Thread: They support the troops? I think not!

IG finds Defense awarded armor contracts to companies that couldn't deliverBy Richard Lardner and Anne Flaherty, Associated Press July 11, 2007
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Defense Department put U.S. troops in Iraq at risk by awarding contracts for badly needed armored vehicles to companies that failed to deliver them on schedule, according to a review by the Pentagon's inspector general.

The June 27 report, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, examined 15 contracts worth $2.2 billion dollars awarded since 2000 to Force Protection Inc., and Armor Holdings Inc.

The auditors found several contracts issued by the Marine Corps on a sole-source basis to Force Protection even though it knew there were other manufacturers that might have supplied the vehicles in a more timely fashion.
The Marine Corps determined that Force Protection of Ladson, S.C., was the only supplier that could meet the urgent delivery schedule for the vehicles.
The inspector general's report, however, concludes otherwise. It says the company "did not perform as a responsible contractor and repeatedly failed to meet contractual delivery schedules for getting the vehicles the theater."
The report also criticizes the Army's decision to award a contract for armor kits to Simula Aerospace and Defense Group, a subsidiary of Armor Holdings of Jacksonville, Fla.

Simula did not meet the government's definition of a "responsible prospective contractor," according to the report, and it lacked the mechanisms necessary to ensure proper delivery of the kits, which were needed to make Humvees less vulnerable to roadside bombs.

The Army received kits "with missing and unusable components, which increased the kit installation time and required additional reinspection of kits," it said.Overall, the problems "resulted in increased risk to the lives of soldiers," the report states.
IG finds Defense awarded armor contracts to companies that couldn't deliver (7/11/07) -- www.GovernmentExecutive.com

This is just another example of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. There is no plan for Iraq, and the claims that "we're doing everything we can to support the troops" (made by this administration) are flat out false. It's all about corporate cronyism and NOT about getting the troops what they need, when they need it. How anyone can continue to support this administration, and its actions related to Iraq, is ABSOLUTELY beyond my understanding.

I've just about lost faith in the Administrations ability to wage a successful war. All I'm waiting for is a detailed plan for what a withdraw and post-withdraw would look like for the US and for Iraq.

Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe

I've just about lost faith in the Administrations ability to wage a successful war. All I'm waiting for is a detailed plan for what a withdraw and post-withdraw would look like for the US and for Iraq.

You will be waiting a VERY long time for THIS administration to come up with a withdrawal plan. There is no exit strategy. The only plan this administration has ever had, on Iraq, is hold on until the next administration takes over. Make it their problem.

Originally Posted by johnlocke

You will be waiting a VERY long time for THIS administration to come up with a withdrawal plan. There is no exit strategy. The only plan this administration has ever had, on Iraq, is hold on until the next administration takes over. Make it their problem.

I'm also waiting for congress, ideologues, professors... someone... anyone to offer a solution I think makes sense. Simply "just coming home" seems as dangerous and ill-advised as staying there without an exit strategy.

Part of the problem is Paris Hilton is the lead story in the news.

(Unless you're watching Mika on MSNBC.)

Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe

I'm also waiting for congress, ideologues, professors... someone... anyone to offer a solution I think makes sense. Simply "just coming home" seems as dangerous and ill-advised as staying there without an exit strategy.

There are several withdrawal plans sitting out there. What is lacking is the political will to implement any of them. More to the point, if you're waiting for an "ideal" plan, then you might as well cut to the chase and admit that you unconditionally support the administration's position of "wait for the next administration."

I would argue that nothing could be worse for the US than staying in Iraq forever.

Originally Posted by johnlocke

There are several withdrawal plans sitting out there. What is lacking is the political will to implement any of them. More to the point, if you're waiting for an "ideal" plan, then you might as well cut to the chase and admit that you unconditionally support the administration's position of "wait for the next administration."

I would argue that nothing could be worse for the US than staying in Iraq forever.

Second worst thing. The worst thing would be for Iraq to come under the political/regional control of Iran.

Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe

Second worst thing. The worst thing would be for Iraq to come under the political/regional control of Iran.

Whether we like it or not, the fact is that Iran already has a disproportionate level of control in Iraq- and will continue to have it into the future. Nothing we do, at this point, will change that fact.

Originally Posted by johnlocke

Whether we like it or not, the fact is that Iran already has a disproportionate level of control in Iraq- and will continue to have it into the future. Nothing we do, at this point, will change that fact.

I disagree. I think there is plenty we can do. It is unacceptable to leave Iran with political control over Iraq. No matter how much people may hate Bush for taking us into Iraq, we have to deal with Iran now.

I want to illustrate what is meant by the "drive" by media by posting these headlines from various news sources:

FOXNEWS.COM HOME > POLITICS
Pentagon Inspector's Report Says Armored Vehicle Contract Delays Put Troops at Risk
Wednesday, July 11, 2007

WASHINGTON — The Defense Department put U.S. troops in Iraq at risk by awarding contracts for badly needed armored vehicles to companies that failed to deliver them on schedule, according to a review by the Pentagon's inspector general.

USA Today
Pentagon criticized for armor contracts

swapContent('firstHeader','applyHeader');WASHINGTO N (AP) — The Defense Department put U.S. troops in Iraq at risk by awarding contracts for badly needed armored vehicles to companies that failed to deliver them on schedule, according to a review by the Pentagon's inspector general.
The June 27 report, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, examined 15 contracts worth $2.2 billion dollars awarded since 2000 to Force Protection, Inc., and Armor Holdings, Inc.

ABC.com

PENTAGON REPORT: Bad military vehicle contracts put soldiers' lives at risk


July 11, 2007 - WASHINGTON (AP) - The Defense Department put U.S. troops in Iraq at risk by awarding contracts for badly needed armored vehicles to companies that failed to deliver them on schedule, according to a review by the Pentagon's inspector general.


Are we seeing a pattern here? YES; the headline is picked up, the story run and no investigation into what is actually contained in the report.