Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

AP highlights VoteVets armor vest fraudulent attack ad
Posted by: McQ on Friday, September 22, 2006

Slowly but surely the word in getting around. Bob Lewis, an AP political writer:
The older vest, however, was not a Vietnam War hand-me-down. Vests such as the M69 flak vest, first available in 1969, did not come in the camouflage design of the old vest shown in the ad, according to

According to the nonpartisan and independent FactCheck.Org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, the vest shown in the ad was not available until the 1980s and were made of Kevlar, not nylon. The vest provided greater protection against shrapnel than its Vietnam War predecessor.
Heh ... gee, which I'd have said that.

Media Matters, however, completely avoided the lie about the "left over from Vietnam" vest (Probably a smart idea. Why try to defend the indefensible) in its attack on, instead dealing only with the vote (and, frankly, not dealing with it very convincingly). The best it could muster on that was to say:
But regardless of whether Landrieu specifically cited "body armor," (she didn't - ed.) she 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."
Well, gee, in reality, a category as wide as "force protection equipment" could mean more PASGTs, goggles or gloves for heaven sake. Somehow, from that generality, others are supposed to recognize an explicit call for individual body armor?

She didn't communicate well so it's everyone else's fault, huh?

Anyway, more dissembling about an ad which is at best a fraud. More from TPMMuckraker.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Shouldn’t the Left be claiming that all Republicans voted against protecting the troops? The entire Republican party doesn’t care about the military!
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
I would note Media Matters pretty much finds all the inaccuracies in the AP story.

It’s kind of lame these attacks. It’s like saying, because a Senator said "freeways" instead of "highways" when introducing an amendment to a transport bill, the money wouldn’t go towards highways, even though his or her release on the issue made clear highways were obviously included.
Written By: PWP
URL: http://
Who’s responsibility is it to make clear what the vote is about when given the opportunity?

It’s more like saying a bill is about criminal justice equipment and then claiming someone voted against protecting women from rape.
Written By: McQ

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks