Not that I would ever want to debate body armor issues with Senator Clinton, but isn't she on the Armed Services Committee? I think she's been fully aware of the body armor situation. I find it difficult to believe that her outrage is genuine. Or did she not get the memo?
Anyway, I just wanted to remind everyone of this article in the Army Times with a video of a medic getting shot at close range and then treating the insurgent who just shot him. In this case, body armor saved his life.
However, sometimes survival depends on a lot of things - including luck. One of my good friends died because he took two 7.62 rounds in his armpit (he was firing his weapon at the time, so his right elbow was raised). He wore body armor. Tragically, it didn't help him.
There are some who would rather have less armor. There are certainly those who would rather have more. It's the ages old trade-off - protection versus mobility.
Keep improving the body armor. That is, in fact, what we are doing. But, it needs to be stronger and lighter - much lighter. And it can't be done fast enough...unless more research dollars were spent on it. I wonder who studies and recommends those kind of things?
The Armed Services Committee which is made up of both Democrats and Republicans.
Update: Gail sends the link to Baghdad Guy's take on the issue.
Update 2: Here's RI Senator (D) Jack Reed about how Congress got the body armor issue resolved...?! Interesting that he knew that there were problems in 2003 and Senator Clinton did not.
Perhaps Jack Reed is not running for President.
Update 3: The link to Jack Reed's speech is fixed.