Body Armor Controversy Heating Up.

David Edwards reports that Senators Hillary Clinton and Jim Webb are calling on the comptroller to determine if Pinnacle's Dragon Skin isn't better than the Interceptor Body Armor currently used by United States personnel. Copies of both the Clinton press release and the Clinton/Webb letter can be found at Rawstory.

Military.com has published an article outlining the Pentagon's position on Dragon Skin. That article claims to have a link to an article presenting Pinnacle's position, but the link took me to another site pushing Interceptor Body Armor. For product information about Dragon Skin you might want to try Pinnacle's website.

It is obvious why this controversy is important. Pinnacle's system has a number of advantages over the current body armor. Weight, flexibility, body coverage all favor Pinnacle, but how valuable is Dragon Skin if it doesn't consistently stop a second shot?

The Richmond Democrat argues Interceptor Body Armor has a powerful advantage. Its manufacturer's CEO, David H. Brooks, is a major Republican contributor. That is probably true, but I would be surprised if Pinnacle's officers didn't make political contributions as well.

This issue has been bubbling along for a while. It looks like it is heating up. You might want to do a little background reading. At least watch the NBC video.