--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...>
wrote:
Hmmmmm No answer on this post either.
Now isn't this Congressman special.
He's republican so I'm not surprised or impressed. So why don't the
soldiers have them. Jesus, you guys are in charge. Stop screwing the
pooch and do the job.
Perhaps he should take time from
his grandstanding and read the legislation that he passes.
The law seems to state that only 450 Hummers are to be
appropriated a
month. Let me give you the bill John Boy. I doubt you'll find this
on
your liberal web sites.
S.2401
Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005
SEC. 112. UP-ARMORED HIGH MOBILITY MULTI-PURPOSE WHEELED VEHICLES
OR
WHEELED VEHICLE BALLISTIC ADD-ON ARMOR PROTECTION.
(a) AMOUNT- Of the amount authorized to be appropriated for the
Army
for fiscal year 2005 for other procurement under section 101(5),
$610,000,000 shall be available for both of the purposes described
in
subsection (b) and may be used for either or both of such purposes.
(b) PURPOSES- The purposes referred to in subsection (a) are as
follows:
(1) The procurement of up-armored high mobility multi-purpose
wheeled
vehicles at a rate up to 450 such vehicles each month.
(2) The procurement of wheeled vehicle ballistic add-on armor
protection.
(c) ALLOCATION BY SECRETARY OF THE ARMY- (1) The Secretary of the
Army shall allocate the amount available under subsection (a)
between
the two purposes set forth in subsection (b) as the Secretary
determines appropriate to meet the requirements of the Army.
(2) Not later than 15 days before making an allocation under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall transmit a notification of the
proposed allocation to the congressional defense committees.
(d) PROHIBITION ON USE FOR OTHER PURPOSES- The amount available
under
subsection (a) may not be used for any purpose other than a
purpose
specified in subsection (b).
>
> Keep reading, T-man. It just keeps getting better and better. Or
> worse and worse, depending on your perspective.
>
>
> Among these second-guessers is Rep. Robin Hayes, a North
Carolina
> Republican. Hayes told NEWSWEEK that "the secretary of Defense
> exhibited a remarkable lack of sensitivity" in his remarks.
Hayes
> said he has been frustrated by delays in getting several heavier
> armored gun carriers to the light-gunned 82nd Airborne, which
first
> requested them a year ago. Four such tank-treaded vehicles are
still
> sitting in mothballs in Pennsylvania. Army Gen. Richard Cody
> approved the transfer last March. But then the Army decided to
wait
> for a newer system mounted on a wheeled Stryker, though the
system
> has been held up due to reliability issues, according to a
recent
> General Accounting Office report. On Dec. 9, a day after
Rumsfeld's
> Kuwait appearance, Hayes wrote him a letter saying, "I simply
cannot
> understand why we are not equipping our soldiers and Marines on
the
> front lines with every weapon in our arsenal."
>
> Other defense insiders say that better armor has not been a high
> enough priority, at least until recently. After 9/11, Boeing
ramped
> up production of JDAMs, its precise, GPS-guided bombs, from 900
a
> year to 3, 000 a month for use in Afghanistan. (This past week,
in
> the middle of the armor furor, Boeing announced that it had
> delivered its 100,000th JDAM kit to the Air Force.) "If they
could
> do it for bombs, why couldn't they do it for armor to save
lives?"
> asks Defense analyst Bill Arkin. Rumsfeld "could have awakened
any
> morning in the last year and a half, determined to make sure
every
> vehicle is properly armored and said, 'I want industry to jump
> through hoops to do it'," says one defense contractor. "I was
> infuriated he could be so cavalier." No doubt the Pentagon chief
is
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tghysel" <tghysel@y...> wrote:
> getting on top of the problem now.