Support our Troops? "No", says Bush

Apparently, the current administration is further demonstrating their support of our troops by cutting their resources even more.

  • The VA has 20,000 fewer employees than in 1996
  • Since 1995, VA hospital enrollment has increased by 1.7 million
  • Another 600,000 will enroll this year
  • New $250.00 enrollment fees have been imposed
  • Outreach programs are being scaled down
  • Many vets will have to wait up to 10 months for treatments
  • Some VA clinics and hospitals cannot afford to admit new patients
  • Almost a million veteran disability claims are still pending

How has the Bush administration and the Republican controlled Congress responded to this?

By trying to cut $15 billion over 10 years from the VA budget. $463 million will be cut next year, if this goes through. This means, amongst other things, that over 9,000 VA physicians will have to be cut.

Bush is directly furthering the crisis. His request for an extra $62.6 billion in funding for our troops in Iraq (and allegedly for the Iraqi people) includes slashing $150 million to schools attended by military dependents.

I have heard people tell me that my voicing opposition to the war makes me a traitor and that somehow I don't support our troops. Since when is my exercising my right to free speech traitorous? Since when is asking that our troops not be sent to their death not supporting them? I wonder what Bush's economic policy is and and I keep hearing "let's kill Saddam". Something is wrong here and I suggest that people who bury their heads in the sand and are willing to say "my country right or wrong" are the real traitors.

Hear hear!!
I am so sick of this country, both the administration and much of the citizenry. This whole "support the troops" bit stems from Vietnam, the way those guys were treated when they came back, but that isn't the case now, I don't believe. I don't want troops sent to die for the policies of a war-mongering Crusader-wannabe. I respect they are only doing their job. It frosts me that these fucking assholes that would rather wrap themselves up in the flag than look at Iraqi's as human beings of equal value... This bullshit isn't Patriotism, it's Nationalism.

They keep bleating "freedom" and "democracy," but echoing the words of Indigo Montoya, I do not think it means what they think it means. I can go on and on, but you know those folks you speak of are hypocritical, squishy-soft in both mind and soul, spoiled to the core, ignorant, ovine, UNPATRIOTIC, consumerist-crack smoking nutbars.

Americans don't deserve America.

You stay loud, don't ever cow down to these punks. I know you won't.
Re: Hear hear!!

You wrote I respect [the troops] are only doing their job.

Here's the heretical question: why, if we say this isn't an excuse for other nation's soldiers, is it an excuse for ours? I'm not saying that I want to put these troops on trial, but if they're following orders that can be argued as illegal and since they have a legal obligation to disobey illegal orders, are they doing their job? I think it's a fair question, but that's such a dangerous topic that I suspect that even those who strongly oppose this war would be horrified to hear me ask it.

Re: Hear hear!!
Sorry for the delay in responding to this.

I think it is a fair and intriguing question. When you discuss "illegality," I'm assuming you are speaking from a UN point of view. So I guess the question implies whether UN "sovereignty" (for lack of a better word) weigh more heavily than US sovereignty. US troops are obeying their Commander-in-Chief, who was granted war powers by Congress in a manner that's arguably kosher with the Constitution (setting aside arguments of morality or forgetting for a moment the obviously evil and corrupt nature of the President). Then of course, the US/UK invasion and occupation of Iraq violates UN charters. So what's a poor soldier to do?

I think the decision to follow/reject UN mandates ultimately comes from a member nation's leaders; a country's army generally acts on its leader's commands, not on its own volition. Since a nation's military strength relies on its chain of command and the discipline of its units to carry out orders (which is another issue of debate, but, although I am not a hawk nor pro-military (except in self-defense), I do believe a nation's military needs to be strong, and that requires a certain blind obedience when it comes to the pawns. A person thinking of joining the armed services should think long and hard about that, because enlisting is an act of sacrifice of self for the alleged greater good, so one should consider whether their imminent masters truly have the country's (or the world's) best interests at heart.), I don't think it is fair to try soldiers as violators of UN law. The govt.? Yes. Military leaders? Absolutely. They ultimately make the decision to heed or ignore international law. For the sake of each country's ability to defend itself militarily, it's dangerous to punish the individual soldiers. When Bush laughably declares that any Iraqi soldier who shoots at US/UK troops is committing a war crime, he again reveals what a hypocritical asshole he is, but unfortunately the mainstream doesn't call him on it because Americans are God's chosen people and therefore more valuable than any dirty Iraqi.

This position probably opens other cans of worms (the Nuremburg trials leap to mind), but it's midnight and I can't tackle all the big issues by myself! Go watch Oprah.
it is a sad thing to have concern for asking questions. it is the core of what makes us move forward, if we didn't ask the difficult questions, where would we be?!

dustandpowder wrote: if we didn't ask the difficult questions, where would we be?!

Ovid responds: at war with Iraq :(

Side note: the LJ spell checker suggests that I call you "distended". I'm sure that means something, but I'll stop now :)