Is it true that Kerry voted against bill providing body armor for soldiers

[dd123]

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/ca/election/story/8350513p-9280396c.html

While Kerry asserted Friday that military families have had to pay for their own body armor, the Bush campaign said that he voted against a body armor spending measure just last year.

--

If Kerry says this was a part of an larger bill blah blah blah then why didn't he sponsor a bill of his own to provide body armor.

This armor thing is a HUGE problem that I have had with the Bush administration. Now they are going to use it to attack Kerry.

Augggghhhhhh!!!!!

[David Dunham]

1. That was part of Bush $72 billion Iraq pork barrel bill.

[Padraig18]

2. Drip, drip, drip...

The Repubs are gonna have a BLAST with Kerry as our nominee. I can hardly wait. :scared:

[JHBowden]

7. Edwards voted against the 87 billion too.

But that won't stop fanatics for finding a reason to bash Kerry.

[Padraig18]

9. I'm aware of that.

I never said he didn't. My point is thaty with Kerry's record there is just SOOOO much more ammunition like this.

[West Coast Democrat]

11. That's so pathetic....

bashing Kerry for voting against the pork barrel bill that both Kerry and Edwards opposed!

[Padraig18]

15. *I* didn't.

My statement is perfectly clear.

[emulatorloo]

19. On the other hand, Edwards *lack* of record will delight Rove too

it is six of one, half dozen of another. IMHO Kerry is doing a pretty good job attacking back, and with an authority I don't feel Edwards has.

Also, most fortunately Bush is full of crap, and this is just another example. The soldiers should have had body armor long ago. Halliburton didn't need another 87 billion.

[citizen snips]

23. I don't like it.

Just more ammo for the repukes to use against Kerry.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. You mean the 87 billion for Halliburton?

Where they tossed in body armor as a bone? What a fucking joke!

That is the bill Kerry voted against last year.

[David Dunham]

4. That's Right. This is a Bad Line of Attack for Bush. JE also voted No.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. It was nothing more than a HANDOUT to his corporate cronies

with little to no accountability for the expenditures. Must everything that actually benefits our troops be tied to a welfare bill for wealthy Bush supporters and lying Iraqi informants who have YET to come clean?

[blm]

8. Besides, that armor should have been supplied LONG before that bill, and

no way should have been CONTINGENT on that bill being passed.

Kerry wanted any defense money going to REAL needs of the military and not to corporate perks for defense industry executives.

I am looking FORWARD to that debate.

Dems like Kerry are for money for military needs and the needs of the military personnel and veterans. Bush and the GOP are for most of the money going to the defense INDUSTRY and their corporate cronies lining their bank accounts with executive perks paid for by the taxpayers.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

13. Link?

[blm]

17. It's in Kerry's ENTIRE record on defense spending.

And in the record of those Dems who have fought against the waste in defense spending for years.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. Oh.

I actually don't have a problem with him on this. So he didn't fund Star Wars... bfd.

[flpoljunkie]

29. Exactly. This equipment should have already been provided for troops.

The question is why had the Bush administration sent the National Guard troops, who now make up to 40% of the troops in Iraq, into the hell hole of Iraq without the necessary equipment.

Can you say war profiteering?

[PROGRESSIVE1]

5. That's the one!

.

[Zhade]

26. I remember thinking then that this would come up later as an attack point.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support Kerry or Edwards, but to be fair, this seems like a calculated effort on the Republicans' part. They threw in the body armor provision - a provision that never should have been needed, had the troops been supplied it in the first place - and then noted who voted against the $87 billion.

Then it's a simple matter of underlining the body armor portion and neglecting to mention the fact that it was part of the larger bill, and voila, instant "them Democrats voted again' the troops!"

To both JK's and JE's credit, they voted against the $87 billion, a vote I respect. Even those of us who don't support either of them, or only support one of them, should be honest with the facts. This attack is a poor one and unworthy of progressives.

[jansu]

33. That is doing exactly what the Constitution says is their job on war

The President can send troops anywhere at anytime, but the Congress has to approve the money for the troops to remain.....if they don't agree, then the troops have to come home...except that Nixon, Reagan and Bush I found other ways to get the money to keep them at war. I applaud both Kerry and Edwards for doing their job!!!!!

[Zhade]

34. Well, to be even clearer, that is what the War Powers Act allows.

Sixty days, then approval is required.

Personally, I think the WPA should be abolished. It has been abused since its inception.

[many a good man]

10. So Bush* passed a bill and

there wasn't $$$ in it for body armor???

[alcuno]

12. You mean they sent them to war without body armor?

That is just sickening.

[The Traveler]

18. Not quite ...

They didn't have enough of the "new improved" stuff to go around. I probably have the numbers wrong but I seem to recall that about 40% of our troops went over with Vietnam era armor ... almost useless against modern munitions and explosive devices. A lot of people have been buying the more modern stuff for their loved ones and shipping it over.

I am no Kerry fan. I am no Edwards fan. But this is not their fault. The simple truth is that Congress did not need to allocate further funds to fully equip our troops with modern body armor because the funds had already been allocated. (We're not talking about a huge amount of money here, either ... when compared to the total cost of the deployment it is truly "in the noise".) The funds were apparently diverted into a reserve fund at Rumsfeld's direction. I suspect (without evidence) that monies from that fund are, uh, "loaned" to covert operations programs or something like that. As I recall, there was considerable discussion of the body armor issue on Hackworth's site over the summer. (See defensewatch.org.)

I find the Bush administration's treatment of this effort disgusting. And now they have the gall to try to blame this on Kerry? Lenin would be proud of the way these guys twist the truth.

[cindyw]

14. Is he referring to the 87 billion?

Because that passed and still these men don't have body armor. So WTF is he talking about?

If not, what was it a bill privatize social security that they tacked this on to make it look like Kerry voted against something good. Good thing intelligent Democrats won't fall for this crap.

[fearnobush]

16. This is actually a claim that any Dem candidate could

once again show the people that the Bush Admin uses the lives of US solders and citizens as objects of manipulation to distort the truth for their own financial and political gain. Bush/Chaney 04 - Robbing the lives and souls for the common good of the Neo-conservative fascists.

[zulchzulu]

20. Bush is to blame for not having properly prepared troops in Iraq

The issue has a lot more to do than "Kerry was against giving troops body armor". That is up to Bush going to war too quickly and not having the military have enough resources to fight the war correctly. There were issues about soldiers not having enough armor, gas masks, weapons and an exit strategy at the beginning of the war.

That should tell you really cares about the military. The answer is that Bush couldn't wait to start the pre-emptive attack on Iraq without the troops being properly prepared.

Also, the $87 Billion was only backed by Lieberman among the Democratic candidates.

More here:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_1017b.html

Snip:

John Kerry said, “The best way to support our troops and take the target off their backs is with a real strategy to win the peace in Iraq - not by throwing $87 billion at George Bush's failed policies.  I am voting 'no' on the Iraq resolution to hold the President accountable and force him finally to develop a real plan that secures the safety of our troops and stabilizes Iraq.
“The Administration has wasted every opportunity to build an international coalition in Iraq. 
 
”With our soldiers dying on a daily basis, the President needs to change course.  But rather than putting in place a real plan, he has spent months drifting and zigzagging.  Rather than immediately building a real coalition, he has fought to keep unilateral control over reconstruction and governance.

Rather than asking for shared sacrifice from Americans - as Senator Biden and I have proposed, he has refused to repeal any of his tax cut for the wealthiest to pay for rebuilding Iraq. 
 
”But I oppose spending $87 billion - at the expense of health care, education and domestic priorities here at home - on a strategy that does not protect the troops, and does not make America safer.”

[still_one]

22. Hey, no matter what crap they have on Kerry

he wasn't the president who LIED about the reason we went into IRAQ!

[chocolateeater]

24. Gee how nice to see their concern for our soldiers. NOT!

According to this article, there still was not enough body armour to go around as of the end of last month.
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20040130/frontpage/25187.shtml
<snip>
Top military commanders have said every soldier on the ground should have been outfitted with the armor by the end of December.

However, an Oregon lawmaker who spent the weekend traveling in Iraq said U.S. military personnel still don't have enough body armor and other equipment to properly defend themselves.

"There is still not enough body armor for everybody in Iraq, and that is not acceptable. There are still not enough armored Humvees," U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, said Monday in a statement released by his office.

In many cases, family members across the nation have paid for the armor out of their own pockets to ensure their loved ones have the best protection available.
<snip>

And then there is this spending shortfall brought to you by Bush's ambitions for re-selection.
http://mutable.inknoise.com/Marines/2004/02/11/0004
<snip>
But in response to questions from Democrats on the committee, Hagee and Schoomaker said President Bush’s proposed defense budget does not provide enough money to pay for their Iraqi operations and normal activities through the end of the year.

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the committee, led the complaints that Bush plans to wait until after the November elections before asking for another supplemental funding bill to pay for the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Marine and Army leaders said funds from the current supplemental will run out on Sept. 30, leaving a funding gap.

“I am concerned … on how we bridge between the end of this fiscal year and whenever we could get a supplemental in the next year,” Schoomaker said.

Those concerns were echoed by Gen. John Jumper, Air Force chief of staff, and to a lesser extent by Adm. Vern Clark, chief of naval operations.

[jbfam4]

25. Correct me if I am wrong

but didn't the voting take place after Bush landed on the air craft carrier claiming Mission Accomplished?

The pentagon said that the armor was not a high priority. So Bush did send the troops into this immoral war of choice unprepared.

Many deaths could have been prevented if they had the proper protection.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/10/05/biz_humvee.html

About 90 casualties in Iraq in the past three months were in Humvees without armor, he said.

Testimony to the Humvees' value, he said, is that the Army has dropped research for now on its replacement.

The Pentagon expects to continue to deploy the vehicles through 2013.

[Asteroid]

28. I would agree this is a weak attack by Bush Co

It only goes to show how low of a priority body armor was to stick it as a bone in a huge pork spending project. Both Kery and Edwards and many other dems made the right choice. Bush is just sickening.

[dd123]

27. All I know is that if I were a senator who voted to send people

to war to possibly die for this country I would make damn sure that I hounded EVERYONE INCLUDING BUSH night and day until we provide as much protection for our people as possible.

I don't care if it was voted down in a larger bill. I don't care if the spending was allocated but the armor hasn't been delivered yet.

What our senators need to do is to personally get the names of people from their states who are stationed in Iraq and ask them if they received their armor and if they received their supplies and if we are doing what we can to make their lives livable.

I am SICK OF THE LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY. Do our Senators have so little pull that they can't make sure our soldiers have body armor?

I don't expect much from Bush because he is a complete idiot. But I do expect more of a Democrat who is supposed to care about people.

Pathetic!!!!

[alcuno]

31. You must not have seen "Iraq Watch" on CSPAN on Wed evenings.

Democrats have been pounding this issue since last summer and they do have the names of soldiers without the proper armor; they found out because families and individual soldiers were contacting them.

The fact is that the administration did this war under delusional notions; who needs armor against flower-throwing Iraqis?

[blm]

30. He did last December. Surely you must have heard about it.

Kerry Criticizes Bush on 9/11 Response:
Plans to Reimburse Familes for Body Armor

San Diego, CA – John Kerry today stood up to the Bush Administration for their response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th and for failing to provide U.S. soldiers in Iraq with the proper protective body armor.

“After the attack on Pearl Harbor sixty-two years ago, President Roosevelt responded quickly and decisively, not just to go to war with our attackers but also to find answers for what had gone wrong in order to prevent such a tragedy from happening again,” said John Kerry. “After the attacks of September 11th, George W. Bush has done the opposite. Where Roosevelt sought answers, Bush has sought to avoid blame by stonewalling the 9/11 commission and congressional inquiries into intelligence failures.”

In San Diego today, John Kerry and two of his swift boat crewmates commemorated the sacrifice of those who died in the attack on Pearl Harbor by placing a wreath at the swift boat memorial at the Coronado Naval Amphibious Base where Kerry trained for his service in Vietnam. John Kerry also unveiled details of his plan to improve intelligence gathering, protect U.S. ports, and reimburse military families for body armor purchases.

Kerry also criticized the Bush administration for sending troops aboard without the latest body armor, forcing families to buy armor to send to their loved ones. One-fourth of the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq are still waiting for the latest body armor. In the meantime, family members and friends are paying hundreds of dollars for the updated armor themselves and shipping it to Iraq.

“In the rush to war, this administration failed to adequately outfit military personnel shipping off to Iraq," Kerry said. " As a result, many of our fighting men and women do not have the latest technology for body armor. It’s a disgrace that their families had to use their own funds to buy the body armor and ship it to Iraq. My legislation will reimburse those families.
>>>>>>>>>

[dd123]

32. Hmmm plans to reimburse families.

So what happened. Did it get passed? Did he actually write a bill? Or is this part of his plans as President in January 2005. Maybe it will be too late by then huh?