In defense of Allen, Cal Thomas cited FactCheck.org's already-debunked criticism of Vote Vets ad
SUMMARY: In his column, Cal Thomas wrote that the website FactCheck.org had "looked into the substance" of a recent ad criticizing Sen. George F. Allen (R-VA) and "found none." But Media Matters has documented errors in FactCheck's analysis of the ad.
In a September 28 column headlined "Piling on Allen," syndicated columnist Cal Thomas wrote that the website FactCheck.org had "looked into the substance" of a recent ad criticizing Sen. George F. Allen (R-VA) and "found none." The ad in question, produced by the newly formed group Vote Vets, asserts that Allen voted against an April 2003 Democratic amendment that would have increased U.S. National Guard funding for modern body armor. In a September 20 analysis, FactCheck deemed the ad "false," claiming that the sponsor of the amendment, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) did not specifically cite "body armor" as a priority in her floor statement on the legislation and asserting that Allen never voted against body armor for the troops. But as Media Matters for America noted, 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." Moreover, FactCheck overlooked entirely 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.
Beyond Virginia, a version of the Vote Vets ad that targets Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) is currently running in Pennsylvania, and a version that singles out Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) is on the airwaves in Arizona. Vote Vets is also slated to run the ad in Montana, targeting Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT).
From the column:
The piling on continued with an accusation by the political action committee VoteVets.org that Allen voted against a bill to provide advanced body armor for American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. VoteVets.org spent nearly $45,000 for a television commercial that claims Allen voted for body armor that could be easily pierced. VoteVets.org's board of advisers includes 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark and former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey.
The Web site factcheck.org looked into the substance of the TV commercial and found none. As reported in The Washington Examiner recently, this nonpartisan Web site is associated with the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The organization says the commercial overstates the body armor problem and that Allen did not vote against money for the vests.
Factcheck updated their article to respond to a letter sent to them by VoteVets. Factcheck is still sticking to their basic analysis, however and they would dispute the fact that they have been "debunked" by MMFA (I think).
[link to www.factcheck.org]
Based on the April 2005 GAO report, the immediate causes for the failure to provide adequate quantaties of body armor appear to be a failure to anticipate the need and then a failure in logistics to distribute the equipment. I don't see how more money (essentially after the fact ) - even in the clear case of the Dodd amendment - would have made a difference.
I noted that in it's original item, MMFA states that FactCheck asserted "that Allen and his Republican colleagues have never voted against supplemental funding for body armor." Actually, FactCheck states that "Allen did not vote against giving troops modern body armor." Is there an effective difference in those statements? Yes, as the causal link between the supplemental funding and the available supply seems tenuous.
The inherent problem in citing Congressional votes for or against anything. It's been used by both parties, but is essentially misleading, since these bills are hopelessly complicated and tacked together like the Clampett's truck.
What I'm waiting to see is if the Deer-head-in-the-mailbox story has legs.
...but no doubt the "macaca" incident has lead to a new level of scrutiny of Allen's past. His lead in the polls over the challenger, Webb, has fallen from 29% to around 5%. I hope the voters show Allen the door, but now I'm digressing.
I'll agree that there was a problem with the procurement system not identifying the need. But I also know that soliders and marines, their parents, and other people who care were going outside the system to buy the needed equipment. If it exists, there are ways for the DoD to circumvent normal channels and buy it.
Repubs in Congress and Bush appointees in the Pentagon never have had any sense of urgency when it comes to taking care of the troops. That $1B for the Nat'l Guard proposed by Landrieu and voted down by the Repubs could have bought an awful lot of protective equipment available on the civilian market.
There is a substantial difference in the logistics between acquiring and shipping one vest vs. acquiring and distributing hundreds of thousands of them. (This was the real genius of Gen. Patton.) Evidence suggests that the Army attempted to circumvent some of the usual bureaucracy to speed up distibution of vests, but not without issues. The GAO made/documented recommendations for improvements; one would hope they've been implemented.
I don't think the attention in Congress was itself a bad thing. It may have helped to focus attention on a number of logistics problems. However, based on the GAO report, I doubt the appropriations would have had an impact.
I don't see these particular votes as important. The issue to me is one of Allen's being fully complicit with an administration in a pre-emptive war packaged as pure fantasy. Allen's disservice to the military goes far beyond body armor.
Of course there's more to supplying a force with a particular item than for an individual to buy one. But the military is set up for the logistics involved. If the priority from above (and money) are there, it's just not that hard to accomplish.
Besides, it wasn't the full force. Mostly the Guard and Marine Reserve units. Sent over in brigade and batallion sets.
I agree that Allen is complicit in far worse than just the issue of body armor. But by focusing on one narrow aspect, the VoteVets ad grabs for something viscerally tangible. And that's precisely what an effective political spot must do.
Heh...that was the subject I almost used above.
But the military is set up for the logistics involved.
In theory, yes. However, the GAO report documents alot of logistical problems in Iraq. The volume and time demands exceeded their capabilities. Part of this I would ascribe to a lack of anticipation of a continued violence in Iraq. As rediculous as that seems to me, I can't conclude otherwise.
focusing on one narrow aspect...grabs for something viscerally tangible. And that's precisely what an effective political spot must do.
I agree. My comments should only be read in context of the veracity of the claims, not their effectiveness as a campaign ad.
That's the first time Cal Thomas ever cited factcheck.org.
what was calvin comeover's response to bush's false attack on Kerry? The question of the vests no being Vietnam era vests is a minor detail if they aren't sufficient. The question of the supply chain being the problem is a larger one with the ads. But you know what? Tough. typical conservofacists, whining when their own tatics get used on them. They always seem to decry the lack of bipartisianship, the coarseness of current political discourse etc. when it's their butts getting reamed. If they don't like it, they should stop it. they started it.
combover. typos take the wind out of gratuitious snark.
On last night's 'Daily Show', Al Franken made an interesting observation about the strange story of Sen. Allen's mom revealing to him that she is Jewish...
By published accounts, Etty Allen (Sen. Allen's mom) is quoted as saying:
"When I told Georgie, I said, 'Now you don't love me anymore.' "
...and Franken asked the 'Daily Show' audience, rhetorically:
"What kind of son would not love his mom for her being Jewish?"
But Jon Stewart had to step on the question, kind of breaking the thought, before Al was able to provide the true answer to the question:
"An anti-Semite."
It wasn't a joke, it was a true observation... collected from the strange story of "mom's secret"... where the mom, after revealing her Semitic truth, says to her son:
'Now you don't love me anymore.'
...it was the same as saying her son is anti-Semitic.