92. one of my own:
73. AThinkingPerson . . . “Your party treats veterans like trash.”
As opposed to stop loss policies, Walter Reed conditions, preventing the Veterans groups from testifying to the Veterans Affairs Committee, putting an embargo on coffin photos as if they never died, denying a 4% pay raise to soldiers, suing widows to recoup sign up bonuses . . .
Pull your head out thunkopolis, Republicans have no respect for veterans, they only create them. Just another face of the bottomless and graceless charade that is conservative values.
Ah, one of my own, welcome back!
Stop Loss: necessary if not the nicest thing to do. It’s also part of every enlistees contract (Officers contracts are a bit different) since at least the beginning of the all-volunteer force.
Walter Reed: Disgraceful, but do you really think that hospital got in that shape overnight? This wasn’t the administration, or even Republicans in general, it was the Army. To their credit, I stayed at Mologne house, and it was clean and well run (that’s where they house the family members – and rent rooms out to any other military as space is available). Thin gruel to pin on Bush, but handy for sure. Maybe if we knew about how they really acted with wounded vets earlier, we’d have a different opinion. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/22/bush-cheney-comforted-troops-privately/
Veteran’s affairs: Is this what you’re talking about? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47436. If so, you’re half misinformed, they merely moved the meeting from Sep to Feb for the House and not the Senate. They still got to testify.
The coffins: The policy goes back to 1991, to start. If you don’t understand why they weren’t allowed to be photographed and broadcast as they arrived at Dover, I won’t be able to convince you in this response. Watch “Taking Chance” http://www.hbo.com/films/takingchance/, it’s much more eloquent, and much less vulgar than I would be here. One thought – if you think morbid curiosity is more important than the dignity of the fallen, I can’t help you.
Denying a 4% pay raise: I’ve been active duty for 21 years and the pay raises have always been more than adequate, even better during Clinton (he did quite a bit, especially after 1994…) and Bush 43. Of course, many were less than initially proposed, and who wants less? And every year so far this decade it’s been at least .5% ahead of private sector growth. BTW, Obama’s 2010 raise is 2.9% – roughly equal to the private sector. Who’s not closing the gap? http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/03/miliytary_payraise_030209w/. BTW, just because *someone* proposes a military pay raise that gets reduced is no reason to go off about an administration.
Suing widows: After a long search, I found nothing except this: http://kdka.com/local/military.signing.bonuses.2.571660.html. A wounded soldier who had been discharged, not a widow. Can you provide a reference? This instance is awesomely stupid and short-sighted on the Army’s part, but not an Administration initiative.
Really, none of these things have anything to do with the Bush 43 administration or even republicans in general (except for the coffins – and they were RIGHT). Yet somehow it seems you think they all just popped into being when you first heard about them in the Bush 43 administration.
A suggestion: next time you come here to our house, come with a supportable argument. Bring sources and citations. I have no problem jousting with you, but I’m getting tired of your bilious invective.
V/R,
Jeff Weimer
http://navy.togetherweserved.com/profile/159924
