Defense Contractor spends $10 Million on Party for Daughter!

Of course people are angry when a major shareholder sells his interest in his company. It affects the price of the stock. That's his right ro sell and your right, too, if you decide to sell your interest in a business. There is nothing wrong with that. He sold at a high point, too. Should he have sold at a low point? Is that what you would do? It's his stock to sell.

What angers me is the characterization of this by the left wing article you posted. Not liking someone because they have lots of money and flaunt it is one thing. Making false and misleading statements to libel someone is another.

It is my understanding that his company produced bulletproof vests for police agencies and the military using a material called Zylon. The vast majority of body armor sold by the DBH does not contain any Zylon.

This includes substantially all of the body armor sold to branches of the U.S. Military. The issue of the vests not meeting certain standatds applies to the police vests, not the military vests. In fact, the military continues to buy and use the vests. Over $70,000,000 in new vests were contracted in the past few months by the military. During the past five years, sales of body armor containing Zylon made up less than five percent of the Company's total revenues.

Why then should he be characterized as someone who "kills our soldiers" and why should we be perpetuating this crap.?

"...eat crow..."

You have failed to carefully read my posts. I did not defend nor attack Mr. Brooks as an individual, unlike others on this thread.

I simply stated that Mr. Brooks has a right to enjoy the fruits of his labor, provided he earned it within the boundaries of the law. If he chooses to lavish his daughter with an expensive birthday party, that is his prerogative.

Furthermore, I questioned the accuracy of the report. No reliable sources were ever quoted, and the reporters did not provide substantial evidence proving that Mr. Brooks was a money grubbing, ruthless contractor.

I asked for more information, but was provided nothing more than another article from a left wing news source.

Questioning the integrity of the report does not automatically mean that I am not interested in the issue of unlawful business dealings, especially when it involves the safety of our troops.

My suspicions lie with the motivations of those news outlets which use their medium to promote a socialist/communist agenda through fabricated or misrepresented stories.

If Mr. Brooks is in fact guilty of selling defective equipment with full knowledge of their inferiority, I'll be more than happy to "eat crow".

Officials: Vests recalled to put troops at ease

MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, Va. (Dec. 1, 2005) -- Following the Corps’ recall of more than 10,000 protective vests in November, Marine Corps Systems Command officials are defending the decision to initially field them to leathernecks in combat.

Headquarters Marine Corps ordered 10,342 Outer Tactical Vests pulled from the operating forces after media reports indicated some samples tested by the manufacturer and by the Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland failed to fully comply with ballistics standards.

The Outer Tactical Vest, together with Small Arms Protective Inserts, composes the Interceptor Body Armor System, which has been credited with saving numerous lives in operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.

Major Gen. William G. Catto, Marine Corps Systems Command’s commanding general, defended the acquisition of the now recalled OTVs.

“Marine Corps Systems Command has never allowed equipment to be fielded to the operating forces that did not significantly improve the combat capability of our Marines,” Catto stated in a written statement released Nov. 23.

Retired Lt. Col. Dan Fitzgerald, program manager for infantry combat equipment at Systems Command, said fielding the recalled vests, designed to stop fragmentation and 9 mm rounds, never presented a safety concern to deployed Marines or sailors.

“The recall by no means indicates that the (Outer Tactical Vest) itself has any ballistic problems,” Fitzgerald said. “At no time has the ballistic capability … on that vest been below operational capabilities requirements doctrine. Those vests were recalled for contractual purposes only, not for ballistic impact. It still stopped 9 millimeter and fragmentation as intended. We knew at the time that our choice was to either give the Marine an older vest that would not stop any ballistic shot and have less fragmentation (protection), or give them this system.”

Fitzgerald said the recall is entirely for the peace of mind of troops in theater in the wake of critical news reports, and, with 198,000 OTVs in the Marine Corps’ inventory, will have zero impact on ongoing combat operations.

“We are taking (the recall) to alleviate the minds of the Marines and sailors in combat, and we have enough in the Marine Corps right now to make sure everybody has one,” Fitzgerald said.

Fitzgerald added that he personally wore a recalled vest while leading a Systems Command research team in Iraq to demonstrate his confidence in the gear.

“I had no concerns going outside the perimeter with that vest myself when I was in Iraq,” Fitzgerald said. “This system has performed on battlefields to date with no issues at all. It has saved Marines’ lives repeatedly. We know that from … data that we (review) in this office on a monthly basis. The system has performed as designed at all times.”

Fitzgerald said he does not anticipate any future OTV recalls, and highlighted new protective equipment now enhancing the safety of forward deployed Marines and sailors.

Systems Command is fielding both the Enhanced SAPI plate, with a greater degree of ballistic protection, and a new Interceptor system with additional SAPI plates to protect the sides of the torso from small arms fire. Four levels of add-on armor are now available for the Interceptor that offer the same degree of ballistic protection as the OTV for extremities, including the neck, shoulders, arms, groin and legs. The new armor can be configured for specific mission requirements and covers up to 75 percent of the body.

Already in theater are lightweight helmets and ballistic goggles and sunglasses.

“The Marines today have the finest ballistic protection we can provide them from industry,” Fitzgerald said. “The technology is advancing. We don’t buy cheap stuff. We buy quality equipment.”

This Just In:) FYI

Officials: Vests recalled to put troops at ease

MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, Va. (Dec. 1, 2005) -- Following the Corps’ recall of more than 10,000 protective vests in November, Marine Corps Systems Command officials are defending the decision to initially field them to leathernecks in combat.

Headquarters Marine Corps ordered 10,342 Outer Tactical Vests pulled from the operating forces after media reports indicated some samples tested by the manufacturer and by the Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland failed to fully comply with ballistics standards.

The Outer Tactical Vest, together with Small Arms Protective Inserts, composes the Interceptor Body Armor System, which has been credited with saving numerous lives in operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.

Major Gen. William G. Catto, Marine Corps Systems Command’s commanding general, defended the acquisition of the now recalled OTVs.

“Marine Corps Systems Command has never allowed equipment to be fielded to the operating forces that did not significantly improve the combat capability of our Marines,” Catto stated in a written statement released Nov. 23.

Retired Lt. Col. Dan Fitzgerald, program manager for infantry combat equipment at Systems Command, said fielding the recalled vests, designed to stop fragmentation and 9 mm rounds, never presented a safety concern to deployed Marines or sailors.

“The recall by no means indicates that the (Outer Tactical Vest) itself has any ballistic problems,” Fitzgerald said. “At no time has the ballistic capability … on that vest been below operational capabilities requirements doctrine. Those vests were recalled for contractual purposes only, not for ballistic impact. It still stopped 9 millimeter and fragmentation as intended. We knew at the time that our choice was to either give the Marine an older vest that would not stop any ballistic shot and have less fragmentation (protection), or give them this system.”

Fitzgerald said the recall is entirely for the peace of mind of troops in theater in the wake of critical news reports, and, with 198,000 OTVs in the Marine Corps’ inventory, will have zero impact on ongoing combat operations.

“We are taking (the recall) to alleviate the minds of the Marines and sailors in combat, and we have enough in the Marine Corps right now to make sure everybody has one,” Fitzgerald said.

Fitzgerald added that he personally wore a recalled vest while leading a Systems Command research team in Iraq to demonstrate his confidence in the gear.

“I had no concerns going outside the perimeter with that vest myself when I was in Iraq,” Fitzgerald said. “This system has performed on battlefields to date with no issues at all. It has saved Marines’ lives repeatedly. We know that from … data that we (review) in this office on a monthly basis. The system has performed as designed at all times.”

Fitzgerald said he does not anticipate any future OTV recalls, and highlighted new protective equipment now enhancing the safety of forward deployed Marines and sailors.

Systems Command is fielding both the Enhanced SAPI plate, with a greater degree of ballistic protection, and a new Interceptor system with additional SAPI plates to protect the sides of the torso from small arms fire. Four levels of add-on armor are now available for the Interceptor that offer the same degree of ballistic protection as the OTV for extremities, including the neck, shoulders, arms, groin and legs. The new armor can be configured for specific mission requirements and covers up to 75 percent of the body.

Already in theater are lightweight helmets and ballistic goggles and sunglasses.

“The Marines today have the finest ballistic protection we can provide them from industry,” Fitzgerald said. “The technology is advancing. We don’t buy cheap stuff. We buy quality equipment.”

MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, Va. (Dec. 1, 2005) -- Following the Corps’ recall of more than 10,000 protective vests in November, Marine Corps Systems Command officials are defending the decision to initially field them to leathernecks in combat.

Headquarters Marine Corps ordered 10,342 Outer Tactical Vests pulled from the operating forces after media reports indicated some samples tested by the manufacturer and by the Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland failed to fully comply with ballistics standards.

The Outer Tactical Vest, together with Small Arms Protective Inserts, composes the Interceptor Body Armor System, which has been credited with saving numerous lives in operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.

Major Gen. William G. Catto, Marine Corps Systems Command’s commanding general, defended the acquisition of the now recalled OTVs.

“Marine Corps Systems Command has never allowed equipment to be fielded to the operating forces that did not significantly improve the combat capability of our Marines,” Catto stated in a written statement released Nov. 23.

Retired Lt. Col. Dan Fitzgerald, program manager for infantry combat equipment at Systems Command, said fielding the recalled vests, designed to stop fragmentation and 9 mm rounds, never presented a safety concern to deployed Marines or sailors.

“The recall by no means indicates that the (Outer Tactical Vest) itself has any ballistic problems,” Fitzgerald said. “At no time has the ballistic capability … on that vest been below operational capabilities requirements doctrine. Those vests were recalled for contractual purposes only, not for ballistic impact. It still stopped 9 millimeter and fragmentation as intended. We knew at the time that our choice was to either give the Marine an older vest that would not stop any ballistic shot and have less fragmentation (protection), or give them this system.”

Fitzgerald said the recall is entirely for the peace of mind of troops in theater in the wake of critical news reports, and, with 198,000 OTVs in the Marine Corps’ inventory, will have zero impact on ongoing combat operations.

“We are taking (the recall) to alleviate the minds of the Marines and sailors in combat, and we have enough in the Marine Corps right now to make sure everybody has one,” Fitzgerald said.

Fitzgerald added that he personally wore a recalled vest while leading a Systems Command research team in Iraq to demonstrate his confidence in the gear.

“I had no concerns going outside the perimeter with that vest myself when I was in Iraq,” Fitzgerald said. “This system has performed on battlefields to date with no issues at all. It has saved Marines’ lives repeatedly. We know that from … data that we (review) in this office on a monthly basis. The system has performed as designed at all times.”

Fitzgerald said he does not anticipate any future OTV recalls, and highlighted new protective equipment now enhancing the safety of forward deployed Marines and sailors.

Systems Command is fielding both the Enhanced SAPI plate, with a greater degree of ballistic protection, and a new Interceptor system with additional SAPI plates to protect the sides of the torso from small arms fire. Four levels of add-on armor are now available for the Interceptor that offer the same degree of ballistic protection as the OTV for extremities, including the neck, shoulders, arms, groin and legs. The new armor can be configured for specific mission requirements and covers up to 75 percent of the body.

Already in theater are lightweight helmets and ballistic goggles and sunglasses.

“The Marines today have the finest ballistic protection we can provide them from industry,” Fitzgerald said. “The technology is advancing. We don’t buy cheap stuff. We buy quality equipment.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.