A careful reading of the Congressional Record shows that Ms.Landrieu did not even mention body armor as a potential use of the funds during her floor statement explaining the amendment.

Transcripts in the Congressional Record show that Landrieu, who served on the Senate Armed Services Committee from 1999 to 2002, repeatedly argued that the money would be used for protective gear.

"You don't have to be an expert in warfare to understand one of the ways you can minimize casualties," she said, "is to give your Guard and Reserve the best training and the best equipment, so when they ship out, they have a chance to ship back."

When U.S. troops swept through Iraq, there was a severe shortage of the latest body armor, so the military only provided the most effective Kevlar- and ceramic-lined versions, known as Interceptor, to front-line ground troops.

Reserve and National Guard units generally were issued the less effective and much heavier Vietnam War-era flak jackets, which are not designed to stop a bullet. Soon, soldiers' families were scouring the private sector for better alternatives for loved ones under fire and shipping them to Iraq.

Why are republicans so damned ill-informed?

I don't see body armor or helmet liners mentioned at all.

"Transcripts in the Congressional Record show that Landrieu, who served on the Senate Armed Services Committee from 1999 to 2002, repeatedly argued that the money would be used for protective gear."

I guess in the alternate universe in where republicans live, protective gear is a condom and not body armor or helmets for the Guard wearing with Vietnam era hand-me-downs.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Thursday endorsed efforts by three Republican senators to block President Bush's plan to authorize harsh interrogations of terror suspects.

The latest sign of GOP division over White House security policy came in a statement that Powell sent to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the rebellious lawmakers. Powell said that Congress must not pass Bush's proposal to redefine U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions, a treaty that sets international standards for the treatment of prisoners of war.

“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” said Powell, who served under Bush and is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”

Another question for the trolls:  Why does Colin Powell hate America?

Read more about these helmet liners at http://www.operation...

OPERATION HELMET provides helmet upgrade kits free of charge to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as to those ordered to deploy in the near future. These helmet upgrades do three primary things:

  * Protection - Shock-absorbing pads keep the helmet from slapping the skull when hit with blast forces, fragments, or being tumbled along the ground or inside a vehicle. This decreases the chance of brain injury from bombs, RPG's, vehicle accidents, falls, etc.
  * Comfort - If it is more comfortable, it will stay on troop's head longer and more often.
  * Stability - Keeps the helmet firmly on the head and out of the eyes.

The life you save might save another!

The helmets currently in use by the Marines as well as those projected for the future are engineered to protect against 'ballistics' (bullets) and have only fair protection from blast forces and fragment impacts from IED's and other types of newly appreciated combat dangers. Both the old PASGT and new Marine helmets depend on a strap suspension system to 'float' the helmet over the head to maintain helmet/cranium separation. A shock-absorbing pad suspension system is far superior in providing helmet/cranium separation ('standoff')  and protection from blast waves and fragments. The shock-absorbing pad systems area available commercially for just under $100.00 each!

Yeah, y'all are real consistent on this one. 

"Just like you took Swift Boat Vets over the responses put out by Moveon.org right?

Your comment I Pubes is nonsensical.  Clarify your reasoning for me.

Candidate appears with ‘racist’ group

MONTGOMERY (AP) — Cullman County District Judge Terri Willingham Thomas, Republican nominee for the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, was recently photographed at a meeting of the Council of Conservative Citizens, considered a racist organization by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Thomas told the Montgomery Advertiser that she doesn't know anything about the organization and attended the meeting only to hear a history lesson on Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.

The VoteVets ad caught the attention of more than the blogosphere (where it's preaching to the choir, more or less). One of the blogs I read regularly (the Carpetbagger Report) mentioned that the NYTimes' political blog (Caucus) also had something to say on the subject (Sept 13). Mostly good, but the woman who wrote the entry said it was "a negative ad" and that it was an example of "swiftboating". Whoa...

It took *commenters* to point out that a) truth is objective -- neither negative nor positive and b)"to swiftboat" means to shamelessly lie about someone (ie the term cannot be applied to the ad).

But... how many people read beyond the pundit-of-the-day's statement and into the comments section (especially if they're reading "on company time" and want to gather as much info as they can as fast as possible)? Even those who are motivated enough to post, seem to ignore all previous comments (getting something off your chest being the primary concern? You figure that you can get away with ignoring what others are saying, but think everyone will hang on *your* rosy lips? Who knows what those folk think )

When people read the NYT blog, they read the "story line", not the commentary (that's true also of my CBReport. Sigh), and that's what's going to be circulating through the MSM circuit forever after... I can imagine Allen saying, one day on Fox (or on MTP, on Sunday), that he had been swiftboated -- NYT *said so*.

Allen's own ad (on women, not the "Webb the fiction-writer" one) was also mentioned (today's date). A much shorter write-up, with a link to the WashPo interview, no distortions or little linguistic innuendoes (and no comments, either, when I checked around 6PM). All in the cause of "balanced reporting", no doubt...

It really matters little, how many left-side blogs pick up the story of the ad; other than the already converted, nobody but the trolls and trolling bloggers read those. It's the MSM that's the Bastille we need to storm:)

And no, I do not know how, except by calling them on every mis-step and objecting.