Limbaugh baselessly claimed media made "180s" on body armor after Woodruff, Vogt wounded
SUMMARY: Rush Limbaugh claimed without evidence that "the media" had reversed their position on the condition of American troops' body armor in response to reports that ABC World News Tonight co-anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt survived a roadside bombing in Iraq because they were wearing body armor.
Responding to reports that ABC World News Tonight co-anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt survived a roadside bombing in Iraq because they were wearing body armor, Rush Limbaugh claimed without evidence on his nationally syndicated radio show that "the media" had reversed their position on the condition of American troops' body armor. Asserting that the media were doing "180s" on the issue, Limbaugh cited unnamed reports "telling us about how poor the body armor was." In fact, multiple media outlets -- including ABC News and The New York Times -- have recently noted that a large number of fatalities have resulted from the military's failure to provide troops with armor for their sides, shoulders, and outer torsos. They have not claimed -- as Limbaugh suggested -- that existing body armor is entirely ineffective.
On his show, Limbaugh played comments by ABC News correspondent David Wright, who reported on the January 30 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America that Woodruff and Vogt were wearing "helmets and flak jackets." From the January 30 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
WRIGHT [audio clip]: Both of them, when they went out on this assignment, serious veteran war reporters. And they knew full well that this is a dangerous place.
[...]
Bob and his team were riding in the lead vehicle in the convoy, an Iraqi light armor personnel carrier. Wearing helmets and flak jackets, they stood in the back hatch, taping a stand-up when the explosion hit.
LIMBAUGH: They stood in the -- they stood in the back hatch taping a stand-up when the explosion hit. Now, this just seems to be so out of touch and so far removed from reality. "Serious veteran war reporters, they knew full well this is a dangerous place. Bob and his team were riding in the lead vehicle, an Iraqi light armored personnel carrier, wearing helmets and flak jackets." By the way, body armor, which -- how long ago was it the media was telling us about how poor the body armor was? The body armor wasn't working, American troops didn't have the proper equipment, they weren't properly equipped, they weren't properly protected. Bush and Cheney didn't care, Rumsfeld should be fired. And now they're out there saying it was the body armor that literally saved the lives of Bob Woodruff and his cameraman over there. How fast these 180s are made. At any rate, it just, it's -- I have all the sympathy here in the world for Bob Woodruff; don't misunderstand here, folks. I just think it is instructive to look at what it takes for these people to understand that this is real and that this is dangerous.
Limbaugh was apparently referring to recent media reports highlighting the military's failure to provide troops in Iraq with certain types of life-saving body armor. But these reports did not claim -- as Limbaugh's "180" comment suggested -- that existing body armor was ineffective. Rather, they noted that additional armor could have prevented a significant portion of American fatalities in Iraq.
On January 7, The New York Times reported that "[a] secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor." The Times reported: "Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials." The Times further explained: "The ceramic plates in vests now worn by the majority of troops in Iraq cover only some of the chest and back. In at least 74 of the 93 fatal wounds that were analyzed in the Pentagon study of marines from March 2003 through June 2005, bullets and shrapnel struck the marines' shoulders, sides or areas of the torso where the plates do not reach." On January 8, the Times editorialized:
Marines in the field have been clamoring for additional body armor (and vehicle armor) almost since the Iraq war began. Military officials initially turned them down because of concerns that the added weight might constrict movement. Once the study results came in last summer, Marine Corps leaders belatedly reversed themselves and started speeding armor to the troops.
Still, as of last month, less than 10 percent of the 28,000 sets of armor plates on order had actually reached the Marines in Iraq. Similar delays have plagued deliveries of improved vehicle armor. And the much larger Army contingent in Iraq has faced even more extensive delays.
Following the Times' report, Good Morning America ran a week-long segment on the issue. On January 9, for instance, co-anchor Diane Sawyer interviewed a mother who had helped her son purchase "extra body armor not supplied by the Marines." Sawyer reported: "In the end, the added protection cost $3,000 and shields the shoulders, sides, and the outer edges of the torso, areas left vulnerable by his current equipment." Sawyer asked viewers: "So why didn't they have it? Why is the Pentagon moving so slowly, and why are some mothers not waiting for the military?"
A January 21 New York Times article reported: "Under pressure to speed the delivery of armor to troops in Iraq, the United States Army has awarded an emergency contract for ceramic plates to protect the sides of soldiers' torsos from insurgents' attacks, military officials said yesterday" -- a move "expected to shave three months off the typical contracting process" The Times further noted that "the Senate and House Armed Services committees said they planned to hold hearings in response to concerns raised by a report in The New York Times on Jan. 7 about the military's body armor program."
It is not clear from media reports whether the armor worn by Woodruff and Vogt is the same as that issued to troops by the military.
Andrew Sullivan said it best in his blog today regarding this;
"Rush Limbaugh..... scoring anti-media political points while two men are in serious condition in a hospital".
This puddle of human sludge has no shame. The criticism about the armor has always been that THEY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH! Not that it didn't work.
Jesus, this man is despicable.
I'm willing to bet that Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt were wearing body armor supplied by ABC not the military. Regardless what these right wing monsters say, body armor and armored vehicles have not been as available as they should have been. The contracts for armor have been given to companies that are not capable of keeping up with demand. Armored vehicles are in short supply, but Ford, GM and Chrysler are closing plants. What's wrong with this picture?
I think it's time we send this guy out between the orbits of Saturn & Jupiter with the solar systems other Gas Giants!
whats the point to his lies....
I listened to him get his butt kicked by a caller last week who simply out smarted him on his own turf. She would make the most obvious and truthfull comment about Bush and his lying and he would come back with some far flung retort that vaguely resemble here comment - She made a comment about Bush lying over 9-11, and limabugh kept pressing her in disbelife that Bush would lie over having pre 9-11 inteligence. Finally, she said a friend had died in 9-11 to which he responded that we as a country had lost someone - what a creep to dimish her lose by such a general statement. She called him a drug addict - then 3 seconds of silence followed by her apology. He ended the conversation by telling his audience that people like her would never "learn " In turns out she was from my town, Ithaca New York - Home of free thought and respect for everyone.
I heard that exchange, and the woman did herself proud. Other than her drug addict reference (for which she immediately apologized) , she made her points directly, and Limbaugh could only get mad. Of course, the coward cut her off, and spent the next hour claiming SHE was the reason "Democrats won't win an election in our lifetime" and other such smears.
I myself got through years ago, (he'd asked for liberal callers), and he immediately hit me with the Hannity question, "DO YOU think Republicans want to starve children and kick old women into the streets?" I answered, "No, I don't think Republicans WANT these results. But their ideology dictates that they cannot CARE when these things directly result from Republican policies." I got cut off, too, and got the hour-following snipes as Limbaugh did his damage control unopposed. I felt honored.
Rush: By the way, body armor, which -- how long ago was it the media was telling us about how poor the body armor was?
Hmm, I think Rush was thinking of a column by Michelle Malkin a couple of weeks ago when she argued that the body armour was dangerous because she found a few quotes from soldiers that said it restricted their movements. Apparently she thought that being limber was more important than being alive.
That must have been a right wing radio talking point because they all used those same "Mobility" comments. Considering the alternative is rigour mortis, I would think any one in there right mind would want more armor
Body armor can be very restrictive depending on what type you are wearing. The interceptor vests that some troops are wearing weigh in around 16lbs/7.2k. If you add side panels and groin protection the weight soars over 20lbs/9k. Add to this suspension belts and ruck and we're talking 100lbs of extra weight. You can see that we could armor our troops to resemble the troops in that book "Starship Troopers", but that would not be practicle. You have to balance maneuverability with protection.
In large part it depends on the mission. That will dictate what type of armor is needed. If it is walking patrols then you may opt for ease of maneuver. If it is riding in a Hummer then I'd prefer to armor up.
There was a report that came out in Nov or Dec last year that claimed some of the body armor was defective that went to the troops. I'm not sure how the manufacturer or the military resolved this.
I saw a clip with Woodruff armored up and it looked like it was a low velocity lead vest much like what was used from the Nam - Gulf war I era. I can't confirm that though.
I don't presume to put words in Rush's mouth, but I think what he was referring to was the flak over the up-armored Humvee. There were plenty of references to the troops not having enough U-A'd Hummers over the last couple of years.
There have also been delays getting new SAPI plates for the body armor vests over the last six months, mostly due to delays in manufacture. The companys that make them tend to be small and don't have the capacity to mass market these products. Anything new usually will be sent to Aberdeen Proving Grounds which can lead to delays also.
I am troubled over reports that soldiers would lose their SGLI benefits if they opted to use privately purchased Dragon Skin armor. Especially in light that eight General officers were wearing the Dragons. This is the real story I think.
Levin, his counsel tells his listeners that the same Liberals who are undermining todays war, are the same who undermined the Viet Nam war. Hannity wraps himself in flag and spreads misinformation to the poor saps who beleive him.
Had nothing to do with explosive which do not necessarily have to shred armor to kill you. It was it regards to snipers who have adopted their shooting tactics to hit soldiers where the older armor is not protecting them. The Pentagon said in its own report that changing the body armor could save a number of lives.
Rush as usual is talking out of his backside.
"Two deploying soldiers and a concerned mother reported Friday afternoon that the U.S. Army appears to be singling out soldiers who have purchased Pinnacle's Dragon Skin Body Armor for special treatment. The soldiers, who are currently staging for combat operations from a secret location, reported that their commander told them if they were wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin and were killed their beneficiaries might not receive the death benefits from their $400,000 SGLI life insurance policies. The soldiers were ordered to leave their privately purchased body armor at home or face the possibility of both losing their life insurance benefit and facing disciplinary action."
The order came from Army Headquarters located at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida, 1/14/06.
This is bound to be a "morale" issue. "Dragon Skin" is somewhat heavier than other armor, but provides much better protection. If soldiers are allowed "personal" armor from home, which is so far superior than that supplied by the military, there could easily be unrest and dissention from the ranks. Rather than supply ALL military with the superior armor, the "solution" is to prohibit ANYONE from using it.
Thus, all our soldiers are reduced to the same shoddy equipment, and so they can't complain that some are getting "preferrential treatment". They can only die at a 80% greater rate, to pay for the fact that our Administration is not doing the job of protecting them.
How many have died to promote this Administration's "good news" campaign to say that everything is great, and that our soldiers are getting the "best support" possible?
As you know Tex this falls directly in Commands laps. You can't blame this on Bush. All for one/one for all in the military. I know it seems crazy, and I agree if there is something out there that is better, why not have them all wearing it.
The real story as I mentioned in an above post is that it is reported that up to eight General Officers are/were wearing the Dragon Skins. Good enough for the Brass (who probably need it the least) but not for the troop. This kind of thing has gone on since Moses was a private. I saw it in the Gulf and in Bosnia.
As it is truly the one we should be worried about get our troops home either by removing them or through their rotation most importantly in one piece. Where is the misinformation wing of the right wing?