13 September 2006

Body Armor

This is awesome:



Atrios calls it the best ad of the cycle so far, and I'd have to agree. It's like Swiftboating in reverse -- it's true, and against a republican!

6 comments:

Josh Gentry said...

That's effective.

matt dick said...

It's also absurd. Let's go over what this argument supposes:

A) That Donald Rumsfeld would not take more budget if you gave it to him.

or

B) That you know more about the effective distribution of resources for battlefield safety than staff at the Pentagon.

Seriously, the body armor thing is a horrendously stupid argument. Could it make a great campaign? Sure, but it just fails on its merits.

JimII said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
JimII said...

I suppose one might say that using the most up to date body armor at any particular period is cost prohibitive.

Then you might say, if you require this sort of thing, we could never chose to go to war, because of the cost required to do it acceptably is too high.

It would be like saying you can't go to war without killing civilians.

It is ludicrous. You could never go to war.

Anonymous said...

This is pure BS, I would like to see George Allen's response.

The whole body armor issue had more to do with poor distribution caused by REMF's hogging the stuff before it got to the troops on the front line.

Anonymous said...

Not that the body armour argument writ large isn't valid, but this video isn't a smoking gun (no pun intended). The "bad" vest was designed to protect against fragmentation (bits from grenades) not rifle or even pistol rounds. It is like comparing apples and crab-apples.