Sioux Manufacturing: It's Not Just the Kevlar (It's the MRAPs, Too)

by: Brandon Friedman

Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 15:56:52 PM EST


Sioux Manufacturing--the company currently in hot water for providing our troops with 2.2 million substandard Kevlar helmets--was also awarded one of three U.S. government contracts to provide armor for the new MRAPs.  This happened in November, but to this point, it appears that few have made the connection.

From the Bismarck Tribune:

A Fort Totten-based American Indian-owned company has been awarded a contract to build protective armor for bomb-resistant vehicles for troops in Iraq, the company's president says.

Sioux Manufacturing Corp. was one of three companies selected to build armor for the mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles, called MRAPs, said Carl McKay, the company's president and chief executive officer.

When this story about the MRAP contract was reported three months ago, the Bismarck Tribune noted that Sioux Manufacturing was indeed under a federal investigation for "questionable business practices" involving its Kevlar helmets.  However, no follow-up on this angle occurred once the company agreed to pay a fine earlier this month.

So here's the timeline as we now know it:

  • Sioux Manufacturing provided troops with 2.2 million shitty helmets through at least 2006.

  • The company came under federal investigation in 2006 after two former managers filed a whistleblower suit charging that the substandard helmets had been produced deliberately.

  • On November 12, 2007--in the midst of the investigation--the Defense Department decided that it wanted this same shitty helmet-producing company to provide armor for the critically important MRAP vehicles.  When this was announced, no one paid it much mind, apparently, because the company had neither pleaded guilty, nor been found guilty of anything.

  • In late January 2008, the Defense Department--knowing full well about the Kevlar allegations--awarded Sioux Manufacturing with a new $74 million contract to produce what else?  More helmets for the military, of course.

  • In early February 2008, Sioux Manufacturing agreed to pay a two million-dollar fine--less than $1 per helmet--for providing troops headed to combat with substandard equipment.  The company called it a "prudent business decision."

    • I call it bullshit.  These guys just got away with paying a measly $2 million fine for giving men and women on the front lines bad equipment.  And now, along with the questions about the Kevlar in the helmets, we can add questions to the list about why the Defense Department awarded the crucial MRAP contract to a company under investigation for providing crappy equipment.  

    Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is still working on this, as are we at VoteVets.  We're urging both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees to hold hearings on this mess.  If you'd like to put your name on our petition, please click here.
    Brandon Friedman :: Sioux Manufacturing: It's Not Just the Kevlar (It's the MRAPs, Too)
    Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
    Print Friendly View Send As Email

    Sioux Manufacturing: It's Not Just the Kevlar (It's the MRAPs, Too) | 27 comments
    uh oh (0.00 / 0)
    Sioux Manufacturing provided troops with 2.2 million shitty helmets through at least 2006

    i got issued my current kevlar in 2006.

    I'm on twitter.

    I bet most of us... (4.00 / 1)
    ...who got the "new-style" helmets starting in 2003 or so got those as well. I got mine in Nov. 03 at Fort Polk.

     Excellent. Bra-vo.

     BTW, I have letters on the way to all 4 members of Maine's Congressional delegation going out on this issue in the morning.

     IV

    [ Parent ]
    I'm good (0.00 / 0)
    just checked my ACH. Its made by Specialty Defense Systems.  I suppose my dome is protected.

    I'm on twitter.
    [ Parent ]
    I guess this is one... (0.00 / 0)

    ... time that I am happy that I got my equipment in 1995.

     I forwarded this to as many people as I could. Everyone needs to sign this to insure that service members have the best equipment possible and to hold those accountable that try to cheap out on equipment for the Armed Services.

    Gotta keep in mind that... (0.00 / 0)
    ...this deal came from the gov't that went in deep and on the cheap.

     Change is needed in DC, not only among those who make the defense deals, but among those in Congress who enforce them.

     Sen. Susan Collins, R-ME, is one of those who can, but she so far has not done so. She held one hearing during her tenure as Chair of the Homeland Security/Gov't Affairs committee.

     IV


    [ Parent ]
    Wait untill all the facts are in. (0.00 / 0)
    1)  First off, the contract was awarded to a Native American run businesses.  Recall, that we exterminated the Native Americans, stole their land, and rounded them up in concentration camps (see Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee, etc).

    2)  Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND, the senior Senator) is an honorable man.  He is one the few that has ALWAYS opposed the Iraq war (one of 23 senators that opposed the Iraq War resolution of 2002).  If he truly had a ton of pull with the DoD, Grand Forks AFB would not have lost the KC-135 on the BRAC. (See Senator Conrad's voting record)

    3)  The "whistle blowers" are getting PAID $400,000.  There's a lot of stuff someone will say if you pay them that kind of cash.

    4)  The settlement is not an admission of guilt.  You could make anyone "under investigation" for child abuse with one phone call.  But that doesn't mean they beat their children.  We have a justice system that is innocent until proven guilty.

    See Grand Forks Herald article below:
    >
    BUSINESS: Spirit Lake leaders dispute New York Times story
    By Joseph Marks
    Herald Staff Writer - 02/14/2008
    The chairwoman of the Spirit Lake Sioux Nation's tribal council sent an e-mail Tuesday to the New York Times' public editor protesting that paper's coverage of a federal lawsuit against a tribally-owned company that produces materials used in helmets for American military troops, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Sioux Manufacturing paid about $2 million in December to settle that lawsuit. The suit alleges the company was "underweaving" the Kevlar material used in helmets, producing weaves with fewer than 35-by-35 Kevlar threads per square inch, an established minimum. The company did not, however, officially admit fault.
    In a letter sent to several Times Editors, Chairwoman Myra Pearson charges a Feb. 6 New York Times article detailing the lawsuit is misleading and "riddled with inaccuracies." A 21-page addendum to the letter excerpts 31 separate lines from the Times story, criticizing each one extensively.
    At the heart of the letter and the addendum are a pair of claims first made in the Sioux manufacturing press release announcing the settlement: That the company's decision to settle the lawsuit was not an admission of guilt, but a pragmatic decision based on the relative cost of litigation; and that the lawsuit itself was baseless and brought by "disgruntled former employees."
    Those claims were disputed soon after the settlement by U.S. Attorney Drew Wrigley who told an Associated Press reporter, "They were underweaving. That is not debatable. It's apparently spinnable but not debatable."
    An e-mail seeking comment from Times reporter Bruce Lambert, who wrote the Sioux Manufacturing article, was not returned by 6 p.m. Wednesday.
    Wrigley said soon after the settlement the military believes no soldiers suffered injuries because of the underweaving.
    The two former employees who brought the lawsuit on behalf of the government will receive about $400,000 out of the settlement.
    Marks reports on higher education. Reach him at (701) 780-1105, (800) 477-6572, ext. 105; or jmarks@gfherald.com.
    >

    I'm sorry guys, most of the time I support what Vote Vets does, but I think you're going off half cocked here.  I've worn Kevlar in Iraq on convoy missions, and my sister spent plenty of time outside the wire in Afghanistan.  I grew up in North Dakota, and I know Kent Conrad, Earl Pomeroy, and Byron Dorgan, and they wouldn't try to score contracts to secure votes.  The don't need too, and the Native Americans don't represent a large portion of the electorate, anyway.  These guys will continue to be elected until they retire, because ND will always keep sending them to Capitol Hill.

    What they were trying to do is give the Sioux tribe a fair shake, after all the injustices that we have dealt them over the years.  I'm asking that we wait and collect more facts, or we risk looking like a group of alarmists, instead of rational actors.

    Ryan Kappedal, Capt, USAF.

    This argument... (0.00 / 0)
    1)  First off, the contract was awarded to a Native American run businesses.  Recall, that we exterminated the Native Americans, stole their land, and rounded them up in concentration camps (see Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee, etc).

    Doesn't hold any weight. I knew a number of Native Americans that served proudly in the Army and they also deserve the best equipment in the world.

    [ Parent ]
    Served in a particular US military branch? (0.00 / 0)
    Doesn't matter. You wear the uniform, carry the weapon...and are the guy/gal in the trenches next to me...you get the best gear. End of story.

     Subsitutions and defective stuff are not accepted.

     It's time to ditch anyone who will put the USA/USN/USAF/USMC at risk just to make a buck.

     If you take tax $$$ to make the gear for our warriors, you better make sure it does what it's intended to do. Or find another line of work.

     And if you screw it up just to make a buck, we - taxpayers, citizens and vets - are coming for you!

     IV

    [ Parent ]
    We want an inquiry... (4.00 / 1)

    ... on this. We want congress to investigate it. All members of the United States Armed Forces deserve nothing but the best equipment available. If there is even a chance that they are not getting this, we want to know because it is unacceptable. Period.

     I don't see anyone calling for them to be run out of business or for them to be wiped from the map.

     We want and deserve an investigation to make sure that no one is shortchanging our troops on the best (and fully functional) equipment they deserve.

    Brian McGough

    [ Parent ]
    I'm suggesting that if we're in a war, (0.00 / 0)
    and we need more helmets, we don't go buying them from a company that's under investigation for producing shitty helmets.  Similarly, I'm suggesting that's it's probably not a good idea to buy MRAP armor from a company currently being investigated for producing faulty protective equipment.

    This is why we need hearings.  This idea that

    the military believes no soldiers suffered injuries because of the underweaving

    is ridiculous.  They have no way to track that.  Are they suggesting that no helmets have been pierced by anything in Iraq or Afghanistan since 2001?

    I also fail to see how the ethnicity of those who own the company has anything to do with whether or not they should be investigated.  Like Brian said, Native Americans deserve the best equipment, too.  My people were slaughtered during the Holocaust.  Does that mean I have a right get a German government contract to provide them with crappy gear?  

    [ Parent ]
    Capt... (4.00 / 2)
    ...you have to remember that military contracts aren't subject to the normal free market.  And with military contracting officers overstretched beyond their capacity, bidding on contracts can sometimes get AFU because of the bureaucracy involved and lack of personnel to take care of it.  Therefore, it's necessary to voice dissatisfaction through congress who is ultimately responsible for where the tax dollars are going.  There have been numerous contracting fiascoes during the Bush Administration and it's important to act as a public watch dog.  Here's an example of the guy who was in charge of a company that was making body armor components and he was using the corporate checking account for his kid's Bah Mitzvah.  This is tax payer dollars going down the tubes, so I absolutely think there needs to be better oversight.  I respect the Sioux tribe and understand the injustices against native Americans, but how does that justify making a shitty helmet that doesn't meet quality assurance specs.  
    [ Parent ]
    A letters from the Spirit Lake Tribal Spokesperson (0.00 / 0)
    This is the Spirit Lake Tribe's repsonse to CREW

    http://www.citizensforethics.o...

    This is their response to the NYT article:

    http://www.citizensforethics.o...

    Decide for yourself, but I think it's much ado about nothing, and we have bigger fish to fry, like Haliburton and Blackwater.  But one BIG thing thing, that I think needs to be cleared up here is that SMC makes the CLOTH used for helmets, NOT helmets, but CLOTH with a Kevlar weave.  That is a pretty important distinction.

    Another key thing is that, a $2 Mil settlement, is less than legal fees of going to trial, even when you KNOW you can win in a case like this.  So it is no admission of guilt, and for a small company like SMC, it is the only option they had.

    Here are somethings that the NYT article didn't mention:

    "SMC does not make PASGT helmets. SMC weaves cloth with Kevlar yarns suitable to be used in helmets, pursuant to Military Specifications MIL-H-44099A (used for helmets) and MIL-C-44050A (used for helmet cloth)."

    Here's some more key exerpts:

    "The quotation from Mr.Wrigley, who had little or no personal involvement in this matter, reflects a significant ignorance of the actual facts.

    The factory's own inspection records often showed weaves of 34 by 34 threads or as low as 32 by 34 and 33 by 34

    A scan be shown by any review of SMC's final inspection records, all final inspections were 35 x 35.  Loom counts were also most often 35 x 35, but the presence of a 34 x 34 count on the loom is in fact indicative of a 35 x 35 when fabric from the same lot is counted under controlled conditions and in a relaxed state in the laboratory. The very rare counts that were lower than required were caught by SMC's staff, segregated, and not used in the helmet program. The website of Mr. Campanelli purports to provide an illustration of the evidence of underweaving. The second page of the illustration Mr. Campanelli uses has a count of 34 x 32. This is apparently the source of accusation in the New York Times that there were weaves "as low as 32 x 34." Mr. Campanelli and the New York Times do not address the fact that the inspector also notes: "REJECTED." If a fabric is rejected, the loom is stopped, recalibrated, the fabricis isolated and does not go into the helmet program! Such fabric remains under lock and key at the plant today.

    'Looms were "always set for 34 by 34, always," said Jeff Kenner, who operated and repaired the looms and oversaw crews on all three shifts.'

    This accusation is simply untrue. The looms were always set for 35 x 35. The lack of credibility of the accusation is shown by the many, many thousands of yarn counts on the loom and in the lab that were 35 x 35. Further, if the looms were "always" set at 34, how could the forms used to show "evidence" of underweaving on Mr. Campanelli's website have so many 35s and so many perfect 35 x 35s? Why would the form used by SMC staff to record on-loom inspections be captioned "35x35D[enier]Kevlar"? SMC has thousands of inspection reports going back for years that show that 35 x 35 fabric has been woven consistently since 1987. In the Answer filed by SMC (this document was unsealed and the New York Times had full access to it) Paragraph 73 denied the accusation that the looms were ever or always set for 34 and affirmatively stated that for 20 years the manufacturing specification was always 35 x 35: "For the past 20 years, MPSKH-033, Revisions B-G, provided identical language that the Kevlar cloth woven by SMC for use in PASGT helmets "mustbe...35(min) warp yarns per inch of cloth width" and "must be 35(min) fill yarns per inch of cloth." Had the matter gone to trial, SMC would have been able to impeach Mr. Kenner's credibility and honesty in making this absurd claim.

    SMC does not have any helmet related contract for up to $74,000,000. This purported contract is pure invention and it is surprising that the New York Times fact checkers were unable to determine the falsehood of this statement. SMC was not given a contract (in any amount) to replace the "old" helmets. The PASGT helmets which have been made by UNICOR for many years are not defective in any way. A new type of helmet, ACH (Advanced Combat Helmet), is gradually supplanting the use of PASGT helmets because it is designed to support the various high tech visual and communications gear that soldiers wear on their face and head.

    The innuendo of this paragraph is that SMC paid a settlement after having made bad armor and got a sweetheart deal to make more armor for helmets. This assertion is patently false. Recently, UNICOR, the long time maker of the PASGT helmet, obtained a contract from the Department of Defense to make ACH helmets and as part of this contract has asked SMC to weave and make pattern pieces for the helmet. This contract, signed in January, 2008, is for less than$10,000,000."

    If you read all the pages in the above letters from Spirit Lake and still disgree with me, I'll respect that.

    Either the New York Times needs to retract (0.00 / 0)
    parts of its story, or we need hearings.  One or the other.
    [ Parent ]
    Hearings: (0.00 / 0)
    Something is seriously amiss.

    Hearings, no doubt.

    IV

    [ Parent ]
    If the babysitter... (0.00 / 0)

    ...next door is under investigation, or even accused of beating children or neglecting them while under her care you can bet that I will be taking my daughter to someone else. At least until the babysitter can clear her name or is proven guilty.

    I think that is a fair way to look at things, its also human nature to feel that way.

    It also should be the same way with protective gear for soldiers.

    This is what I got from contacting Sioux Manufacturing (0.00 / 0)
    To me it sounds like the burden of proof is on the New York Times and CREW to back up their claims.  Would you send a petition to NYT?  If it is the truth we are interested in, that would be my suggestion.

    Ryan Kappedal

    >
    From: Carl McKay [mailto:CMcKay@siouxmanufacturing.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:18 PM
    Subject: NY Times Article

    Attached you will find a copy of our response to the NY Times article.  We have contacted our congressional delegation along with Senators Clinton and Kerry inviting a full Department of Defense Inspector General investigation of this matter.  The Department of Justice investigation was conducted by an attorney and an investigator who visited our facility.  Neither of these DOJ personnel had any manufacturing experience and they did not bring in any experts in weaving/textiles (kevlar) or ballistics.  We trust that an IG investigation by the DOD will be more in depth and provide answers not just allegations which were never proved.  

    We have many Native American veterans working for us, including a young man who was in the thick of the Fallujah battle.  Many of us have relatives and friends now serving.  My wife's son, an 18 year Marine, is scheduled to be deployed for his second tour.  It still stuns me that the DOJ pursued this matter as far as it did.

    Hope the attachment answers some of your questions.

    NY Times Ltr 02-12-08.doc

    SENT VIA MAIL AND EMAIL: public@nytimes.com

    Clark Hoyt, Public Editor
    New York Times
    620 Eight Avenue
    New York NY 10018

    RE: February 6, 2008 article by Bruce Lambert regarding Sioux Manufacturing Corporation

    Dear Mr. Hoyt:

    I serve as the elected chair of the Spirit Lake Tribe, a federally recognized American Indian Tribe in North Dakota.  While many of our Tribal members are economically disadvantaged, we do operate several successful businesses, including Sioux Manufacturing Corporation (SMC) which at present primarily manufactures troop protection products under federal contracts.  

    We are writing to protest a February 6, 2008 article by the New York Times, and International Herald Tribune concerning a recent settlement that was entered into by the Spirit Lake Nation, its wholly owned company Sioux Manufacturing Corporation (SMC), and two SMC employees, with the United States and two relators who had filed a False Claims Act under seal against SMC.  We deeply regret that the New York Times story is not only riddled with inaccuracies, but also displays a stunning lack of factual research and journalistic professionalism.  It appears your reporter Bruce Lambert failed to read public documents filed in the court case about which he was writing, and accepted at face value, without verification, all the  allegations by disgruntled former employees who had been fired for improper activities in the back seat of a company truck on company time, and by an obviously publicity hungry lawyer.  

    Your story gives a false impression that the helmet cloth pattern pieces made by SMC were defective and that the safety of the PASGT helmets was compromised.  As a result of this story, in the past few days, CREW has demanded investigations by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Senator Clinton has called for an investigation by the Department of Defense, Senator Kerry has written to the DOD Inspector General, many soldiers and their family members have been needlessly frightened by false accusations that the helmets are unsafe, and SMC's reputation has been grievously -- possibly irreparably -- injured.    

    As you are aware, the New York Times said that no one from SMC returned the reporter's calls or e mail.  However, Carl McKay, the President of SMC, did send a press release to Mr. Lambert, and the press release specifically referred to the Answer filed by SMC, the Spirit Lake Tribe and two key employees.  The Answer had been unsealed and was available on-line from the Court when the reporter called Mr. McKay.  Mr. McKay assumed that the New York Times would read the key documents filed in this matter, and then get back to SMC for follow up questions, which the Times did not.  He did not believe the New York Times would print as "gospel" claims of conversations that did not take place or print quotations from a fragment of a transcript without verifying that the quotation was made in the proper context and was not misrepresented.  The reckless character of the story is perhaps best illustrated by pointing out  that one of the key "facts"  in the story--  the assertion that a $74,000,000 contract for "replacement" helmets was awarded to SMC 12 days before the settlement --- is wholly untrue.    

    SMC weaves Kevlar cloth which is made into helmets by UNICOR, a division of the Department of Justice.  SMC has never sent UNICOR Kevlar material that deviated from military and contractual standards.  Neither the Government nor the disgruntled former employees ("Relators") have a single piece of fabric sent out from our factory that is below specification.  That is because none exist.

    SMC procedures require inspection of Kevlar cloth on the loom during production, in the Quality Assurance (QA) lab by a trained technician, then, if necessary, in the lab by the QA manager.  On several occasions in the past 8 years, sub-standard cloth has been woven.  The relator's allegations may refer to those instances.  However, the SMC QA department caught the mistakes, and the cloth was isolated in a locked hold cage, where it remains today.  Final shipments were only of cloth made in accordance with the proper standard.  

    We have prepared a sentence-by-sentence rebuttal of the New York Times story, and it is attached.  We regret it is long, but request you or your staff to read it.  In addition, we have attached a copy of the Answer filed by SMC in the suit and SMC's press release at the time of the settlement.  (We would be happy to provide other documents as well, but this is a start.)  

    SMC is one of the few Native American owned military contractors in the Nation.  It has received many awards over the years for the quality and consistency of its products.  The Spirit Lake Tribe and SMC take great pride in the superior quality and performance of SMC's products and the protection SMC provides for members of the Armed Services.  As you know, in the Native American culture, veterans and soldiers are very highly honored.  Neither the Tribe nor SMC would ever jeopardize the safety of our men and women in uniform.  

    If your investigative and editorial staff read the attachments to this letter and carefully compare allegations summarized in the article (the Complaint is available on line at the court) to SMC's responses in the Answer, you will see that SMC is not a villain -- but rather is a victim of profit-motivated attacks by the Relators (former disgruntled employees fired for misconduct) and their attorney, harsh treatment by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice, and, unfortunately, shoddy journalism by the New York Times.    

    If SMC did nothing wrong, why did we pay $2 million to settle this matter?  In June of 2006, due to the inaccurate allegations, our factory was raided and virtually all our records and many samples of helmet cloth were hauled away and remained in government possession for almost a year and a half.  The ensuing investigation lasted 18 months, and during this time our management had to devote considerable time and effort to responding to baseless allegations.  Because of the adverse publicity (some caused by illegal leaks from the government) we lost business and were not able to properly focus on developing new business.  The cost of potential litigation would have exceeded the cost of settlement, and, as all litigation carries risks, we simply decided it was prudent to settle - without admitting fault.  In our Answer, we denied all claims in the Relator's complaint.  After the settlement and when we thought the matter was behind us, we are appalled to learn that so many have jumped to the assumption that the allegations in the Complaint were true:  they were not.  

    Further, under no circumstances do we believe that the Department of Defense is covering up "tons" of injuries caused by "defective helmets" as alleged by Mr. Campanelli  in the New York Times article.  Mr. Campanelli's accusation against the Department of Defense (which ironically is similar to many of the reckless and false accusations made in the lawsuit against SMC) is wholly without basis.  It is simply predicated on a desire for revenge by the Relators and for publicity by their attorney. Every Kevlar cloth woven by SMC has passed SMC's internal and externally conducted ballistics tests; to the best of SMC's knowledge, every helmet made from that cloth has also passed ballistics tests conducted by UNICOR (a branch of the Department of Justice) and by the Department of Defense.  The helmets are not defective or dangerous in any way.  

    We are sending letters of explanation to Secretary Gates, Citizens for a Responsible and Ethical Society, Senator Clinton, Senator Kerry, Senator Webb, and the Chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.  

    Sincerely,

    Myra Pearson

    Chair, Spirit Lake Nation  

    Enc: Commentary to the New York Times Article; Press Release of SMC at time of settlement; Answer of SMC and other defendants.

    c: Bruce Lambert (w/ encs.)

         Executive Editor Bill Keller (w/o encs.) via email:executiveeditor@nytimes.com)

    No. (0.00 / 0)

    Would you send a petition to NYT?

    No. If the New York Times is wrong no one will die. If Sioux Manufacturing is wrong, people may and probably will die due to faulty equipment.

    Plus the NYT is not funded by tax dollars and can be investigated by anyone. Sioux Manufacturing is funded by tax dollars.

    [ Parent ]
    funny (0.00 / 0)
    I thought you guys were interested in the truth.  But a lot of the writing here is full of righteous indignation.  I imagine no one ever thought of contacting the company.  I support getting vets elected to office, but I can't support a position that is based on sensationalism and innuendo when even the basic principles of journalism and fact-finding weren't utilized.

    If Vote Vets continues down this path, you risk being another screaming head, and there is too much of that in the media today.

    Let's be a voice of reason and logic.

    Let's research our claims and get all the facts before we stir up the righteous indignation.

    Otherwise, we are just about as relavant and researched as SPAM emails telling me that Barack Obama is a Muslim (he's not) or Jane Fonda turned over little pieces of paper to the NVA (she didn't).

    Research before you hit "forward to all".

    My 2 cents.  Just an MI-type, tying to do objective analysis, that's what I'm trained to do.

    With that, I'm out.  Next crisis, please?

    Ryan Kappedal

    [ Parent ]
    The New York Times is not my only source (0.00 / 0)
    of information on this topic.  You're going to hear a lot more about this in the coming weeks.  But if you want to give the contractor the benefit of the doubt in this case, that is certainly your right.
    [ Parent ]
    SMC seems to be inviting (0.00 / 0)
    a DoD inspector general to come in and have a full open-door policy.  If they are inviting the light of day to get involved, I think that's a good sign.

    You opened your blog with declaring SMC delivered a bunch of "shitty" helmets to our soldiers.  You've already decided they are guilty, and you're asking all of us to sign your petition and take your word for it.

    Our justice system is innocent until proven guilty, even when lives are at stake.  The only people exempt from that justice system are Blackwater contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, thanks to Paul Bremer.

    If you want a righteous indignation issue to take on, that's a great one, but I don't see this one as that big, until I see more evidence, I'll remain unconvinced.

    Show us something more, or let's move one to something else.

    Ryan

    [ Parent ]
    I can invite someone into my house... (0.00 / 0)

    and tell them and show them whatever I want them to see, because I know they are coming and know how to stage everything i want.

    I think a company could and would do the same.


    [ Parent ]
    I feel that leaving... (0.00 / 0)

    .... an investigation up to people who can dive deep into the company and find out the truth is responsible.

     It has become more obvious the more you post that you are just trying to stir the pot and talk ill of VoteVets in general.

     But hey, I'm just a retired staff sergeant and am obviously not as intelligent as an MI Capt that believes what he hears from an email from a company trying to cover its ass.


    [ Parent ]
    I thought that we believed... (0.00 / 0)
    ...in a justice system with due process.

    and not convicting people before all the evidence is in.

    And, as I said before, I support getting Vets into public office, but if you want to tell me what I think, go for it.  I thought I'd post SMC's responses to give the full picture, because it's important to collect information from a variety of sources.  You can watch Al Jezeerah, CNN, and Sky News to get multiple perspectives, instead of just picking one source that agrees with your pre-assigned bias.

    I support your overall strategy here, but I just disagree with your tactics, because sensationalism and jumping to conclusions has the overall affect of damaging credibility, and at the end of the day, credibility is our best weapon.

    But if you want to level personal attacks against me, go for it.  I thought we were a group of dedicated professionals here, or at least that was the intent.

    You've made your judgement, I say we need more evidence.  You think we need to go through Congress to get that evidence, I think we should pursue all avenues and present all information to the readership, and not just the side of the story we want them to believe, and I think there are inconsistencies in the NYT article that need to be clarified with them as well.

    Is gathering facts important here or are we just going to pick the source that agrees with our pre-defined position?

    Vets are a group of intelligent, critical people, and it's a little insulting to think we're all supposed to buy in based on one article (all the other highly negative ones I have seen thus far are circular reporting of the original NYT post).

    Present a case.  Show me that you've done thorough research.  Cite all your sources.  Show me you got info from multiple perspectives.

    Then I'll buy in.

    Until then, I'm allowed to be a skeptic, and I'll withold judgement on SMC.

    But don't you dare insinuate for a moment that I don't support our troops and our veterans.

    [ Parent ]
    You're getting pretty peeved.. (0.00 / 0)
    ...with quotes like this.

    But don't you dare insinuate for a moment that I don't support our troops and our veterans.

    When did anyone say you didn't "support the troops"?  Why don't you step down from the ivory tower of self-indignation for a couple of seconds, since the "Support the Troops" meme used by politicians to censor honest policy debate doesn't draw a lot of water in this forum.

    [ Parent ]
    It doesn't matter what you say Nixon. (0.00 / 0)

     He doesn't ever address anything anyone brings up. Just goes rambling on like a press release.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah... (0.00 / 0)
    ...press releases are okay, but it certainly doesn't make for a good discussion thread on policy, that's for sure.  I could start dropping Press Releases from MNF-I, but I would look pretty silly.  
    [ Parent ]
    Cookies and milk. N/T (0.00 / 0)

    [ Parent ]
    Sioux Manufacturing: It's Not Just the Kevlar (It's the MRAPs, Too) | 27 comments
    VetVoice on Social Media
    Follow rockrichard on Twitter

    VoteVets.org on Facebook
    		•
    VetVoice Recommends

    "The War I Always Wanted,"
    By Brandon Friedman

    "The welcome mat for memoirs by veterans of operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom might never wear out so long as they write with the savvy of Brandon Friedman . . . Friedman's take is vivid, frank, precise and dramatic." --Military Times

    "Add Brandon Friedman's The War I Always Wanted to the ranks of outstanding non-fiction produced by officers from elite combat units in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Always truthful, often excruciatingly so, The War I Always Wanted rises at numerous points to the level of literature." --Steven Pressfield, author of Gates of Fire

    Buy The War I Always Wanted here.

    "A Time To Lead,"
    By General (Ret.) Wesley K. Clark

    "A Time To Lead confirms the rewarding benefits of military service at a time when such service is experiencing considerable strain. It also includes a comprehensive description of America's current national imperatives, which deserve serious consideration." --General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., former Secretary of State

    "This is a primer on leadership forged in battle and by decades of experience. . .This isn't just a book; it's a manual for leading people and living a good life." --Barry McCaffrey, General, USA (ret.)

    Buy A Time to Lead here.

    "Love My Rifle More Than You,"
    By Kayla Williams

    "Whip smart, sassy, with a mouth as foul as a sailor's, 28-year-old Sergeant Kayla Williams. . .tells what it's like to be a female soldier in Iraq." --Booklist

    ". . .echoes military memoirists from Julius Caesar to Ernie Pyle." --Publishers Weekly

    ". . .a shocking, on-the-ground view of one military woman's experience in Iraq." --Bookmarks Magazine

    Buy Love My Rifle More Than You here.

    "How to Break a Terrorist,"
    By Matthew Alexander

    "...a riveting, fast-paced account that reads like a first-rate thriller." --Publisher's Weekly

    " ...an absorbing behind-the-scenes look at the secret intelligence war within a war." --Military.com

    Buy How to Break a Terrorist here.
    Search

    Advanced Search
    RSS Feed Links

    Subscribe to VetVoice in a feed reader!

    Subscribe to VetVoice by Email!
    Diaries and comments at VetVoice do not necessarily represent the views of VoteVets.org. VetVoice will strive to remove any illegal material as soon as it is flagged. Similarly, VetVoice will use its discretion in determining whether to remove exceedingly offensive material. However, between posting and removal, any offensive or illegal material does not reflect the condoning or endorsing of said material by VoteVets.org or VetVoice.
    Similarly, the views expressed on this website are those of the authors alone. Opinions on this website do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.
    Menu

    Make a New Account

    Username:

    Password:


    Forget your username or password?

    Front Page Writers
    PTSD Resources
    TBI Resources
    IRR Information
    Casualty Reports
    VA Information
    Support the Troops
    Veteran Candidates We Support
    Congressional Committees
    Contact Your Elected Leaders
    Sites We Like

    Paid for VoteVets Political Action Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. VoteVets Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on behalf veterans and their families. VoteVets Political Action Committee is a federal political committee which primarily helps elect Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran candidates and educates about veterans and military issues aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election.

    Site Design: Articulated Man

    VoteVets Political Action and Vote Vets Action Fund are separate organizations.

    Powered by: SoapBlox