Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Troops die without body armor. Why the delay?

Posted By: PK on 2006-01-16
In Reply to:






For Lack of Body Armor, Troops Die. Why the Delay?





Paul Rieckhoff on body armor in USA Today: Rieckhoff and other veterans are calling for a congressional investigation. That's justified. Tracking their complaints could save lives in future wars — not to mention this one.

 From USA Today

After Army and Marine Corps generals were summoned Wednesday to a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill, the brass emerged with vows to improve body armor for all U.S. troops in Iraq.


 That's good to hear, but shouldn't it have happened sooner?


 Members of Congress were reacting to a newly reported analysis by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner, which concluded that 80% of the fatal injuries to Marines in the study might have been prevented by additional armor coverage. Side armor, a special concern, is just beginning to arrive in Iraq.


 The armor situation fits a deadly pattern of blunders by the war's architects. The quick invasion of Iraq happened as planned, but — as former Iraq civilian administrator Paul Bremer acknowledges in his new book — the Bush administration didn't anticipate the widespread and lethal insurgency that followed.


 The occupying U.S. troops soon found themselves facing deadly new tactics with inadequate armor on both their vehicles and themselves. This tragic miscalculation has had tragic consequences.


 To date, 1,510 soldiers and 633 Marines have died in Iraq, many of them killed by rifle shots or explosions in which better armor could have made a difference.


 Army generals say the body armor used by soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan has already been improved seven times. All soldiers there have bullet-proof body vests called Interceptors, which have front-and-back ceramic plates. Side panels, which are added to the Interceptors to provide more coverage, are just now being distributed to Marines.


 Defending their body-armor decisions, Army spokesmen conjure up images of medieval combatants whose ever-heavier personal armor brought their horses to their knees. A soldier wrapped in armor can't fight in the heat of Iraq, they say.


 Maybe not, but the Pentagon owes further explanations to military families and to Congress, which since 2001 has appropriated $302 billion to cover operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of the questions that need answering include:


 • Was there proper planning? Thousands of troops arrived in Iraq with old-style flak jackets. Not until January 2004 did all troops have the new Interceptor vests, according to a Government Accountability Office report released last year.


 •Was the armor upgraded fast enough? The Marine Corps says it moved quickly to add side armor upon learning the news from the examiner's report. But the Army has yet to supply its soldiers with side protection.


 • Do the services have adequate supply systems? Those systems appear hobbled by slow turnarounds and poor reliability. In November, more than 18,000 vests were recalled for failing to meet ballistics tests.


 Army and Marine commanders know that no battle plan survives the first contact with the enemy. The question is how quickly the services adapt. The answer in Iraq is tooslowly, says Paul Rieckhoff, who led an Army platoon there protected only by the flak jackets, which can't stop an AK-47 round.


 The body armor delays mirror problems with the Humvee. Not until last July did the Army finally replace its soft-skinned Humvees, proven tragically vulnerable to roadside bombs, with a fully armored version.


 Rieckhoff and other veterans are calling for a congressional investigation. That's justified. Tracking their complaints could save lives in future wars — not to mention this one.




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Other related messages found in our database

If you don't think our troops deserve BODY ARMOR

provided by the President who is all too eager to see them die but never had the guts to put is own life on the line for his country, then YOU are the one who doesn't care about our troops.


If I'm a joke, you're a disgrace and a fraud.

Like body armor?
Army order soldiers to get rid of better body armor or lose death benefits
Army Orders Soldiers to Shed Dragon Skin or Lose SGLI Death Benefits

By Nathaniel R. Helms

Two deploying soldiers and a concerned mother reported Friday afternoon that the U.S. Army appears to be singling out soldiers who have purchased Pinnacle's Dragon Skin Body Armor for special treatment. The soldiers, who are currently staging for combat operations from a secret location, reported that their commander told them if they were wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin and were killed their beneficiaries might not receive the death benefits from their $400,000 SGLI life insurance policies. The soldiers were ordered to leave their privately purchased body armor at home or face the possibility of both losing their life insurance benefit and facing disciplinary action.

The soldiers asked for anonymity because they are concerned they will face retaliation for going public with the Army's apparently new directive. At the sources' requests DefenseWatch has also agreed not to reveal the unit at which the incident occured for operational security reasons.

On Saturday morning a soldier affected by the order reported to DefenseWatch that the directive specified that all commercially available body armor was prohibited. The soldier said the order came down Friday morning from Headquarters, United States Special Operations Command (HQ, USSOCOM), located at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. It arrived unexpectedly while his unit was preparing to deploy on combat operations. The soldier said the order was deeply disturbiing to many of the men who had used their own money to purchase Dragon Skin because it will affect both their mobility and ballistic protection.

We have to be able to move. It (Dragon Skin) is heavy, but it is made so we have mobility and the best ballistic protection out there. This is crazy. And they are threatening us with our benefits if we don't comply. he said.

The soldier reiterated Friday's reports that any soldier who refused to comply with the order and was subsequently killed in action could be denied the $400,000 death benefit provided by their SGLI life insurance policy as well as face disciplinary action.

As of this report Saturday morning the Army has not yet responded to a DefenseWatch inquiry.

Recently Dragon Skin became an item of contention between proponents of the Interceptor OTV body armor generally issued to all service members deploying in combat theaters and its growing legion of critics. Critics of the Interceptor OTV system say it is ineffective and inferior to Dragon Skin, as well as several other commercially available body armor systems on the market. Last week DefenseWatch released a secret Marine Corps report that determined that 80% of the 401 Marines killed in Iraq between April 2004 and June 2005 might have been saved if the Interceptor OTV body armor they were wearing was more effective. The Army has declined to comment on the report because doing so could aid the enemy, an Army spokesman has repeatedly said.

A U.S. Army spokesman was not available for comment at the time DW's original report (Friday - 1700 CST) was published. DefenseWatch continues to seek a response from the Army and will post one as soon as it becomes available. Yesterday the DoD released a news story through the Armed Forces News Service that quoted Maj. Gen. Steven Speaks, the Army's director of force development, who countered critical media reports by denying that the U.S. military is behind the curve in providing appropriate force protection gear for troops deployed to Iraq and elsewhere in the global war against terrorism. The New York Tiimes and Washington Post led the bandwagon of mainstream media that capitalized on DefenseWatch's release of the Marine Corps study. Both newspapers released the forensic information the Army and Marines are unwilling to discuss.

Those headlines entirely miss the point, Speaks said.

The effort to improve body armor has been a programmatic effort in the case of the Army that has gone on with great intensity for the last five months, he noted.

Speaks' assessment contradicts earlier Army, Marine and DoD statements that indicated as late as last week that the Army was certain there was nothing wrong with Interceptor OTV body armor and that it was and remains the best body armor in the world.

One of the soldiers who lost his coveted Dragon Skin is a veteran operator. He reported that his commander expressed deep regret upon issuing his orders directing him to leave his Dragon Skin body armor behind. The commander reportedly told his subordinates that he had no choice because the orders came from very high up and had to be enforced, the soldier said. Another soldier's story was corroborated by his mother, who helped defray the $6,000 cost of buying the Dragon Skin, she said.

The mother of the soldier, who hails from the Providence, Rhode Island area, said she helped pay for the Dragon Skin as a Christmas present because her son told her it was so much better than the Interceptor OTV they expected to be issued when arriving in country for a combat tour.

He didn't want to use that other stuff, she said. He told me that if anything happened to him I am supposed to raise hell.

At the time the orders were issued the two soldiers had already loaded their Dragon Skin body armor onto the pallets being used to air freight their gear into the operational theater, the soldiers said. They subsequently removed it pursuant to their orders.

Currently nine U.S. generals stationed in Afghanistan are reportedly wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin body armor, according to company spokesman Paul Chopra. Chopra, a retired Army chief warrant officer and 20+-year pilot in the famed 160th Nightstalkers Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), said his company was merely told the generals wanted to evaluate the body armor in a combat environment. Chopra said he did not know the names of the general officers wearing the Dragon Skin.

Pinnacle claims more than 3,000 soldiers and civilians stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan are wearing Dragon Skin body armor, Chopra said. Several months ago DefenseWatch began receiving anecdotal reports from individual soldiers that they were being forced to remove all non-issue gear while in theater, including Dragon Skin body armor, boots, and various kinds of non-issue ancillary equipment.

Last year the DoD, under severe pressure from Congress, authorized a one-time $1,000 reimbursement to soldiers who had purchased civilian equipment to supplement either inadequate or unavailable equipment they needed for combat operations. At the time there was no restriction on what the soldiers could buy as long as it was specifically intended to offer personal protection or further their mission capabilities while in theater.
Yes, it makes me feel better, my body is my body
and nobody can tell me what to do with my body or what is in my body till the 120th day!
And to 'sm' or 'm' or whatever she calls herself on this board, I wish the same she wished to 'abc' in her nasty reply 11/16/08.

And I have become VERY thick skinned
So if he knows your soul before you have a body, and the body he planned for that soul is killed (sm
Does he just give the same soul to a different body? Just curious how your beliefs work.
More DeLay fun and
AP: DeLay, Blunt Traded Secret Donations

By JOHN SOLOMON and SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writers1 hour, 33 minutes ago

Tom DeLay deliberately raised more money than he needed to throw parties at the 2000 presidential convention, then diverted some of the excess funds to longtime ally Roy Blunt through a series of donations that benefited both men's causes.

When the financial carousel stopped, DeLay's private charity, the consulting firm that employed DeLay's wife and the Missouri campaign of Blunt's son all ended up with money, according to campaign documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist recently charged in an ongoing federal corruption and fraud investigation, and Jim Ellis, the DeLay fundraiser indicted with his boss last week in Texas, also came into the picture.

The complicated transactions are drawing scrutiny in legal and political circles after a grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of violating Texas law with a scheme to launder illegal corporate donations to state candidates.

Blunt last week temporarily replaced DeLay as House majority leader, and Blunt's son, Matt, has now risen to Missouri's governor.

The government's former chief election enforcement lawyer said the Blunt and DeLay transactions are similar to the Texas case and raise questions that should be investigated regarding whether donors were deceived or the true destination of their money was concealed.

These people clearly like using middlemen for their transactions, said Lawrence Noble. It seems to be a pattern with DeLay funneling money to different groups, at least to obscure, if not cover, the original source, said Noble, who was the Federal Election Commission's chief lawyer for 13 years, including in 2000 when the transactions occurred.

None of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations DeLay collected for the 2000 convention were ever disclosed to federal regulators because the type of group DeLay used wasn't governed by federal law at the time.

DeLay has temporarily stepped aside as majority leader after being indicted by a Texas prosecutor.

Spokesmen for the two Republican leaders say they disclosed what was required by law at the time and believe all their transactions were legal, though donors might not always have know where their money was headed.

It illustrates what others have said, that money gets transferred all the time. This was disclosed to the extent required to be disclosed by applicable law, said Don McGahn, a lawyer for DeLay. It just shows that donors don't control funds once they're given.

Blunt and DeLay planned all along to raise more money than was needed for the convention parties and then route some of that to other causes, such as supporting state candidates, said longtime Blunt aide Gregg Hartley.

We put together a budget for what we thought we would raise and spend on the convention and whatever was left over we were going to use to support candidates, said Hartley, Blunt's former chief of staff who answered AP's questions on behalf of Blunt.

Hartley said he saw no similarity to the Texas case. The fact that DeLay's charity, Christine DeLay's consulting firm and Blunt's son were beneficiaries was a coincidence, Hartley said.

Much of the money — including one donation to Blunt from an Abramoff client accused of running a sweatshop garment factory in the Northern Mariana Islands — changed hands in the spring of 2000, a period of keen interest to federal prosecutors.

During that same time, Abramoff arranged for DeLay to use a concert skybox for donors and to take a golfing trip to Scotland and England that was partly underwritten by some of the lobbyist's clients. Prosecutors are investigating whether the source of some of the money was disguised, and whether some of DeLay's expenses were originally put on the lobbyist's credit card in violation of House rules.

Both DeLay and Blunt and their aides also met with Abramoff's lobbying team several times in 2000 and 2001 on the Marianas issues, according to law firm billing records obtained by AP under an open records request. DeLay was instrumental in blocking legislation opposed by some of Abramoff's clients.

Noble said investigators should examine whether the pattern of disguising the original source of money might have been an effort to hide the leaders' simultaneous financial and legislative dealings with Abramoff and his clients.

You see Abramoff involved and see the meetings that were held and one gets the sense Abramoff is helping this along in order to get access and push his clients' interest, he said. And at the same time, you see Delay and Blunt trying to hide the root of their funding.

All of these transactions may have strings attached to them. ... I think you would want to look, if you aren't already looking, at the question of a quid pro quo, Noble said.

Blunt and DeLay have long been political allies. The 2000 transactions occurred as President Bush was marching toward his first election to the White House, DeLay was positioning himself to be House majority leader and Blunt was lining up to succeed DeLay as majority whip, the third-ranking position in the House.

The entities Blunt and DeLay formed allowed them to collect donations of any size and any U.S. source with little chance of federal scrutiny.

DeLay's convention fundraising arm, part of his Americans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee (ARMPAC), collected large corporate donations to help wine and dine Republican VIPs during the presidential nominating convention in Philadelphia in late summer 2000. DeLay's group has declined to identify any of the donors.

Blunt's group, a nonfederal wing of his Rely on Your Beliefs Fund, eventually registered its activities in Missouri but paid a $3,000 fine for improperly concealing its fundraising in 1999 and spring 2000, according to Missouri Ethics Commission records.

Both groups — DeLay's and Blunt's — were simultaneously paying Ellis, the longtime DeLay fundraiser who was indicted along with his boss in Texas in the alleged money laundering scheme.

The DeLay group began transferring money to Blunt's group in two checks totaling $150,000 in the spring of 2000, well before Republicans actually met in Philadelphia for the convention. The transfers accounted for most of money Blunt's group received during that period.

DeLay's convention arm sent $50,000 on March 31, 2000. Eight days later, the Blunt group made a $10,000 donation to DeLay's private charity for children on April 7, 2000, and began the first of several payments totaling $40,000 to a northern Virginia-based political consulting firm formed by DeLay's former chief of staff, Ed Buckham.

That consulting firm at the time also employed DeLay's wife, Christine, according to DeLay's ethics disclosure report to Congress.

Hartley said Blunt was unaware that Mrs. DeLay worked at the firm when he made the payments, and that she had nothing to do with Blunt's group.

On April 14, 2000, Concorde Garment Manufacturing, based in the Northern Marianas Islands that was part of Abramoff's lobbying coalition, contributed $3,000 to Blunt's group.

Hartley said the donation was delivered during a weekend of fundraising activities by Blunt and DeLay but his boss did not know who solicited it.

Concorde, derided for years in lawsuits as a Pacific island sweatshop, paid a $9 million penalty to the U.S. government in the 1990s for failing to pay workers' overtime. The company was visited by DeLay.

The company was a key member of the Marianas garment industry that the islands' government was trying to protect when it hired Abramoff to lobby DeLay, Blunt and others to keep Congress from imposing tougher wage and tax standards on the islands.

After the November 2000 election, Abramoff's firm billed its Mariana Islands clients for at least one meeting with Blunt and three meetings with Blunt's staff, billing records show. Abramoff's team also reported several meetings with DeLay and his staff on the issue, including one during the presidential convention.

On May 24, 2000 — just before DeLay left with Abramoff for the Scottish golfing trip — DeLay's convention fundraising group transferred $100,000 more to Blunt's group. Within three weeks, Blunt turned around and donated the same amount to the Missouri Republican Party.

The next month, the state GOP began spending large amounts of money to help Blunt's son, Matt, in his successful campaign to become Missouri secretary of state. On July 25, 2000, the state GOP made its first expenditure for the younger Blunt, totaling just over $11,000. By election day, that figure had grown to more than $160,000.

Hartley said Blunt always liked to help the state party and the fact that his son got party help after his donation was a coincidence. They are unrelated activities, he said.

Exchanges of donations occurred again in the fall. Just a few days before the November election, DeLay's ARMPAC gave $50,000 to the Missouri GOP. A month later, the Missouri GOP sent $50,000 to DeLay's group.

___

Associated Press Writer David Lieb in Missouri contributed to this story.

On the Net:

Documents for this story are available at: http://wid.ap.org/documents/delay/index.html
Former Aide to DeLay
November 21, 2005
Former Aide to DeLay Pleads Guilty in Conspiracy Case
By DAVID STOUT
and PHILIP SHENON

WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 - Michael Scanlon, former aide to a powerful congressman and onetime partner of a wealthy lobbyist, pleaded guilty today to a federal conspiracy charge as part of a deal in which he agreed to cooperate with an investigation into possible wrongdoing by some lawmakers.

Mr. Scanlon's comedown from a young and wealthy Washington power-player to disgraced felon, formalized before Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of Federal District Court here, had been expected. But it still may have sent shivers down Capitol corridors.

Mr. Scanlon agreed to pay restitution totaling more than $19 million to the tribes and faces up to five years in prison. He was allowed to remain free on $5 million bond. After pleading guilty, the well-tanned Mr. Scanlon appeared incongruously cheerful. Asked by reporters why he was smiling, he replied, I'm always smiling.

Mr. Scanlon, 35, was accused of conspiring to defraud Indian tribes out of millions of dollars as part of a lobbying and corruption scheme that involved wining and dining of some lawmakers, treating them to lavish trips and contributing to their campaigns.

Representative Bob Ney, an Ohio Republican, who heads the House Appropriations Committee, was alluded to in the indictment (although not by name) as a main beneficiary of largess, in return for helping Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon with their clients.

Lawyers involved in the case have confirmed that Mr. Ney is the Representative #1 cited in the indictment. The congressman - who has not been charged - has asserted that he was duped by the two and is cooperating with prosecutors, a spokesman for Mr. Ney says.

Mr. Scanlon's lawyer, Plato Cacheris, was asked whether any other members of Congress had anything to fear. I have no comment on that, he replied.

Until recently, Mr. Scanlon occupied a powerful - and lucrative - position at the intersection of political power and lobbying influence. For several years, he worked as a top aide to Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the Republican majority leader. He left Mr. DeLay's office in 2000 to become an associate of Jack Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist.

Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon earned more than $80 million representing a few wealthy Indian tribes on gambling issues. Those transactions have been under investigation by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee as well as federal prosecutors.

In an e-mail message made public by the committee, Mr. Scanlon seemed to lust for wealth, and seemed to see the Indian tribes as easy targets. I want all their money!!! he wrote of one tribe in 2002. Referring to the money available from another tribe, he exclaimed, Weeez gonna be rich!!!

Mr. DeLay has been indicted in Texas on charges involving political fund-raising that are not related to the inquiry in which Mr. Scanlon pleaded guilty today. And Mr. Abramoff has been indicted in Florida on unrelated fraud-and-conspiracy charges involving an attempt to buy a fleet of casino boats.

Like Mr. Ney, Mr. DeLay has been named as a beneficiary of Mr. Abramoff's and Mr. Scanlon's generosity. He, too, has denied wrongdoing. Mr. Cacheris, when asked whether Mr. DeLay had reason to worry over Mr. Scanlon's cooperating with prosecutors, said, You'll have to ask his lawyers.
Tomy DeLay just indicted for conspiracy.
It is just one scandal after another with these guys.
My bet is Delay will be found innocent and Rove is old news.
Besides, last time I check we had a system of balances in this country.  The time and the law will prevail, I have no doubt.
Pot meets kettle. You mean like Tom Delay's 2000-2001
We are still dealing with the aftermath. But hey, he was just trying to help out the shrub and the rest of the GOP good ole boys.
What about it? It ain't his body.
You think I'd carry a child for 9 months, give birth and then hand it over to the father - NOT! 
It's MY body, and always will be - before,
Go screw with your OWN body.
Body by Fisher?
Lawyers Spar Over Role of Religion in 'Intelligent Design' As Pa. Court Battle Over School Policy Opens
There's only so much ignorance that a body can take
nm
Nope. NOTHING I have, in or out of my body,
YOUR 'god' is not necessarily MY God. My God does not happen to be a judgemental control-freak like your 'god' is.
No, I am not confusing the body with an 844-ft mountain top...
What I am referring to are the many cases where schools will have rules that ban crosses or any form of Christian expression, but allow Muslims/Sikhs to wear headscarves. The ACLU by and large will not take those cases even if asked. If situation reversed, they will sue on behalf of Muslims/sikhs without being asked.

Again...the first ammendment guarantees freedom of religion and the free expression thereof. The last 4 words mean as much as the first words.

The first ammendment prohibits the establishment of a state religion...like the church of England that required everyone to follow that religion. There is nothing in the constitution that uses the words separation of church and state. The founding fathers did not seperate Christianity from the government...it is interwoven in the founding documents, on our currency, on the walls of Congress. It is part of the American heritage. From the drive to come here for religious freedom came the drive to set out the other individual freedoms.

As I said, if people find sharing the gospel annoying a simple I am not interested works with most Christians. There is always a radical fringe associated with any religion...some more than others. There is a radical political fringe.

All I am saying is that Christians are discriminated against in this country. And the same people who will rise up and decry discrimination against Muslims, et al, will not rise up and decry the same discrimination against Christians. I would think civil liberties apply to ALL of us....

I said nothing about putting a cross on public ground...don't know why you went off on that tangent. :)
It's not for you to decide what a woman does with her body
Mind your own business. Keep your own legs closed when the rapist approaches.
If you're so worried about your body........
and you think so much of YOUR bodyl, at what point do you think about the body of an unborn child? Shouldn't you be worried about YOUR body before you get pregnant?

What about the freedom and rights of a living being that just happens to be carried in a womb? If you don't want a baby, then how about NOT getting pregnant in the first place? And please don't give me the garbage about "it happens", blah, blah, blah.....there's always a way to make sure it doesn't happen.
While a fetus remains a part of MY body, is sure
And it will never be yours, or anyone else's.

I just get tired of hearing "It's my body, I can
do what I want to with it."  I had a second child totally unplanned for and totally not expected (my first only being 7 months old when I got pregnant), but the thought of abortion never crossed my mind.  That baby was a human being, not just a fetus to me.  That child is now 26 years old and expecting her first child.  She has brought so much joy into my life that I can't even bear to think what it would be without her.  Had I chosen to abort her, I would have missed one of the greatest blessings I had ever been given.  It wasn't just my body that was involved.  The only choice I made was taking the risk for an unwanted pregnancy.  If I didn't want to be pregnant, I probably should have been more careful.  Now, I'm so happy that I wasn't very careful.  She is a beautiful young woman that I treasure dearly.
Well, I read the stench of body odor on the mall
was almost unbearable in places. Believe me, I live in a town where we have those persons who refused to bathe (don't know how bathing hurts the environment, but they think it does), and they are lovingly referred to as the great unwashed.  The radiology clinic where I worked at began to refuse to take them unless they washed...anyway these are always the ones who show up at the anti-Bush, anti-war rallies in our area.
So SP wrapping the flag around her body for a political photo op
x
What about feeling the baby move inside your body? sm
So the baby I felt moving in my tummy at 20 weeks gestation wasn't alive?
Say it ain't so....Family Upset Over Soldier's Body Arriving As Freight..sm

I hope this family is able to effect a change in this. This would be something worth quitting your job and marching for change.  I'm heartbroken reading of the audacity of the military to ship a fallen soldier as freight.  This has to be a mistake. Pinch me I'm dreaming...Democrat. 


 


Family Upset Over Soldier's Body Arriving As Freight


Bodies Sent To Families On Commercial Airliners



POSTED: 4:46 pm PST December 9, 2005

UPDATED: 10:19 am PST December 12, 2005







 | Print This Story

SAN DIEGO -- There's controversy over how the military is transporting the bodies of service members killed overseas, 10News reported.

A local family said fallen soldiers and Marines deserve better and that one would think our war heroes are being transported with dignity, care and respect. It said one would think upon arrival in their hometowns they are greeted with honor. But unfortunately, the family said that is just not the case.

Dead heroes are supposed to come home with their coffins draped with the American flag -- greeted by a color guard.

But in reality, many are arriving as freight on commercial airliners -- stuffed in the belly of a plane with suitcases and other cargo.















John Holley and his wife, Stacey, were stunned when they found out the body of their only child, Matthew John Holley, who died in Iraq last month, would be arriving at Lindbergh Field as freight.

Matthew was a medic with the 101st Airborne unit and died on Nov. 15.

When someone dies in combat, they need to give them due respect they deserve for (the) sacrifice they made, said John Holley.

John and Stacey Holley, who were both in the Army, made some calls, and with the help of U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, Matthew was greeted with honor and respect.

Our familiarity with military protocol and things of that sort allowed us to kind of put our foot down -- we're not sure other parents have that same knowledge, said Stacey Holley.

The Holleys now want to make sure every fallen hero gets the proper welcome.

The bodies of dead service members arrive at Dover Air Force Base.

From that point, they are sent to their families on commercial airliners.

Reporters from 10News called the Defense Department for an explanation. A representative said she did not know why this is happening.


Previous Story:
Thank God our troops
Okay...so you are okay with troops in ...
Afghanistan...just not in Iraq...?
Yes, has nothing to do with the troops.
And no, it does not make her a resident expert. Explain the differences of opinions amongst our own troops. Not all of them believe what they are doing is justified. Not every mother believes it either. It has nothing at all to do with being prideful of our sons and daughters. My point being is that their job is done. My brother is a gunny and is doing his job, but he no longer feels justified in doing it, and he is not alone. And I believe HIM. If the other poster is a resident expert because her son is in Iraq, then I guess that makes me a resident expert as well, no?

Yes, Liberal Thinker, and proud of it. I have not abandoned compassion. My agenda is to stop this needless war. My compassion is expanded to all not just a few. It started in my brain, and I am letting it spill out my mouth.

Yes. I criticize that with which I do not believe. That is our right is it not?

And last time I looked, this is a political forum, and a liberal forum at that.
It has nothing to do with our troops.
Why are you taken it so personally? You must realize that for every picture of sunshine your son sends you there is one that depicts suffering and starvation and death. I have family fighting it Iraq. It's doesn't change my stance that I feel that they are there unjustly. That's the real deal. Not quite sure how having family there makes you the resident expert. The point to my post was that we shouldn't be there anymore. Our troops have done what the Bush administration wanted done on the initial invasion. Now we are there fighting for an ideal that doesn't exist. So, in that perhaps you don't have a clue. If you son dies at the hands of an insurgent, those same insurgents who benefit from keeping unrest in the country and keeping it destabilized, a situation that our government and you refuse to recognize or better yet do anything about, I wonder if you will feel the same? Would his death be justified then? We are not fighting terrorists anymore in Iraq. They've moved on to other countries. What happens if there is another strike? Our troops are too thin and they are tired. Draft? Getting on your patriotic horse isn't help us end this war any sooner. There is no pride in this war anymore, if there ever was.

We have been paying Pakistan since 2001 to help fight terrorism. They haven't done much with our 10 billion dollars have they? If Al- Qaeda is to blame for Bhutto's death, then Pakistan should deal with it, and I don't believe we should be sending them anymore money. We shouldn't have been sending them money to begin with.

This is a widespread virus of Islamic extremism that we have concentrated mostly in Iraq while Al-Qaeda has gained strength in other countries while our military is being depleted. It is to their benefit this war continues because it destabilizes OUR country. Unless we have a full coalition from other countries to help fight this war, it cannot be won and we are wasting our time and our money on a pipe dream.

We do not have infinite resources to fight a civil unrest that will probably never be rectified. This war was handled poorly from the beginning and it is getting worse by the day.

I don't think YOU are paying attention to what is really go on in Iraq. Do you want your son there indefinitely? How about your son's son? This is a religious war for them, it will never end unless we end it.
That's what the troops are supposed to be doing
The key word is *securing.*  It's an extreme exaggeration to say that the U.S. was supporting Hezbollah by making sure a Suni and Shiite combined rally did not get out of hand, but it's par for the course of for the dramaticists known as the mainstream media.  Poor and misleading reporting is what they specialize in.
Say thanks to the troops...(see link)...sm
nm
Oh, so that is your message to our troops...
Go to work and do your job. Just live with the protesting and ignore it?
Somehow, I don't think our troops see things that way. sm
I don't think that is a good analogy. 
The troops speak

Replying to a post below, I thought this would be a good link in a separate message in case people skip over it below.


The US Military troops speak and here is what they say - 68% for McCain, 23% Obama.  Here is the link below.


http://activemilitaryformccain.blogspot.com/


So if you take that, plus Obama has a 5 point lead over McCain in today's polls, plus the 11% who are not decided it is a very close call.  November 4th is going to be an excited day for sure.

Yes, hurrah for the troops.....sm
I saw this the other day, and while I do not hold much stock in the mainstream polls that poll the dems 3 or 4:1, I was very heartened to see this story. Of course, I could only find it on Fox, and another military website.

Seems the mainstream media didn't want the rest of the American public to know about it, which is hardly surprising.


At any rate, since I believe the majority of those polled for this study are older military, who most likely are Republican, of course they support John McCain. They know that he is the most able leader for our country in times like these.


I'd also like to post this video again. Dear Mr. Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8
I agree with you about the troops.
I also believe that the REAL disgrace was for them to be sent into a war based on lies and the blind ambitions of the imperial wizard and his henchmen. I also do not believe that a policy based on "saving face" is worth sharing one more drop of blood over...on either side.
You just blew your pro troops facade. sm
but you are pretty easy to read. It isn't about the war or Cindy Sheehan or the price of gasoline.  It's about your virulent and soul destroying damnable hatred for George W. Bush that even goes so far as to extend to his family.  You, and those like you, put this country and our troops at risk every single day.  Why not do the right thing since you hate this war so very much.  BE A HUMAN SHIELD.  As if.
So much for caring about the troops. You are a joke. nm
I think you would be very surprised at how the troops see you, Lilly.
I am sure the troops in Afghanistan would be interested to know they are not there.
,
I never said I didn't support the troops!
You took what I said way out of context. I support the troops, I just want to know when it will be over. I want to know when our government will start to pay attention to OUR country instead of going around trying to fix everyone ELSE'S problems. I have a brother in the military...in Iraq. I never said I didn't support them. Unfortunately for them, they don't have a say in what they are having to do.
Implanted Chips in Our Troops? sm
Implanted Chips in Our Troops?

A Florida company wants to get under the skin of 1.4 million U.S. servicemen and women. VeriChip Corp, based in Delray Beach, Fla., and described by the D.C. Examiner as one of the most aggressive marketers of radio frequency identification chips, is hoping to convince the Pentagon to allow them to insert the chips, known as RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) chips under the skin of the right arms of U.S. servicemen and servicewomen to enable them to scan an arm and obtain that person’s identity and medical history. The chips would replace the legendary metal dog tags that have been worn by U.S. military personnel since 1906.

The device is usually implanted above the triceps area of an individual’s right arm, but can also by implanted in the hand if scanned at the proper frequency. The VeriChip responds with a unique 16-digit number, which can correlate the user to information stored on a database for identity verification, medical records access and other uses. The insertion procedure is performed under local anesthetic, and once inserted it is invisible to the naked eye.

The company, which the Examiner notes has powerful political connections, is in discussions” with the Pentagon, VeriChip spokeswoman Nicole Philbin told the Examiner. The potential for this technology doesn’t just stop at the civilian level,” Philbin said. Company officials have touted the chips as versatile, able to be used in a variety of situations such as helping track illegal immigrants or giving doctors immediate access to patient’s medical records.

On Monday the Department of State started to issue electronic passports (e-passports) equipped with RFID chips. According to reports the U.S. government has placed an order with a California company, Infineon Technologies North America, for smart chip-embedded passports.

The Associated Press said the new U.S. passports include an electronic chip that contains all the data contained in the paper version name, birth date, gender, for example and can be read by digital scanners at equipped airports. They cost 14 percent more than their predecessors but the State Department said they will speed up going through Customs and help enhance border security.

The company's hefty political clout is typified by having former secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, on its board of directors.

Thompson assured the Examiner that the chip is safe and that no one — not even military personnel, who are required by law to follow orders — will be forced to accept an implant against his or her will. He has also promised to have a chip implanted in himself but could not tell the Examiner when.

I’m extremely busy and I’m waiting until my hospitals and doctors are able to run some screens, he told the newspaper.

Not everybody agrees with Thompson, the Examiner reported, noting that the idea of implanting the chips in live bodies has some veterans’ groups and privacy advocates worried.

It needs further study,” Joe Davis, a retired Air Force major and a spokesman for the D.C. office of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, told the Examiner.

And Liz McIntyre, co-author with Katherine Albrecht of Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track your Every Move with RFID, said that VeriChip is a huge threat” to public privacy.

They’re circling like vultures for any opportunity to get into our flesh,” McIntyre told the Examiner. They’ll start with people who can’t say no, like the elderly, sex offenders, immigrants and the military. Then they’ll come knocking on our doors.”

In an e-mail to the Examiner, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., wrote: If that is what the Defense Department has in mind for our troops in Iraq, there are many questions that need answers. What checks and balances, safeguards and congressional oversight would there be?” Leahy asked. What less-invasive alternatives are there? What information would be entered on the chips, and could it endanger our soldiers or be intercepted by the enemy?”

The company, the Examiner wrote, is also unsure about the technology. According to company documents, radio frequencies in ambulances and helicopters could disrupt the chips’ transmissions. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, VeriChip also said it was unsure whether the chip would dislodge and move through a person’s body. It could also cause infections and adverse tissue reactions,” the SEC filing states.

But Philbin downplayed the danger of the chips.

It’s the size of a grain of rice,” she said. It’s like getting a shot of penicillin.”

Newsmax.com

The difference between civilians vs troops...sm
I hear what you're saying and took some time to think on it. If I stood behind my CEO and felt that he had the best interest of the employees and patients (in my case) at heart then I would continue to do my job and even challenge the opposition. If I felt my CEO was slighting the hospital, I would leave. Troops don't have that option until their time is up.

And some troops who otherwise would have stayed enlisted have left because of the war. I know a few personally.
Add a support the troops magnet
to your car and you have my vote! Oops, aren't they made in China?
McCain does not support our troops

Since everyone is at least a bit familiar with John McCain’s record when it comes to strolling through a market in Baghdad with hundreds of his closest guards, or how he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years (except when he flip flops on that).


But not that many really, truly know just how horrific his voting record is when it comes to the troops.  And it is pretty consistent – whether it is for armor and equipment, for veteran’s health care, for adequate troop rest or anything that actually, you know, supports our troops.


This is chock full of links to the roll call votes, and the roll call votes have links to the actual underlying bills and amendments.  I present this so that there is support and things that can be rattled off when saying that McCain is not a friend of the military.  Feel free to use it as you want, but this can be tied into the "Double Talk Express".  But here is a very quick statement - John McCain skipped close to a dozen votes on Iraq, and on at least another 10 occasions, he voted against arming and equipping the troops, providing adequate rest for the troops between deployments and for health care or other benefits for veterans.


In mid 2007, Senator Reid noted that McCain missed 10 of the past 14 votes on Iraq.  However, here is a summary of a dozen votes (two that he missed and ten that he voted against) with respect to Iraq, funding for veterans or for troops, including equipment and armor.  I have also included other snippets related to the time period when the vote occurred.


September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments.  At the time, nearly 65% of people polled in a CNN poll indicted that "things are going either moderately badly or very badly in Iraq.


July 2007:  McCain voted against a plan to drawdown troop levels in Iraq.  At the time, an ABC poll found that 63% thought the invasion was not worth it, and a CBS News poll found that 72% of respondents wanted troops out within 2 years.


March 2007: McCain was too busy to vote on a bill that would require the start of a drawdown in troop levels within 120 days with a goal of withdrawing nearly all combat troops within one year.  Around this time, an NBC News poll found that 55% of respondents indicated that the US goal of achieving victory in Iraq is not possible.  This number has not moved significantly since then.


February 2007:  For such a strong supporter of the escalation, McCain didn’t even bother to show up and vote against a resolution condemning it.  However, at the time a CNN poll found that only 16% of respondents wanted to send more troops to Iraq (that number has since declined to around 10%), while 60% said that some or all should be withdrawn.  This number has since gone up to around 70%.


June 2006:  McCain voted against a resolution that Bush start withdrawing troops but with no timeline to do so.


May 2006:  McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.


April 2006:  McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.


March 2006:  McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.


March 2004:  McCain once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes.  Jeez, McCain really loves those tax loopholes for corporations, since he voted for them over our veterans' needs.


October 2003:  McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.


April 2003:  McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.


August 2001:  McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000.  To his credit, he also voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which he now supports making permanent, despite the dire financial condition this country is in, and despite the fact that he indicated in 2001 that these tax cuts unfairly benefited the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class.


So there it is.  John McCain is yet another republican former military veteran who likes to talk a big game when it comes to having the support of the military.  Yet, time and time again, he has gone out of his way to vote against the needs of those who are serving in our military.  If he can’t even see his way to actually doing what the troops want, or what the veterans need, and he doesn’t have the support of veterans, then how can he be a credible commander in chief?

McCain does not support our troops

by Phillip Butler, PhD



People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always “No, John McCain was a POW with me.” The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ½ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ½ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.



John’s treatment as a POW:



1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September 1969, the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965, so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POWs for their country. A dam good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.



2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately, this was often the case; new POW’s arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was nonexistent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John’s father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW’s suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.



3) John was offered, and refused, “early release.” Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to “admit” that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was “lenient and humane.” So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions, and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW’s were released, with the sick and wounded going first.



4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 660 military POW’s in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled as follows: Medals of Honor – 8, Service Crosses – 42, Silver Stars – 590, Bronze Stars – 958 and Purple Hearts – 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe. Among the POWs John wasn’t special. He was just one of the guys.



John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty, and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.



I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.



Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60s and 70s. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John’s age (72) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for four or more years.



I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.



It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush’s war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me, John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John’s views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.



I’m disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate or maverick Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist minister. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he dislikes that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don’t see that John is the “straight talk express” he markets himself to be.



philip_about.jpgSenator John Sidney McCain III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who “Returned With Honor.” That’s our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I’ve decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.



by Phillip Butler, PhD



Doctor Phillip Butler is a 1961 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a former light-attack carrier pilot. In 1965 he was shot down over North Vietnam where he spent eight years as a prisoner of war. He is a highly decorated combat veteran who was awarded two Silver Stars, two Legion of Merits, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Heart medals. After his repatriation in 1973 he earned a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California at San Diego and became a Navy Organizational Effectiveness consultant. He completed his Navy career in 1981 as a professor of management at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is now a peace and justice activist with Veterans for Peace.


http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/08/25/why-i-won%e2%80%99t-vote-for-john-mccain/

IED threat was known before war but troops not protected

I'm so glad that Joe Biden is in the White House now, considering he was one of only two who spoke up about this.  Our troops deserve an administration that respects and cares about them and will do its best to protect them.







Report: IED threat known before war


By Peter Eisler, USA TODAY


WASHINGTON —— Military leaders knew the dangers posed by roadside bombs before the start of the Iraq war but did little to develop vehicles that were known to better protect forces from what proved to be the conflict's deadliest weapon, a report by the Pentagon inspector general says.


The Pentagon "was aware of the threat posed by mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) …… and of the availability of mine resistant vehicles years before insurgent actions began in Iraq in 2003," says the 72-page report, which was reviewed by USA TODAY.


The report is to be made public today.


Marine Corps leaders "stopped processing" an urgent request in February 2005 for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles from combat commanders in Iraq's Anbar province after declaring that a more heavily armored version of existing Humvee vehicles was the "best available" option for protecting troops, the report says.


Marine officials "did not develop a course of action for the (request), attempt to obtain funding for it or present it to the Marine Corps Requirements Oversight Council for a decision on acquiring" MRAPs, the report says.


The military continued relying mainly on Humvees until May 2007, when then-incoming Defense secretary Robert Gates called procurement of the MRAPs his top priority. Since then, the Pentagon has spent more than $22 billion to buy more than 15,000 of the vehicles.


When field commanders first began requesting MRAPs, military officials saw the armored Humvees as a more immediate option to countering IEDs, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. "The threat has evolved and our force protection measures have evolved with it," he said.


The Marines requested the inspector general's investigation in February after an internal report accused the Corps of "gross mismanagement" of the urgent request for MRAPs. Hundreds of Marines died unnecessarily because of delays in fielding the vehicles, said the Jan. 22 study by Franz Gayl, a retired Marine officer and civilian science adviser.


Two U.S. senators —— Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware, now the vice president-elect, and Republican Kit Bond of Missouri —— demanded an investigation after details of Gayl's study were published.


"The Pentagon was aware of the threat IEDs posed to our troops prior to our intervention in Iraq and still failed to take the steps to acquire the technology needed to reduce the risk," Bond said after reviewing the report. "Some bureaucrats at the Pentagon have much to explain."


USA TODAY detailed the Pentagon's failure to move quickly on MRAP development in a series of stories last year. Gates credited one of those stories with sparking his interest in the vehicles.


Marine commanders in Iraq's then-volatile Anbar province sought 1,169 MRAPs in the February 2005 urgent request. "There is an immediate need for an MRAP vehicle capability to increase survivability and mobility of Marines operating in a hazardous fire area," it said.


The inspector general's report says that Marine officials advised Marine Corps commandant Michael Hagee at the time that armored Humvees were the "best available, most survivable" vehicles to meet the request.


MRAPs are far more resistant to IEDs and landmines than armored Humvees because they're higher off the ground and rest on a V-shaped hull, which deflects blasts from the vehicle's underside.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-12-08-mrap_N.htm

I never said I was speaking on behalf of the troops
What I said was "I, as many others, do believe our troops will not be safe under an Obama regime. Just look at his voting record and how he says he will handle the war. He voted "NO" on ensuring that our troops serving in harms way remain Americas top budget priority by ensuring full funding. That means he voted no on the funding to ensure our troops would remain safe. I would say Gov. Palin has it correct. You cannot ignore the facts".

That is an opinion of mine and many others. No where does that statement say "on behalf of the troops". However, I have listened to what the troops say (and I am former military myself). So I don't speak for them, they speak for themselves and here is what they say (link provided below).

68% are for McCain, 23% are for Obama. Here is the link...

http://activemilitaryformccain.blogspot.com/
First KBR gives our troops contaminated water and now...

we discover that KBR (a subsidiary of Cheney's Halliburton) knowingly exposed United States soldiers to toxic materials in Iraq. 


Please watch this video.  It's only three minutes long, and it's heartbreaking.  Don't our troops deserve better from a commander-in-chief that claims to care about them?



http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CBS_KBR_knew_dangers_of_toxic_1223.html

You expected him to withdraw all troops on Day 1 ? nm
bn
Bringing our troops home would also.....
save our country a sh&tload of money.....
So now it is Cindy, not Bush who put the troops in danger.
Not the terrorist, it's Cindy. I get it now, thanks for sharing that with us.
© Copyright 2001-09 MTStars.com All Rights Reserved