When pork puts our troops at risk
posted at 12:35 pm on December 7, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
In the new asymmetrical wars we fight, the concern over chemical warfare has heightened, and the US military has tried to prepare for that danger. They now issue a resin powder that absorbs deadly chemicals, but a much better product has been in use for years in Canada and has been approved for use in the US since 2003. The Department of Defense would like to replace the resin with the new lotion, but Congress has forced the Pentagon to buy the old product — through earmarks:
Scientists have discovered a lotion that can save the lives of U.S. soldiers exposed to chemical weapons — a product vastly superior to the standard-issue decontamination powder.
Naturally, the Defense Department wants to scrap the powder and switch to the more-effective lotion.
But there’s a problem: After being lobbied by the companies making the powder, several members of Congress pushed through two earmarks worth $7.6 million that forced the military for the past two years to keep buying the inferior product.
The product, known as M291, is made from a resin sold exclusively by a Pennsylvania chemical company, which is then processed into powder by a New York company, then assembled into individual kits at a facility in Arkansas.
Among the lawmakers who championed the earmarks are Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.; Arlen Specter, R-Pa.; and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
In fact, Congress has allocated over $43 million in earmarks to the manufacturer of the resin, Rohm and Haas of Pennsylvania, since 2000. Of the $43,013,800 Congress set aside in pork for R&H, only $16,000 had any competition at all. The rest of it came through no-bid contracts built into earmarks.
And why? Not because R&H had a superior product. As the Seattle Times notes, R&H had an inferior product that the DoD wanted to replace because of the risk to our troops in the field. Instead of allowing the Pentagon to make its own determination or at least to put the contracts up for a competitive bid process that would have allowed R&H to make the case for its product, Congress intervened to force the inferior product onto the troops.
No, as the Times makes clear, the issue here was parochialism about the source of production … and campaign contributions. Arlen Specter got $47,000 over the last few cycles from R&H’s PAC, but he wasn’t the only one. Democratic Rep. Patrick Murphy, whose district has R&H’s facility, got $2,000 in this cycle and $1,000 in 2006, while Jack Murtha got a combined $2,000. They gave $5,000 each to the DNC and the DSCC in 2008.
Rohm & Haas made a fortune off of a small investment in politicians. That’s the power of pork. It allows Congress to put our troops at risk for 30 pieces of silver.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Pork, about Military spending….
Coolio… WAR PIGS!
/breaks into song…
SATAN Laughing spreads his wiiinnnngggssss…..
Romeo13 on December 7, 2008 at 12:40 PM
its the same type of rottenness that killed the Grumman Tanker deal in favor of Boeing. Its tragic, but many politicians view the defense budget as a big candy store first, and the well being of our troops second.
rob verdi on December 7, 2008 at 12:41 PM
I’m sure super-patriot John Murtha couldn’t be involved in this, could he?
hillbillyjim on December 7, 2008 at 12:42 PM
This makes my blood BOIL. When will it be time for revolt. I’ve got my torch lit and my pitchfork in hand. How is this any different from the madness of King George in the 1760′s???????
birdhurd on December 7, 2008 at 12:44 PM
you know that POS is somehow involved
joey24007 on December 7, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Glad we are complaining about the procurement process. Not surprised we have to. This is the same problem we have had since the beginning. U.S. Army purchases thousands of obsolete smoothbore muskets in 1862. U.S. Navy purchases thousands of Mk 14 torpedos that had a 80% failure rate….and on and on and on. Greed trumps incompetence which in turn trumps common sense.
Now, how to fix it?
Limerick on December 7, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Hmmm…$16,000 for $43 million in contracts. I’m in the wrong business.
lorien1973 on December 7, 2008 at 12:47 PM
If those in congress who were pushing the inferior product knew it was inferior, but wanted it anyway, wouldn`t that be treason?
ThePrez on December 7, 2008 at 12:50 PM
But they support the troops.
/
perroviejo on December 7, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Now, how to fix it?
Limerick on December 7, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Force the politicians to field-test the less effective equipment with live ammo, chemicals, etc. that they say is perfectly good for our troops.
Bishop on December 7, 2008 at 12:52 PM
+1
Limerick on December 7, 2008 at 12:52 PM
but … But… our soon to be Secretary of State DID test all that military equipment… when she was dodging all tha sniper fire!
/although probably not needs for most posters here… sarc
Romeo13 on December 7, 2008 at 12:54 PM
its the same type of rottenness that killed the Grumman Tanker deal in favor of Boeing. Its tragic, but many politicians view the defense budget as a big candy store first, and the well being of our troops second.
rob verdi on December 7, 2008 at 12:41 PM
========================================
It’s not Grumman it’s Airbuss.
Rick007 on December 7, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Romeo13 on December 7, 2008 at 12:54 PM
The worst part is, if these political asshats had to face the same things our soldiers face, they would have the latest gear and no expense would be spared to provide it.
Pretty damn sad that the fuds we continue to elect to office are more concerned with pork and political donations than having the most advanced equipment available to our troops. I’m starting to hate ALL of our politicians
Bishop on December 7, 2008 at 1:00 PM
This is disgraceful. I’m glad someone has brought it to light. It’s becoming almost routine to see the names of Murtha, Schumer and Specter involved in shady to downright evil deals. Why worry if one is getting their fair share of campaign money–just let the guys fighting over there die. What the h–l!! These guys are borderline criminals and so are the people who keep sending them back to DC.
jeanie on December 7, 2008 at 1:05 PM
It’s both. Northrop-Grumman partnered with Airbus on the project.
Ed Morrissey on December 7, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Now, how to fix it? – Limey
Easy, let’s just not have a military! The libs would be soooo happy, they’d finally stop foaming at the mouth and we could all just get along! Think of all the money we could save! Why, we could use that money to build a socialist utopia!
Tony737 on December 7, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Politicians for sale, CHEAP. Line forms to the
rightleft.And another low-rent RINO, Specter, makes the list. I cannot wait to read how our “republican at all cost defenders” respond to this one. How low can they go? Putting our troops at risk so they can line their pockets. Disgusting.
Zorro on December 7, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Ed, if I know you, you’re working on something for Pearl Harbor Day, aren’t you?
Tony737 on December 7, 2008 at 1:33 PM
What a great way of articulating what these Benedict Arnolds are doing to our Forces.
Tony737 on December 7, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Tony737 on December 7, 2008 at 1:41 PM
We need to revolt soon. Must not wait! The more we just sit and hope for the better of a change. The more danger will be lurking near us. Time to make those greedy ba@tards get out of DC.
sheebe on December 7, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Me too, and it get worse every day.
Earmarks that hurt our troops? Disgusting and shameful.
rockbend on December 7, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Tanker REAL deal: EADS knew they had to put an American face on this bid to have any chance at all so they pimped Northrop-Grumman. The flying airframe will be manufactured in Europe and “transported” to the states for final fit out. We need to watch the re-bid closely, If Obama and the government are truly serious about helping domestic industry, keeping our tax $$ at home is the only way to go. My take is that the entire program will be back burner’d along with the vast majority of procurement programs to free up funds for the entitlement crowd.
Healing we will feel!
dmann on December 7, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Nope. It is indeed Northrop Grumman. Airbus is the sub for the airframe (which would actually be assembled in Alabama). NGC is the prime, and would be the integrator of all the US-only military avionics technology to be placed into the tanker. The engines would be provided by GE, and built in America.
US vs. foreign parts content for both the Boeing and NGC planes are similar. Both planes would result in about 45,000 jobs in the United States.
The two planes, from the political standpoint, involve a regional lard fight between California and Alabama on one hand, and Washington State on the other (since both vendors rely upon a plethora of US suppliers of aviation parts located in other states; most of those states won’t win or lose with either plane).
Variants of both planes are already in service.
unclesmrgol on December 7, 2008 at 2:07 PM
unclesmrgol…..
WRONG!
dmann on December 7, 2008 at 2:09 PM
RE: The tanker deal
Yes it was Airbus which found a loophole the program office didn’t see, to provide an aircraft that wouldn’t fit on Air Force ramps. It was analagous to providing one super station in every township as opposed to a bunch of neighborhood filling stations. Airbus and their American front company promised a new aircraft plant in Alabama to get the Republican support. In addition to all this, France does not buy American Defense products. Most important, there is a certain amount of security and economic sense to keep military equipment such as this in the US.
That having been written, Boeing is no nosegay of sweet violets either. They have indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts to support the tanker for hundreds of millions of dollars and since there is probably no living designer at Boeing that actually worked on the program, and I doubt if you really pressed them, they could even come up with a complete set of drawings, jigs, or fixtures. But nobody else has a chance to bid because “it is a Boeing product”. All at non-competitive rates.
There are a lot of good companies working with the military out there. They try to give the Government value for the dollar. Sometimes that is hard to do when dealing with many of the Government procurement specialists. However, the employees at most of the companies, including Boeing, are honest and try to give value. It is when politics gets in the process that you should “beware of the military-industrial complex”.
Old Country Boy on December 7, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Old Country Boy….
Roger that!
One more for unclesmrgol…..
Find me the proposed Northrop-Grumman tanker in service for anyone, anywhere? You’ll find EADS tankers but not NG “produced” aircraft.
more christmas lights to attend to….
dmann on December 7, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Just wait, come January 20th everything will be fine.
Peace, love and hope EVERYWHERE!
(upchuck)
christene on December 7, 2008 at 2:30 PM
I just emailed my congressman about this issue. I suggest that each of you do the same. Whining on HotAir won’t help much.
Buford Gooch on December 7, 2008 at 2:34 PM
And they are the same people who have the audacity to whine about Halliburton, when Halliburton is actually providing desperately needed services for the troops that no one else will provide. Outrageous.
sheesh on December 7, 2008 at 2:48 PM
TREASON during wartime has a certain penalty, doesn’t it?
Seven Percent Solution on December 7, 2008 at 2:49 PM
and how many soldiers have been affected by WMD’s in either war?
Kaptain Amerika on December 7, 2008 at 3:01 PM
OH…. that makes it all OK I guess….
/serious eye roll…
Romeo13 on December 7, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Generally, being a forward thinker is better for ensuring safety.
sheesh on December 7, 2008 at 3:09 PM
So it’s okay for our government to spend tens of millions of our tax dollars paying for an inferior product to defend our troops against deadly chemicals, because our troops haven’t been attacked with deadly chemicals yet? And when they are attacked, how long will it take to get the product that actually works delivered to the troops, and how many troops will be injured or die waiting? Or do you think the lotion will just magically appear on the scene when it’s needed? Meanwhile, will the $40+ Million that’s already been wasted on the inferior powder also magically regenerate so that it can be spent on something more worthwhile?
AZCoyote on December 7, 2008 at 3:20 PM
So let me see if I’ve got this straight – the politicians vote earmarks (our tax dollars) for these companies and then these companies essentially kick back these same tax dollars to the politicians that gave it to them in the form of political contributions. And now we’ve got these same politicians who’ve received massive political contributions from the UAW and Big 3 deciding whether to give our tax dollars to these groups to save their jobs from their own incompetence and greed. Any bailout should include an ironclad prohibition on political contributions!
PatMac on December 7, 2008 at 3:26 PM
All of them. They have extra training, funding that has to get diverted to precautions, and living with the threat of IEDs made from WMD shells. And now the knowledge that they have been sold out for a few $10K by their own Congress.
pedestrian on December 7, 2008 at 3:50 PM
I am utterly appalled. This is shameless and I made sure to e-mail my Senator Spector and voiced my displeasure.
Now Im not sure if he will get my vote over Chris Mathews…what a tough decision.
becki51758 on December 7, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time U.S. soldiers will receive inferior equipment, and I’m sure it won’t be the last.
Goody2Shoes on December 7, 2008 at 4:47 PM
I thought all pork passed through John Murtha as a standard operating procedure of Congress.
Count to 10 on December 7, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Referring to the contributions as “dollars” is probably misleading. The money received by the pols were “shekels,” as in what Judas received for his services. Hillary, Specter and Schumer sold out our troops for a few shekels in campaign contributions.
No wonder Congress gets single-digit approval ratings from the public.
Cicero43 on December 7, 2008 at 4:58 PM
My, my, we are a bit hot under the collar about “buy American”, aren’t we?
We both know that neither plane is in service, but variants are. Boeing’s is in service in Japan and Italy, while the EADS MRTT is in service with Australia and is going into service in South Korea, the United Kingdom, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia.
The airframe is only one component in a refuelling tanker, and it happens to be the one component which we can take care of here in the USA if things go sour with Europe (unlike the avionics and engines). Northrop Grumman’s job, like Boeing’s, is to take a bunch of parts (some of which are bigger than others) from both foreign and domestic suppliers, and weld them into an integral capability. Some of those capabilities include secret and top secret US technologies which we do not export to Europe, so NGC must be prime. It is NGC which warrants to the Defense Department the integrity and reliability of the aircraft (including its airframe) upon delivery for acceptance, not EADS, just as Boeing would have to guarantee the integrity and reliability of the parts provided by its subcontractors, including any built in China.
Boeing screwed up big time in offering an aircraft based on the 767 — a decade old design which neither has the capacity nor the fuel efficiency of the A300. After up-engining (needed for military tanker service), the disparity becomes even greater between the two aircraft. [Boeing's claim of better fuel efficiency in its full page ads pitted the passenger version of the 767 against the up-engined KC-45; when one compares the two up-engined craft (or even the two passenger versions), the lies in the full page ad become apparent.]
Boeing also screwed up when it bribed Air Force contracting officer Darleen Druyan to steer contracts (including an earlier tanker contract) to it with a job offer after retirement.
Hopefully, when the rebid comes around, politics will not affect choosing the best technology and the best fit for our fighting forces. [Of course, everyone here can guess which aircraft I think is the best.]
unclesmrgol on December 7, 2008 at 5:59 PM
………… anyone who voted for these As*-Clowns is equally guilty.
Seven Percent Solution on December 7, 2008 at 6:03 PM
I find this disgusting but not surprising. Congress has no problem putting a price on protecting our troops. PIGS, all of them. TERM LIMITS!!!!! 4 years max!
milwife88 on December 7, 2008 at 6:22 PM
unclesmrgol, again
It is good to see that you favor Northrup Grumman, the front companies for Airbus. FYI the A300 incident that you mentioned was based on the concept that the program office did not specify maximum size but specified the aircraft to fit the same footprint as the C/KC-135, so they could operate it using current facilities. Thus my comment that the aircraft wouldn’t sit on the current in-use ramps and hangars. That aircraft was only allowed because of undue influence, and after the specifications were published as a private treaty (political influence or bad procurement)? Thus my comment about a one superstation in a township. By the way, the courts agreed with this. Boeing has converted most of the C/KC-135 configurations to the B767 airframe. The B707 AWACS was converted and used by other countries. Anytime you would like to read of a humourous unintended circumstance of that conversion, I will be happy to tell you.
The Drunyan story did not concern this solicitation, but concerned LEASING B767 tankers (which even I was against). That was also in the vein of the other part of my post (but I didn’t want to mention specifics) about Boeing not being a nosegay of violets. One of the reasons the Air Force did not want the larger tanker was experience with the DC10/MD11 tanker. It was very good, but just too big.
Yes, I can guess which aircraft you want. I suppose it is either because you are a Northrup Grumman employee or lived in a town that was to benefit from the sale. Or possibly, you are part of the construction campany that would be hired using political influence to rebuild all the Air Force facilitied from which this would operate. By the way, I am going to follow this with a post of current political influence by Dick Cheney dating from the A-12 cancellation.
Old Country Boy on December 7, 2008 at 6:24 PM
There is a special place in hell for these politicians.
conservnut on December 7, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Now for my promised comment about Dick Cheney influence on the procurement process. When Mr Cheney was with the Bush 1 administration, a development contract was awarded to McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamics Consortium to develop a stealth fighter/attack bomber (F/A) to replace carrier aircraft such as the F/A18 and the F14. As in any development contract, the following clusterf resulted in overuns and missed goals. Mr. Cheny wanted to stop the sale of F-15s to Israel, but Pres. Bush overruled him. After a confrontation with corporate executives over what he thought were scheduling lied, I guess me Cheney decided that MDC would never get another new aircraft contract. A possible result of this might have been the joining of MDC and Boeing. It is apparent that since then, Boeing has never recieved a new fighter program contract. The YF23 was awarded without even meeting the competition requirements of flying, but the YF22 flew. It is apparent that there was an attempt to freeze or snoooker the Boeing companies out of the tanker contract, even though the amalgum of those companies produced the only flying jet tankers today, that will last 40 years past their estimated lifetime. Those lousy Boeing tankers today are being flown by the grandchildren of the original pilots. OK Mr. unclesmrgol, which of your EADS/Airbus/Northrup/Gruman companies can match that in the 500+ airframes still flying!
I’m sorry if this breaks the heart of you die-hard Bushies (I voted for him twice), but I sent a letter to the Republican committee telling them about the vindictiveness of Cheney when Bush chose him as his running mate after the betrayal of his assignment to find VP candidates.
Old Country Boy on December 7, 2008 at 6:41 PM
The difference is that King George was mad, this lot is just plain malicious.
OldEnglish on December 7, 2008 at 7:34 PM
reading the well informed comments from old country, uncle, and from the various perspectives on the tanker deal, my understanding was that airbus/grumman would sell the planes while the Boeing deal involved a lease. My anger is based in the idea that the US was sacrificing the best deal for tax payer dollars on a misguided notion of autarky that was cover for politicians to line the pockets of favored companies.
rob verdi on December 7, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Imagine my surprise.
I’ll be sure to “look up” some Canadians the next time I’m deployed.
darkpixel on December 7, 2008 at 8:22 PM
This kind thing has been going on for decades. Think this is bad? Wait until there isn’t a conflict going on. When I deployed to OIF, over half my unit didn’t have antropine (nerve agent antidote) for about 3 months.
Hog Wild on December 7, 2008 at 8:42 PM
You are a silly provocateur!
jerrytbg on December 7, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Sorry Uncle, your thought processes fall a little short of reality.
Check this out. I read similar VIEWS from other sources.
What I find the most damning is the breakaway speed.
VERY DANGEROUS!
jerrytbg on December 7, 2008 at 10:26 PM
You ask. I answer.
Send_Me on December 7, 2008 at 10:39 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/feb/22/world/fg-iraq22
I can give you more if you’d like.
Send_Me on December 7, 2008 at 10:49 PM
And your reason for favoring sleazebag Boeing, who did the Darleen Druyan thing? My reason for wanting the KC-45 is because it is the better aircraft for the mission.
unclesmrgol on December 7, 2008 at 10:58 PM
There is no difference between what these snakes did than if they forced the Pentagon to buy old, inferior body armor.
None, and they should be forced to account for it.
91Veteran on December 7, 2008 at 11:08 PM
The pivot graph in your own posting proves my point.
Breakaway speed is not primary — it’s a secondary characteristic. And breakaway in aerial refueling (as in naval refueling) is normally done by the more maneuverable craft — something even more typical in multi-craft simultaneous refueling operations.
Boeing and their captive porkers got the contact quashed. I think they’ll lose in the recompete. But that’s just me blowing off my uninformed mouth, like everyone else around here.
unclesmrgol on December 7, 2008 at 11:10 PM
You’ve just demonstrated you know little if anything about aerial refueling.
jerrytbg on December 7, 2008 at 11:17 PM
This Viet Nam Vet says that this is disgusting. Unfortunately, it is not the first time this has happened.
DL13 on December 7, 2008 at 11:19 PM
You’re so right. And bandages should only be purchased as soldiers get shot.
Geez, what ignorance.
91Veteran on December 7, 2008 at 11:24 PM
You mean the A-12 whose contractors were overrunning their low-ball bid and refused to assure Chaney that the overrun would not exceed the +$1B cap? You mean the Navy’s overweight (almost to the point where it could not meet its mission), version of the Sergeant York? You mean the A-12 whose contractors filed lawsuits claiming the termination was at the convenience of the government, and not for default, and lost? That A-12?
Please. Spare me. A-12 specified capabilities were needed by the Navy, but the A-12 would never have delivered the way it was going. Chaney gave it surcease.
unclesmrgol on December 7, 2008 at 11:27 PM
You need to write him back and ask him which military charity he will donate his
bribecampaign scratch to, and to spell out why you should vote for him over Mr. Tingle.91Veteran on December 7, 2008 at 11:28 PM
OK…. Tell me what I don’t know that I ought to know.
unclesmrgol on December 7, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Uncle,
We can argue the merits of the different aircraft in question…..and neither will convince the other.
Keep this in mind, safety is #1.
jerrytbg on December 7, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Almost agreed. In particular, both sides have seen each others’ “crown jewels” as part of the debrief. That should give us better aircraft for a lower price in the recompete (as long as the Government insists on the cap being the nonnegotiable outer envelope, and requires the winning contractor to absorb costs beyond the cap). And both have seen the GAO’s (or what I would call the CAO’s [Congressional Accounting Office]) report. Since both sides have operational variants and no safety issues have surfaced with either, we will see about how the GAO’s position is validated in the recompete.
unclesmrgol on December 7, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Uncle,
Last thought…after all is said ahd done…I would much prefer to be looking up and seeing a bird built by a company that has the most experience.
The maneuver is inherently dangerous .
I equate the Airbus tanker with that McNamara monster from the 50’s.
jerrytbg on December 7, 2008 at 11:58 PM
Also, almost agreed….we’ll see….hell…With the “o”…who knows what’s going to happen.
jerrytbg on December 8, 2008 at 12:03 AM
+1
Right_of_Attila on December 8, 2008 at 6:19 AM
When the AF put out bids for the tanker, they gave a set of requirements. They also told the bidders how the requirements ranked.
At the last minute, the AF changed the rankings, putting capacity at the top.
Boeing, having laid out their bid to the old requirements cried foul. The review board agreed.
MarkTheGreat on December 8, 2008 at 9:25 AM
Uncle
Well, its tomorrow morning. Why do you chastize me when I generally agree with you on the Drunyan thing? I really have a lot of antipithy for Boeing, but I dont let it determine my engineering or travel decisions. I know that all the major defense contractors are no different. Why do you want us to put up with the perfidious French along with our own dirty defense contractors. I also agree with you on the A-12. The problem with that was not the A-12 per se, but that Cheney has used that experience to direct all theose other contracts to the detriment of the US military. I note you don’t disagree on the YF22/YF23 issue. Remember, the YF23 never flew before it was awarded. It seems to me that you may be misreading my posts in the same manner you probably misread the program information. As a reminder to all, any development program, for almost any new product can become over budget and behind schedule – particularly when the engineers are chasing state-of-the-art. Consider the builder that contracts to build a house for $100K that will keep out the weather, provide a pleasant home atmosphere and will fit on the lot. After the contract is signed, the homeowner wants the house to be twice as big, have luxury appliances and a pool – all for the same price. That’s what happens when the idiot colonel and general program managers get into the mix.
Also, I notice you did not address the footprint problem. The large footprint means we have fewer filling stations in the air. Larger footprints are also more expensive to operate – Note that few publically owned airlines fly the B747: they can’t afford it; its too expensive to fly. It is flown by government owned airlines that don’t have to make a profit.
Old Country Boy on December 8, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Excuse me, gentlemen, but I’m a bit skeptical of this story.
It smells as if it’s possible that this story is similar to the one NBC ran about the body armor.
Are we sure that this newspaper wasn’t “lobbied” by the lotion company to print a one-sided story?
I’d really like to hear the other side of this story.
blink on December 8, 2008 at 10:21 AM
This reminds me of the product invented to lubricate the action of rifles that was superior to the oils the military issued. I believe it was called “Dry Slide”. When dry slide was used the rifle that was dropped into the sand only needed to be struck a couple of times and the sand dropped out. Not so with the oils. The inventor was making it and sending it to the soldiers in Nam at his own expense. I think “60 Minutes” did an article on this capper.
mixplix on December 8, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Correction, brain phart!
Reverse the YF22/23 statements. It was the 22 that never flew before the contract was awarded. This is the most posting I have ever done. My apologies.
Old Country Boy on December 8, 2008 at 11:49 AM
war pigs
lulz
Drunk Report on December 8, 2008 at 12:34 PM