests. why won't they submit to the rigorous Army competitive tests?
8. Posted by charlie quidnuc | May 24, 2007 2:42 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 24, 2007 14:42
9. Posted by The Listkeeper | May 24, 2007 3:24 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Try again. Dragonskin DID pass the Air Force tests.
Why are you so determined to lie for the Army, Charlie?
9. Posted by The Listkeeper | May 24, 2007 3:24 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 24, 2007 15:24
10. Posted by The Listkeeper | May 24, 2007 3:28 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Here's the Pinnacle response to the Army assertion that they failed the AFOSI tests:
http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/20060426-pr.php
Even has contact information for the AFOSI officer responsible for discussing the issue.
10. Posted by The Listkeeper | May 24, 2007 3:28 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 24, 2007 15:28
11. Posted by The Listkeeper | May 24, 2007 3:30 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
AFOSI *DID* request a design change, which Pinnacle was happy to oblige, but they never failed the AFOSI tests.
11. Posted by The Listkeeper | May 24, 2007 3:30 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 24, 2007 15:30
12. Posted by charlie quidnunc | May 25, 2007 3:04 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I've been out of town and just noticed this post on the Media Blog on National Review Online:
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDVlZDgyYWIxY2MxZTMwNGQ1OWU1NjQ0ZGRkYTc0ZGE=
that points to several MilBlogs who take my point of view, thank you very much, that NBC was telling only half the story. They focus on the fact that DragonSkin is too heavy for regular use, and that the tests NBC performed placed the armor flat, not rounded as it would be on a soldier's body.
I'm just sayin'...
12. Posted by charlie quidnunc | May 25, 2007 3:04 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 25, 2007 15:04