George Allen Voted Against Body Armor TWICE, It Turns Out

By: PM
Published On: 9/22/2006 7:42:15 PM

The good folks at Media Matters have done some in-depth fact checking on the Vote Vet's ad that said George Allen voted against funds to supply body armor for troops.  Their findings?  He voted TWICE against such funding, not once. 

Near the end of the ad, a citation appears onscreen: "Vote #116, 108th Congress, 1st Session." This is the April 2, 2003, Senate roll call in which Republicans unanimously voted, 52-47, to table Landrieu's amendment to the fiscal year 2003 supplemental appropriations bill for the Iraq war. Her amendment would have added a little more than $1 billion to the bill for the procurement of "National Guard and Reserve Equipment." In her March 20, 2003, floor statement introducing the measure, Landrieu repeatedly emphasized that the U.S. government was "underfunding our Guard and Reserve" and expressed shock at "the lack of equipment, the lack of money in this budget to fund their current operations." She added, "For too long, the Guard and Reserve have received hand-me-downs from the Active component. ... Let's give them their rifles, their helmets, and their tactical equipment so we can, as we know we will, win this war."

In addition, Landrieu had explained her bill in advance of the vote:

In a March 26, 2003, press release, Landrieu further explained that the bill "targets shortfalls identified by the National Guard and Reserve in their Unfunded Requirement lists," including the "shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests"

Here's the explanation for the SECOND vote against helping our troops:

Indeed, on October 2, 2003, Allen voted against a Democratic amendment to the $87 billion emergency supplemental bill to increase the amount of funding devoted to body armor and battlefield clearance to ensure that both needs were met. The Dodd amendment would have added $322 million to the $300 million the Senate Appropriations Committee had already attached to the underlying bill for small arms protection inserts (SAPI) body armor and battlefield cleanup.

Dodd repeatedly made clear in his October 2, 2003, floor statement that his intent in offering the amendment was to make certain that U.S. forces in Iraq were provided adequate body armor, which he described as a "top priorit[y]." In his statement, he cited a September 26, 2003, report by the assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller that requested an additional $420 million for the battlefield cleanup alone. From Dodd's statement:

DODD: According to the U.S. Army, the President's supplemental bill falls short of over $200 million for critical gear for our soldiers slated to rotate in Iraq and Afghanistan in the months ahead. This amendment was designed specifically to see to it that those U.S. troops coming into Iraq, into a theater of war, would receive important equipment they need to perform their missions effectively. This equipment includes important high-tech body armor, bullet-proof helmets, special water packs to keep soldiers hydrated, and other survival gear.

DODD: I don't want a soldier out there getting hurt because they don't have the right equipment. I didn't make this up. The Army didn't come to me specifically. They made this case on September 26, the source was a briefing provided to Congress' defense committees by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller, entitled, ``FY04 Supplemental Request for the Global War on Terrorism: The Army At War.'' That is where it comes from. I appreciate what the committee did with $300 million. But the committee report says you have to make a choice: Clearing up the battlefield or provide funding for soldiers' equipment. And I don't think the Army ought to be put in that position. I don't think you ought to ask them to have to make that choice. That is the reason for the amendment.

The hatchet job done on the body armor ad by George Allen's C+ team should be taken down.

Jim Webb will support our troops.

Remember what Chris Dodd said: "I don't want a soldier out there getting hurt because they don't have the right equipment."

Remember what George Allen did by his vote.


Comments



Will Sen Allen condemn this growing threat to Israel? (Jeff B - 9/22/2006 9:32:23 PM)
Perhapse now that Sen Allen is a decendant of Jews will he denounce in the strongest of terms the openly anti-Israeli Gov't in Iraq that Sen Allen created? Sen Allen voted for and strongly supports the Iraqi Govt who's PM was seen hugging and kissing Iran's President in Terhan last week. Iran's President has called for the complete destruction of Israel and calls Jews evil scum.

Iraq's Gov't refused to denounce Hezbollah and was openly critical of Israel's right to defend herself.

Iraq's speaker of the house calls Isreal a vile and dangerous country that poisons the Middle East. Yet Sen Allen refuses to denounce this Iraq Gov't that only exsists because Sen Allen allowed 25,000 US Soldiers to be killed or be wounded in Iraq.

Will Sen Allen stand with Israel and his Jewish mother in condeming those who seek to destroy Israel? Or will Sen Allen ignore this growing threat to Israel that he voted for and has cost 25,000 US soldiers dearly.



everyone!! (drmontoya - 9/22/2006 11:06:25 PM)
look at the new allen controversy on wikipedia!!!

http://en.wikipedia....



Proof of a Jerk (Texas Aggie - 9/24/2006 7:13:43 PM)
That's being nice, of course.  Anyone who does what he's told even though he knows it's wrong, immoral, and against the oath of office, does not deserve to remain in office. 

Allen and politicians like him have left the act(s) of protecting our troops to us taxpayers who are lied to, sucked dry and have to deal with such corrupt actions.  Thank God for Cher and all she's done to provide improved armor and keep Walter Reed Army Hospital open.

BRAC and other so-called ways to "cut" the debt should not cost a single life.  That means we need to help persons like Cher.