The folks over at AMERICAblog have reported on a case which ought to be of real concern, if the facts are as presented:
The last time 1st Lt. William "Eddie" Rebrook IV saw his body armor, he was lying on a stretcher in Iraq, his arm shattered and covered in blood.Whether or not they have the facts right, I think it's important to note that AMERICAblog raised $5,000 to help the soldier. I told Sovay in comments to a recent post, "If you want to help, help." These guys did that, and they deserve credit for it.
A field medic tied a tourniquet around Rebrook's right arm to stanch the bleeding from shrapnel wounds. Soldiers yanked off his blood-soaked body armor. He never saw it again.
But last week, Rebrook was forced to pay $700 for that body armor, blown up by a roadside bomb more than a year ago.
But is this really the military's policy? An isolated case? So far there's not much in the way of news, except that the West Virginia Senators are looking into it -- and that the story contained no comment from the military.
I think we can have bipartisan agreement that, if these facts are straight, it's not acceptable. I think we can furthermore agree that, facts straight or not, AMERICAblog did the praiseworthy thing in this case by supporting the soldier. What I wonder is -- are the facts straight?