Bush & Co. Continue to be "Friends" to Militar

[Tsyroc]

What You See Is Not What You Get

A good example is a recent reply of SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld when he was asked why the administration is so against allowing disabled retired veterans to collect their full retirement pay instead of having their VA compensation snatched away from them, dollar-for-dollar, by the DOD.

Mr. Rumsfeld said, "The argument that's been against it in the past has been cost ... and to the extent they end up costing billions of dollars a year, then the people making those decisions have to ask what are we giving up for what we are getting, and who would the beneficiaries be?"

Sounds like he means, " Why would we waste our money on disabled vets
when we get nothing in return." This is a slap in the face of every veteran
still alive.

The next one really ticks me off since it wouldn't cost so much if the
dumbasses weren't starting conflicts all over the place without having ways
to finish them off.

The Bush administration has recently considered cutting hazardous duty and family separation pay for our troops on the front lines fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, again saying it is too expensive. VA hospitals are being closed and funding for health care for veterans is far short of what is needed to maintain it. Some vets are waiting six months or more just to get an appointment. Thousands of others are waiting to be evaluated for disabilities by the VA. And this will only get worse with an expected 30 percent increase from the present conflicts. Promises made are not being promises kept.

Cut the hazardous duty and family separation pay and it won't be just the
reserves they'll be having problems finding people to sign up for after this.

I didin't quote it because it's a really long portion of the article but it has to
do with the Republicans trying to cut healthcare benefits for disabled
veterans in almost every way. A few of them I could go along with but as
the article points out the military hasn't always been straight forward with
problems it's soldiers develope because of service so why should we make
it easier for them to prevent veterans from getting proper care.

Hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of veterans are promising to keep their promise and not vote for those who don’t support them. Many were registered GOP members. Their new motto is "Out the Door in 2004." Veterans in Florida have even gone as far as to start their own political party, the Veteran's Party of Florida (VPF). In 67 counties across Florida, veterans, family members and friends changed their voter registration to the VPF. They said they were "tired of not having their voices heard by members of congress, and broken promises from the Bush administration."

I'm actually kind of glad to see this and kind of not. Part of the reason I
hated Clinton's administration was because I thought they were
disrespectul of the military and treated them rather poorly. In it's own
way the Bush administration is begining to look worse or at least as
bad in regards to how it treats the military.

[Darth Wong]

The Clinton administration believed that with the Cold War over, they could reap a "peace dividend" by downsizing the military. The Bush administration, on the other hand, believes in having a strong military but it apparently does not believe in respecting the men and women who serve in it.

I was unaware of their attempts to cut costs by whittling down compensation pay and veterans' benefits; that's just vile, but that's also precisely what you get when you run the military "like a business".

None of this ruthless and employee-callous "bottom line management" should look unusual to people who are familiar with the business world; that is how all successful corporations run their operations. And the argument that "he was in the military, he should know better" simply doesn't wash; the average CEO of the average corporation was once an ordinary worker or low-level manager, yet he feels no qualms about squeezing blood out of those guys.

Remember the businessman's motto: "it's nothing personal; just business." That's how the soldiers are being treated now.

[Tsyroc]

The Clinton administration believed that with the Cold War over, they could reap a "peace dividend" by downsizing the military. The Bush administration, on the other hand, believes in having a strong military but it apparently does not believe in respecting the men and women who serve in it.

I was unaware of their attempts to cut costs by whittling down compensation pay and veterans' benefits; that's just vile, but that's also precisely what you get when you run the military "like a business".

None of this ruthless and employee-callous "bottom line management" should look unusual to people who are familiar with the business world; that is how all successful corporations run their operations. And the argument that "he was in the military, he should know better" simply doesn't wash; the average CEO of the average corporation was once an ordinary worker or low-level manager, yet he feels no qualms about squeezing blood out of those guys.

Remember the businessman's motto: "it's nothing personal; just business." That's how the soldiers are being treated now.

That's basically my impression as well. The disturbing part is they continue to suck up to the military in the old style but they really are using them like the bottoms rung of a corporation. That should really scare people because none of Bush's business ventures went very well.

Actually the article made me picture a major league baseball team in the way the author basically discribes Rumsfeld's attitude about the military. If these "players" are old and washed up just bring in some new ones to do the job.

Any Rangers fans remember how Bush did with that team?

[Iceberg]

Compare to how the Minnesota Twins built a team that's headed for their second postseason in as many years: Get a core of talented young guys, treat 'em right and watch them earn dividends - and win ballgames - for you.

[Stormbringer]

Shit, support the troops my ass. Whatever happened to his promises of increased pay and benefits for soldiers? And taking away veteran's benefits is just wrong. Those men put in their service, some unwillingly, and they deserve to be looked after.

Tsyroc, are there are groups calling the administration for this? I'd be interested to know if there are since I don't like this at all.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Clinton administration believed that with the Cold War over, they could reap a "peace dividend" by downsizing the military.

They also believe that what was left could be used freely for contingency's and endless peacekeeping duty without contingency funding. That was the real problem. I have to wonder if people would balk at the amounts Bush has asked for the Iraq war nearly as much if Clinton had done the same for all of his wars and operations. I doubt it.

[Iceberg]

Any Rangers fans remember how Bush did with that team?

I'm not a Rangers fan, but I am a baseball fan (Minnesota Twins).

At the beginning of the Bush era, the Rangers were a playoff calibur team loaded with both hot young guns (like Sammy Sosa) and talented veterans (like all-time great pitcher Nolan Ryan). By the end of Bush's time in the Rangers front office, they had degraded into a team at the bottom of the AL West, with no chance of seeing the playoffs anytime soon.

[Andrew J.]

"Hmm...How do we balance the traditional pro-military stance of the Republican party with its 'decrease government spending' ideology?"

"I know! We'll spend more on weapons and vehicles and cool technology, but save money by giving less money to the soldiers and their families!"

"Brilliant!"

[Iceberg]

"Hmm...How do we balance the traditional pro-military stance of the Republican party with its 'decrease government spending' ideology?"

"I know! We'll spend more on weapons and vehicles and cool technology, but save money by giving less money to the soldiers and their families!"

"Brilliant!"

Howard Dean is dead-on right: George Bush loves the fancy toys of military power, but when it comes to supporting the men and women of the service, his attitude is the same as it was when he went AWOL in the 70s.

[Stark]

...I have to wonder if people would balk at the amounts Bush has asked for the Iraq war nearly as much if Clinton had done the same for all of his wars and operations. I doubt it.

Thats a good point (even for a thick-skulled aussie like me). How much did Clinton spend on all his little brushfire wars? Does it compare to Bush's spending on his Persian Gulf investment?

[Stormbringer]

Howard Dean is dead-on right: George Bush loves the fancy toys of military power, but when it comes to supporting the men and women of the service, his attitude is the same as it was when he went AWOL in the 70s.

And his cut 'em off at the knees plan'll do the guys in Iraq any favors? That statement about Bush is entirely true but I'm not seeing much better out of Dean.

[Iceberg]

Howard Dean is dead-on right: George Bush loves the fancy toys of military power, but when it comes to supporting the men and women of the service, his attitude is the same as it was when he went AWOL in the 70s.

And his cut 'em off at the knees plan'll do the guys in Iraq any favors? That statement about Bush is entirely true but I'm not seeing much better out of Dean.

I've not seen any indication from the Dean campaign that they intend to cut anybody off at the knees but Bush. Dr. Dean's intention to halve the American commitment in Iraq is contingent on bringing in previously uncommitted nations and the UN into the occupation/rebuilding effort.

[Stormbringer]

I've not seen any indication from the Dean campaign that they intend to cut anybody off at the knees but Bush. Dr. Dean's intention to halve the American commitment in Iraq is contingent on bringing in previously uncommitted nations and the UN into the occupation/rebuilding effort.

As far as I know he's been opposed to authorizing the money Bush has asked for. It's needed to do the job in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Not paying for the needed operations will cut them off at the knees.

[Joe]

Go ahead, let the UN into Iraq, I'm sure they'll give their people the same protection that they gave Mr. Vieira de Mello.

[Iceberg]

I've not seen any indication from the Dean campaign that they intend to cut anybody off at the knees but Bush. Dr. Dean's intention to halve the American commitment in Iraq is contingent on bringing in previously uncommitted nations and the UN into the occupation/rebuilding effort.

As far as I know he's been opposed to authorizing the money Bush has asked for. It's needed to do the job in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Not paying for the needed operations will cut them off at the knees.

The way Bush is asking for it is offensive. He's refusing to acknowledge that the government needs more revenue than he's given it the ability to raise, and now he's asking for another 87 billion in borrowed money? A quarter of the government's current budget is borrowed money - anybody who's ever held a credit card knows you can't budget spending 33% more money than you actually can make.

[Darth Wong]

...I have to wonder if people would balk at the amounts Bush has asked for the Iraq war nearly as much if Clinton had done the same for all of his wars and operations. I doubt it.

Thats a good point (even for a thick-skulled aussie like me). How much did Clinton spend on all his little brushfire wars? Does it compare to Bush's spending on his Persian Gulf investment?

Has anyone even attempted to estimate this? To me, it seems rather doubtful that the cost of Clinton's various low-level actions would be comparable to the cost of a full-scale invasion. And I don't get the impression that he went around cutting veterans' benefits, compensation pay, etc.

[Stormbringer]

The way Bush is asking for it is offensive. He's refusing to acknowledge that the government needs more revenue than he's given it the ability to raise, and now he's asking for another 87 billion in borrowed money? A quarter of the government's current budget is borrowed money - anybody who's ever held a credit card knows you can't budget spending 33% more money than you actually can make.

It's not the ideal situation. But troops cost money. The days when troops could live of the land on garrison duty are long past. If we don't pay for them, then it is cutting them off at the knees. You can't expect them to work for free.

The money has to come from somewhere. The best way to do it is to cut wasteful programs with in the military. Some of the fancy technological boondoggles that have delivered no results ought to go to pay for this..

What the government needs right now is some one to cut the fat. Wasteful social programs, pork barrel projects, and just plain pissing money away all should go. And Dean's health care plan ought never come into existance until we've got the money for it.

[Joe]

Scrapping the latest bluehair giveaway would help out, too.

[Stormbringer]

Has anyone even attempted to estimate this? To me, it seems rather doubtful that the cost of Clinton's various low-level actions would be comparable to the cost of a full-scale invasion. And I don't get the impression that he went around cutting veterans' benefits, compensation pay, etc.

All told? They might yet considering that the clock's still running on almost all of them. The problem with them is they're numerous and all of them terribly open ended since most have no solution.

Actually, most administrations have played games with benefits thought admittedly few to the degree Bush has.

[AniThyng]

Go ahead, let the UN into Iraq, I'm sure they'll give their people the same protection that they gave Mr. Vieira de Mello.

considering it is impossible for the UN to actually maintain a credible armed force without the US's tacit approval, i'm wondering just how you expect them to provide protection beyond mere security guards.

[Howedar]

They also believe that what was left could be used freely for contingency's and endless peacekeeping duty without contingency funding. That was the real problem. I have to wonder if people would balk at the amounts Bush has asked for the Iraq war nearly as much if Clinton had done the same for all of his wars and operations. I doubt it.

The difference in my mind is that Bush claimed to be a military supporter. Clinton ran down the military the same as Bush is, and treated soldiers worse than he should, same as Bush. But Clinton never claimed to be the friend of the military that Bush claims he is.

[The Yosemite Bear]

1,2,3

Don't blame me, I still voted for McCain!

[Vympel]

The money has to come from somewhere. The best way to do it is to cut wasteful programs with in the military. Some of the fancy technological boondoggles that have delivered no results ought to go to pay for this.

The amount of waste in the US military is gargantuan- in terms of actual accounting of where the money goes, the GAO (or some other agency, perhaps the Pentagon gave itself its own rating) gave the Department a 2 out of 10, or something to that effect. I can think of plenty of programs to cancel outright- things like National Missile Defense.

[Iceberg]

Scrapping the latest bluehair giveaway would help out, too.

As would cutting just $5,000 out of the ridiculous tax breaks that the top 20% tax bracket is getting.

[MKSheppard]

I can think of plenty of programs to cancel outright- things like National Missile Defense.

NMD is rolling, nah, how about we cancel the F-22 and RAH-66 Comanche
instead? Those programs will never see the light of active service until
2010. Fuck that.