AP advanced FactCheck.org's misleading criticism of Vote Vets ad targeting Allen
SUMMARY: The Associated Press' Bob Lewis advanced FactCheck.org's misleading analysis of a recent ad criticizing Sen. George Allen on his 2003 vote against an amendment that would have increased National Guard funding for modern body armor. Lewis cast doubt over the ad's veracity by repeating the misleading claim that body armor was "never mentioned" in the floor speech introducing the measure.
In a September 21 article on several television advertisements being run in the Virginia Senate race, Associated Press political writer Bob Lewis advanced FactCheck.org's misleading analysis of a recent ad criticizing Sen. George F. Allen (R-VA). FactCheck argued that the ad's central assertion -- that Allen voted against an April 2003 Democratic amendment that would have increased U.S. National Guard funding for modern body armor -- was "false" because the amendment's sponsor, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), did not specifically cite "body armor" as a priority in her floor statement on the legislation. But FactCheck ignored the fact that Landrieu repeatedly stated on the floor that the bill would ensure that National Guard soldiers had "helmets" and other "force protection" equipment intended to "minimize causalities," as Media Matters for America noted. While Lewis did not join FactCheck in asserting that the ad was false, he did cast doubt over its veracity by repeating the misleading claim that Landrieu "never mentioned body armor" on the Senate floor. Moreover, Lewis -- like FactCheck -- entirely left out any mention of Allen's opposition to an October 2003 amendment offered by Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), which would have provided additional funding explicitly for body armor.
From the September 21 AP article, which ran on the website of the Daily Press in Newport News, Virginia:
The VoteVets.org ad bases its allegation that Allen denied troops lifesaving body armor on an April 2, 2003, vote Allen cast to defeat Sen. Mary Landreiu's [sic] amendment to boost funding for unspecified National Guard and Reserve equipment. In her floor speech, she never mentioned body armor. The amendment died on a party-line vote, with Allen and Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., both voting against it.
Lewis's assertions that Landrieu "never mentioned body armor" in her floor statements and that her amendment simply concerned funding for "unspecified National Guard and Reserve equipment" appear to have been taken from FactCheck's September 20 post -- which Lewis cited elsewhere in the article -- criticizing the Vote Vets ad. But these claims ignore Landrieu's press release stating that the $1 billion measure included funding for bulletproof vests and her statements on the Senate floor that the bill would provide Guard troops with "helmets" and "force protection" equipment:
- In her March 20, 2003, floor statement introducing the amendment, 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 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."
- In her April 2, 2003, floor statement on the amendment, Landrieu said: "When we talk about force protection and minimizing casualties, you don't have to be an expert in warfare to understand one of the ways you can minimize casualties is to give your Guard and Reserve the best training and the best equipment."
Lewis went on to dismiss a Vote Vets press release noting that Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, had in September 2003 expressed the need for the body armor funding included in the $87 billion emergency supplemental bill before Congress. Lewis wrote that while Abizaid's testimony "verifies the need, it came months after Allen cast his vote." But Lewis ignored the fact that several weeks after Abizaid's remarks, Allen voted against Dodd's amendment to further boost funding for body armor, as Media Matters noted in response to FactCheck's false assertion that Allen never opposed body armor for the troops:
Beyond its claims about the Landrieu amendment, FactCheck's broad assertion that "Allen did not vote against giving troops modern body armor" is simply false. 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]."
This is from the analysis done by FactCheck.org:
"Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, took the Senate floor to give examples of the kinds of equipment that might be purchased with this money, she cited 'skin reduction exposure paste,' 'mobile chemical agent detectors,' and 'collective shelters' for chemical attacks – but didn't once mention buying body armor."
Allen voted against a bill that would have provided the troops with protection from chemical attacks after Bush claimed in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Saddam was capable of producing 500 tons of chemical agents that could kill thousands. The Vote Vets should incorporate this into their ad.
with the obligation to explain exactly why he voted against the bill. what was in it that drew his no vote? and why did he vote against an identical bill where body armor was mentioned on the floor of the senate.
This effort by Kalven and mmfa...and a repeat at that...is political pandering and sleaze personified.
It is ridiculous to maintain that 52 U.S. senators voted to deprive our military of body armor. The debate on the floor was NEVER about depriving the military of necessary equipment...it was always about budget procedure.
The counter side...which mmfa utterly fails to identify...was that the money had already been appropriated to fund the military requirements.
This is a peek at the soul of mmfa...showing a rotten penchant for political gain at any cost. This is not about identifying conservative misinformation...it is ALL about skewing the facts.
mmfa cannot claim any moral high ground...they are carbon copies of any dirty politics practiced by any republicans.
52 U.S. senators voting to deprive our military of body armor...keerist!
Senator Allen (The racist) Voted against a bill to fund body armor.
The pandering is on the right which attacked anyone who was voted against the war as "Not supporting the Troops"
You make a great point, as always.
The other thing I might add is that not only did Senator Allen (the racist as you call him) vote against body armor and vote for this illegal war , he has used a racist term in "Macca" and been condesending to a former Military man in his opponent.
American Military personnel were sent to war without the equipment needed for their protection and the successful prosecution of the war. It was an invasion of political, not military necessity.
This is at least as fair a charge against Senator Allen as any of the charges made by the right during the presidential campaign of 2004 against Senator Kerry's prior votes on military appropriations.
- News organizations should present both sides of the issue, not simply both Republican sides of the issue. - foser
Josh Kalven should have read foser's quote before making his obtuse post that U.S. senators voted callously to withhold body armor from our military. foser and mmfa rail about fairness and then promote a shameless theory by Kalven. It's one thing to expose misinformation...and quite another to adopt the same practice while claiming the moral high ground.
mmfa mongers the point that conservatives cherry pick, uncritically report, and make dubious statements...and then mmfa uses the same lame tactics.
Kalven should have foser, mmfa's managing director, explain what "both sides" means.
for the fact that the soldiers were complaining of a lack of body armor. some even had it sent to them by their families. and they later complained personally to rummy of the lack of armor on their vehicles. remember that? dodd's ammendment took $322,000,000 from "iraqi reconstruction" funds and directed it to "safety equipment" for soldiers. couldn't do that though. halliburton might have missed a dollar of graft. allen and all the other republicans did what they are accused of. kerry never voted not to fund the troops. he voted for which way to pay for it.
- We did get money for these people. We got MONEY FOR EVERY ITEM that is on that list, and in the regular bill they have $26 billion. In addition to that, we added $952 million...They could REPROGRAM ANY MONEY they need from the $26 billion. - Sen.Stevens in response to Dodd's amendment
This was never about withholding body armor for the troops...congress authorized the money and gave the military the option to move the money to fund different needs as the military needs dictated.
- We asked them in and we identified the needs in the Army. We took $952 million from other services and moved it to the Army. And we COVERED SPECIFIC ITEMS THAT THEY IDENTIFIED in terms of their priorities. - Sen. Stevens in response to the Dodd amendment.
To uncritically follow mmfa's shameless political pandering exposes a lack of acumen.
The only lack of acumen comes from you. You continue to skirt over the issue of Allen voting against Body Armor.
Please answer this question. Did Allen vote against body armonr?
As Hannity always says , Yes or no?
I'll say it again (I sure wish mmfa would bring back that braille tag)...the vote was NOT to withhold body armor from the troops. The money was appropriated and available to the military to buy body armor...or anything else that they needed.
NO - Sen.Allen did not vote against body armor.
You will not answer question truthfully.
Typical Con.
can't prove it with facts.
Make it up, then resort to name calling.
allen and the republicans voted against an amendment that would have provided 322 million for "safety equipment" for troops. spin it any way you can, but that was what the amendment said.
I didnt see any name calling, I think a question was asked and a non answer was given.
i accepted everything stevens said, the fact is that dodd's amendment specified the 322 million was to be for "safety equipment" for the troops and he made it very clear on the senate floor that it was for body armor. allen and the republicans voted against it. and the fact that there continued to be a shortage of it well after that vote indicates it was needed. those are the facts. this is hardly the only instance where the bush administration shortchanged the troops on the ground.
The factcheck article clearly indicated that the shortage of body armor issue was not a montary problem. The money had already been allocated:
More importantly, there was already money for buying body armor. As we explain in more detail later in this article, the Pentagon was already in the process of vastly increasing its orders for the latest-model armored vests, and the shortages that plagued some units in Iraq for the first few months of the war were due not to a lack of money, but to the inability of Pentagon contractors to manufacture the vests fast enough to meet the sudden spike in demand, and problems getting the gear shipped to the troops. A report issued in April 2005 said:
GAO: Temporary shortages of the Interceptor body armor occurred because of acquisition delays related to lack of key materials and distribution problems in theater.
Blaming Sen. Allen for this, or Sen. Kerry for that matter, is just plain wrong.
you will see this: "votevets.org defended it's ads in a one page release. it cites a statement by gen. john abizaid of the u.s. central command to the house appropriations committee that the pentagon needed $300 million to buy more new vests. while it verifies the need, it came months after allen cast his vote." note: "while it verifies the need..." so landrieau wanted to have the money in the pipeline, purchasing vests and not waiting for the military to have to ask for them. if it was simply a matter of the manufacturers, abazaid wouldn't have been asking for the money.
Allen did indeed vote against a bill would have appropriated more funding for body armor. If Allen wants to combat the charge, he should claim what you’re claiming: that the money was already appropriated in other bills even though troops were complaining of the lack of body armor and purchasing it on their own far into the duration of the war.
And what do you mean by :
"The debate on the floor was NEVER about depriving the military of necessary equipment...it was always about budget procedure."
I'm not "claiming" anything. The facts are in the senate register. Dodd and Landrieu's amendments were described as duplicitous and not necessary.
If you take the time to look into the matter it will clear this up for you. If you simply want to follow the lead of mmfa's pandering...you'll remain uneducated on this issue.
but when you have families buying body armor and soldiers asking for them to do so, there was a problem. i'm sure you remember the soldier asking rummy why he was having to scavenge armor for his vehicle. it's well documented. just running that would make a good ad, no?
You can debate why some soldiers were not equipped with body armor with someone else.
To the point of this thread...congress reviewed the military's requests and gave them all they asked for and more. They gave them the ability to use funds at their discretion...including buying body armor.
Sen. Allen nor any other republican voted to withhold body armor from our troops.
They voted against a bill that would have provided more funding for body armor. They can use what you claim as a defense.
against a specific request to fund it. the democrats saw it was needed. the republicans voted against it. if the army was not doing the job, then the democrats said we will make sure they get it. the need was there.
-Why do you think Dodd and Landrieu would introduce bills that were not necessary? Was there a response from Dodd and Landrieu to the republican’s ridiculous charge?
-Media Matters was responding to FactCheck’s charge that Landrieu’s amendment did not cover body armor.
1. It happens all the time...it's called pork.
2. Yes
body armor? when there was a demonstrated need? you're getting ridiculous. sorry, i take back "getting".
Politicians introduce unnecessary bills all the time...with lots of pork. If you think I equated body armor with pork projects...you're not very bright.
Neither Landrieu or Dodd are immune from unnecessary legislation...as was obvious in this case.
the amendment very clearly was meant to be spent on "safety equipment" for the troops. you are correct that your republicans spend lots on pork, and they fail to spend on places where it should be spent.
Landrieu and Dodd introduced Bills that were necessary to provide the troops with the equipment they needed in a combat zone and you call it pork. Figures. The Neo-cons and their republican cohorts in Congress have been trying to fight this war on the cheap at the expense of the troops.
What do you call an unnecessary war?
"The facts are in the senate register. Dodd and Landrieu's amendments were described as duplicitous and not necessary."
-----
How many legs does a horse have if you describe its tail as a leg?
Four, of course. Describing a tail as a leg does not make it a leg.
A great link that I have attached could shed light on Sen Allen and wwhy he voted against a bill that would have provided our troops with Body Armor.
[link to richmonddemocrat.blogspot.com]
Why didn't they just vote to bring them home...wouldn't need the armor. The jackets don't stop much anyway. Just another vote to keep maiming and killing our young men.