from http://ebird.osd.mil/ebfiles/e20121010908629.html
Erin Burnett OutFront (CNN), 7:00 PM
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: So if defense spending is
such a big issue this year, why are we on the hook for those
tanks?
Drew Griffin from our Special Investigations Unit is
OUTFRONT with the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DREW GRIFFIN, CNN SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS
UNIT (voice-over): It's a remarkable sight parked in the
California desert, more than 2,000 of them, row upon row of
M1 Abrams tanks, built by General Dynamics beginning in
the 1980s. Most of them are still ready to roll.
So when the U.S. Army's budget folks sat down to make
some tough decisions about what to cut, they saw a great
opportunity. Postpone what they said would be a $3 billion
expense, the refurbishing of hundreds of these tanks at this
General Dynamics plant in Lima, Ohio.
Government Waste?
Early Bird: Government Waste? Page 1 of 6
http://ebird.osd.mil/ebfiles/e20121010908629.html 10/10/2012
U.S. Army's chief of staff marched up to Capitol Hill with a
great idea.
GENERAL RAYMOND T. ODIERNO, CHIEF OF
STAFF, U.S. ARMY: In Lima, it would cost us $2.8 billion
just to keep that open. And we -- our tank fleet is in good
shape. We don't need to -- because of the great support
we've gotten over the last few years --
GRIFFIN: And he had support.
Travis Sharp, who studies defense spending at Center for a
New American Security says the proposed cuts of tanks
were a no-brainer.
TRAVIS SHARP, CENTER FOR A NEW AMERICAN
SECURITY: When you relatively conservative institution
like the U.S. military, which does not like to take risks,
because risks get people killed, says that it has enough tanks
-- I think, generally, civilians should be inclined to believe
them.
GRIFFIN: But while the defense bill isn't finished yet, you,
the taxpayer, are still likely to be on the hook -- for fixing up
tanks the Army doesn't want.
(on camera): So who decided the general was wrong, that he
actually does need more tanks? I'll give you one word:
Congress.
SHARP: I think that there are better things that they could
be doing with that $3 billion. But the fact that the military is
having such a hard time getting this relatively small amount
of money to be saved,
Erin Burnett OutFront (CNN), 7:00 PM
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: So if defense spending is
such a big issue this year, why are we on the hook for those
tanks?
Drew Griffin from our Special Investigations Unit is
OUTFRONT with the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DREW GRIFFIN, CNN SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS
UNIT (voice-over): It's a remarkable sight parked in the
California desert, more than 2,000 of them, row upon row of
M1 Abrams tanks, built by General Dynamics beginning in
the 1980s. Most of them are still ready to roll.
So when the U.S. Army's budget folks sat down to make
some tough decisions about what to cut, they saw a great
opportunity. Postpone what they said would be a $3 billion
expense, the refurbishing of hundreds of these tanks at this
General Dynamics plant in Lima, Ohio.
Government Waste?
Early Bird: Government Waste? Page 1 of 6
http://ebird.osd.mil/ebfiles/e20121010908629.html 10/10/2012
U.S. Army's chief of staff marched up to Capitol Hill with a
great idea.
GENERAL RAYMOND T. ODIERNO, CHIEF OF
STAFF, U.S. ARMY: In Lima, it would cost us $2.8 billion
just to keep that open. And we -- our tank fleet is in good
shape. We don't need to -- because of the great support
we've gotten over the last few years --
GRIFFIN: And he had support.
Travis Sharp, who studies defense spending at Center for a
New American Security says the proposed cuts of tanks
were a no-brainer.
TRAVIS SHARP, CENTER FOR A NEW AMERICAN
SECURITY: When you relatively conservative institution
like the U.S. military, which does not like to take risks,
because risks get people killed, says that it has enough tanks
-- I think, generally, civilians should be inclined to believe
them.
GRIFFIN: But while the defense bill isn't finished yet, you,
the taxpayer, are still likely to be on the hook -- for fixing up
tanks the Army doesn't want.
(on camera): So who decided the general was wrong, that he
actually does need more tanks? I'll give you one word:
Congress.
SHARP: I think that there are better things that they could
be doing with that $3 billion. But the fact that the military is
having such a hard time getting this relatively small amount
of money to be saved,