Veterans Issues

Bill Fold,

That would be great. I would love to hear about your Navy days as well. I don't do the yahoo or Icq, thing. But feel free to e-mail me.

Osama has been marginalized. Saddam Hussein was also marginalized by Bush Senior. And here we are, gearing up for an assault on Iraq.

It seems the Bush Gangsters just can't decide who they want to hate. Keep in mind that 99% of this admin. are holdouts from the Nixon/Reagan/Bush Sr. gang of criminals, with the exception of some non-white tokens like Condy, and they have a score to settle for their past failures. Look for Dumber-Than-Dumbya to start a bombing campaign in Laos anytime soon.

Bill Fold,

It wasn't enough back then and it certainly isn't enough now, but GDubbya promised to do something about it when the campaign was heating up, and continued his promise right up to the end...but hasn't delivered yet. What a surprise.

I had decided to take a few days off from the board. I stopped by to see what was going on.
Now I realize you dislike Bush for some reason but I hate to tell this sailor but you're dead wrong on this one. The pay raise that he promised is a done deal. He signed it last Dec. active duty personal started seeing the increase in Jan when the eagle craps. It's the largest pay increase for military personal in over 20 years.

Military pay raise the largest in 20 years.

According to the House Armed Services Committee, "the combined across-the-board and targeted raise would be the equivalent of a 6.9 percent across-the-board raise."

******The increase in military pay fulfills Bush's pledge to add $ 1 billion to pay for the uniformed services in January.

http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/stripe/7_01/national_news/12968-1.html

Service members will see an average increase of 6.9 percent in their January pay.

"It's the largest pay increase in 20 years," Navy Capt. Chris Kopang, DoD director of compensation, said in a recent American Forces Information Service interview. In general, officers will see their pay increase 5 percent, he said, and enlisted service members get a 6 percent boost in their pay. Several pay grades will see significantly larger increases.

"We have chosen to target the pay raise to certain pay grades we feel need an extra boost because of retention needs," Kopang said. For instance, officers in grades O-3 and O-4 will receive 6 and 6.5 percent increases respectively.

Non-commissioned officers are also receiving larger raises, Kopang said, with the highest increases -- up to 10 percent -- going to the highest enlisted grades. Enlisted members in grades E-5 and E-6 will see an average 7.5 percent increase, E-7s an average increase of 8.5 percent, and up to 10 percent for E-9s.

President Bush in February 2001 pledged an additional $1.4 billion to go toward pay raises for service members. He signed the 2002 National Defense Authorization Act, which included the e extra money, Dec. 28, 2001.
  

Here's something not as well known. But a definate plus as well.

Housing allowance rates have increased as well. In 2001, military members not living in government-provided quarters paid an average 15 percent of their housing costs out of their own pockets. Defense is working to ensure the Basic Allowance for Housing covers all of a member's housing costs by 2005.

Guess what, Also he is proposing another pay
increase next year for military personal as well.

The president said the military takes top priority in the 2003 budget he'll present to Congress next week. It includes more than $48 billion in new defense spending, and another pay raise for the military.

"This will be the largest increase in defense spending in 20 years," Bush said. It will be used to invest in more precision weapons, in missile defenses, in unmanned vehicles, in high-tech equipment for soldiers on the ground.

The nation asks much of its men and women in uniform and in return, they deserve every resource, every weapon needed to achieve a full and final victory, the president said.

The Reserve Officers Association presented its .Minuteman of the Year 2002 award to the president.

The award recognizes those who personify the ideals of the Minuteman, courage, love of country and selfless service. Bush was cited for providing steadfast leadership during a time of crisis and rallying the nation to defend freedom and democracy wherever they are threatened.

So Bill he DID make good on his campaign promise. and thensome. It's about time. I can tell you that morale is much much higher now than it ever was under his predecessor. I served active under 3 different Admins. I know that you jnow I dislike Willie. The biggest part of that being what happened to the military under his watch. He did some good things as well so I'm not piling on but the fact remains that life in the military got continually worse in the last 10 years or so. It's nice to see that change and to see our men and women in uniform being a little more appreciated.

When the gas prices, once again, go up to over $2 a gallon, I bet the drills will be on flatbed trucks headed north.

Bill Fold,

Rob...you conveniently forgot to mention that the 6.9% pay raise went into effect on Jan. 7, 2001, which was before Bush took the oath of office...did it not?

NO I didn't convienently leave it out because the budet and the largest military pay increase in 20 years went into effect in Jan 2002! NOT 2001! read the story again! It was BUSH'S budget and he was the one to sign it. There are several other stories out there as well I'll post em if you like. it was HIS BUDGET and implemented by HIM, not Billy, sorry I know you like him. But the campaign promise you claim he was shirking just isn't there, he did deliver.

So then, what has Bush been directly responsible for, as far as increases in pay and benefits, especially for families, as he so vehemently said he would get military personnel, SINCE he took office?

Well the largest in 20 years ! And alot more than his predecessor EVER did. And more next year as well.

Now, if you really want to compare pay charts, look up 1970, then 1972.

More than a 50% increase in pay and benefits during a 24 month period.

Umm, Bill, Notice they said largest pay increase in over 20 years. So they are covering only up until 1982 not 72'.

Bill, the FACT remains, that Bush has improved pay, living conditions and morale. Quite a bit than the last admin. We can post articles all day or opeds about it. I was there and saw it, the budget numbers are their too and they don't lie, life in the military is and will be alot better off under Bush than Mr. Clinton.

BTW the op-ed you posted about readiness is off the mark in my opinion. We have about 12,000 troops total (suppprt personal included) Only about 6,000 actual ground forces involved in Afghanistan. So we aren't talking about a larger scale offensive or defensive, also in Afghanistan their was already an opposition in place. So we are talking apples and oranges.

Bill Fold,

This is the exact same link that I provided in post #215. That one still says Jan 11th 2002 see below. He proposed it in his campaign and in his 2002 budget so artciles that were written more than likely referring to his budget and proposals could have been written in 2001 referring to the 2002 budget. But nonetheless it was his budget and proposal and he delivered on it by making it the largest increase in pay for 20 years. Increased and mproved housing and health care And is proposing another 4.6 percent in pay increases in 2003.

Here's the black and white you were looking for.

http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/stripe/7_01/national_news/12968-1.html

Bill Fold,

I think it is fair to say that so far, Gdubbya has not done any more for increases in pay than did his predecessor, YET

No, he has, it's the largest in 20 years, the link you provided was to a congresswoman's sight that stated she had voted for it. It says they voted for it. What happened to it after that I don't know. But Unless you can provide something showing otherwise let me know I checked the DOD website and every article or table shows that it is the largest increase in 20 YEARS, signed by Pres. Bush. and it was Bush's budget. If you have something else let me know.

Regarding the articles posted you are correct. It ran on many military websites as a reprint It Was written by Kathleen Rehm an AFPS reporter But many say Jan of 2002 as well, And I hate to tell you this but it has to be a misprint on the ones that say 2001 because as a matter of FACT the budget WASN'T even proposed until FEBUARY of 2001 it was SIGNED on Dec28th 2001. It was Bush's budget NOT Willie's They are directly from DOD and linked to these articles. Here they are. It's in BLACK and WHITE. Your claim that he didn't deliver on his promise doesn't hold water, sorry. It was the largest pay increase in 20 years. Here's the articles showing the date discrepancy but if you'l note the budget wasn't even proposed for 2002 until FEB 2001, AFTER you claim it was approved. Here are some different articles that aren't a reprint of that same one.

January 10, 2002 Bush signs record military spending bill
The fiscal 2002 budget includes:
A $3.5 billion increase in pay for military personnel (an average pay raise of 6.9 percent).
  

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0102/011002g1.htm

The pay increase for members of military services is the largest military pay raise since 1982 and is effective as of January 1, 2002. The bill also includes targeted pay raises for a variety of enlisted personnel and officer grades.

Additionally, the bill includes a provision that will increase military members’ basic housing allowance so that out-of-pocket housing expenses for military members are reduced from the current 15 percent level to 11.3 percent in FY 2002.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/wa02_larsen/pr011220milpayraise.html

Year of the Jackpot

Pay & Allowances Rise in 2002

Congress and the President have been good to military personnel this year.

*******!_#)$()(%)On December 28th, 2001, President Bush signed into law the FY2002 Defense Appropriations Bill. In addition to the largest increase in basic pay in 20 years, and the largest increase to housing allowances in 10 years, there have been several increases and improvements in military pay and compensation. http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa010502a.htm

  

There are others as well Bill, The fact is he increased their pay more than anyone has in 20 years including his Dad. He delivered on his promise and then some. Maybe that's enough facts for you ? If not oh well, I haven't seen any from you that state otherwise so be it. If the DOD is making it up for good p.r well then who knows. But articles and semantics aside ask someone who is an active old timer and they'll tell you. Ask themn if they recieved the largest increase and pay and housing allowence since they've been in. I have talked to a few friends who are still full timers and they all have said how much better the pay, retention, housing and in general esprit de d'corps and morale better amongst the different branches. Could it be better, sure, you bet. But Ask any of them and they'll tell you what they think of his predecessor.

Will he increase the numbers of our Armed forces, or invade Iraq in the next few months, straining an already strained system? Our enemies may well be waiting for him to do exactly that...?

Gee Why is it strained ?
, he's been in office a little over a year. As far as the forces he inherited sure we're doing o.k because of the small scale of the war in Afghanistan. 12,000 troops is not that large a scale of ops. Sadly we don't have adequate numbers to do the job well. You know very well that the recritment and training is a long process. Hell our basic was 14 weeks alone not to mention recritment time delayed entry, and then your mos training after basic and ocs for officers. And that's without any other type of field training, they sure the hell wouldn't be ready for battle, they would be slaughtered being that green.

Hmm, I wonder why we are strained Hmmm ?

Here are the number (in thousands) of military personal from 1987 to 1999.

Department of Defense Personnel
(End of Fiscal Year Strength in Thousands)

FY 1987-1999

Active Military
1987 2,174
1999 1,390

pct. of change -36

Army
1987 781
1999 480

pct. of change -39

Navy
1987 587
1999 372

pct. of change -37

Marine Corps
1987 199
1999 172

pct. of change -14

Air Force
1987 607
1999 366

pct. of change -40

Selected Reserves
1987 1,151
1999 877

pct. of change -24

DoD Civilians (FTEs*)
1987 1,133
1999 724

pct of change -36

Fold,

As I said the numbers I got were from the DOD site stating that it was the largest pay increase in 20 years. My opinion and your opinion and stats aside I asked a good friend of mine who is still active and has been in for almost 17 years. He has told me of the increased morale, that and he also told me that it in Jan 02' it was the biggest pay raise he's ever gotten other than when promoted. And it was under Bush's budget and proposals, so not only did it go up as he promised their housing allowance increased as well. The other thing i wasn't aware of until he told me that from direct orders from Bush that they were told to cut deployment times and recieve more time off in between deployments. (with the current battle in Afghanistan being an exception of course) Something that has had another huge impact in improving morale that under his predecessor was dismal.

Here's a link to a graph showing military spending since 1945

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1800000/1800954.stm#map

By the way... you never once mentioned Veterans programs, which he also said would be a HIGH priority...?

The budget is increasing, not nearly as much as it should, you'll get no argument from me there. It has and is increasing in most areas with ALOT more room for improvement no doubt. Usually I leave the numbers etc on Vet's programs to you since you are more involved with it and have a better knowledge of it than I. I am still on the other side of the equation for a short period of time.

BUT... I was aying that IF he invades IRAQ without increasing the current forces, then he is stupid, because we will not have enough to go everywhre we are pledged to be, effectively and convincingly and that, will be HIS fault.

I would agree that he shouldn't right now UNLESS we get a large enough coalition as we did last time, hence trying to get these other countries on board.

So then, that is where we stand. Your facts, vs. my facts, vs. the Truth, which still seems to be "Out There".

Take a look at the DOD figures, if they aren't beleivable then, well, it's all for naught, but like I said, ask any ative duty troop and they'll probably tell you that they saw the biggest increase in 2002 in pay and have seen conditions and morale get better, room for improvment ? Sure, but definateely better. Take a poll of active personal who served under both Clinton and Bush, Ask them whom life is better under ? ask them under whom they would rather serve ?

By The Way...remember this quip from the 2000 Campaign?

Our military is low on parts, pay and morale," Bush declared in his August 3 acceptance speech. "If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, 'Not ready for duty, sir.'" (GDubbya)

It would seem that he was Dead Wrong, or Lying, since those same forces (both in size and comparative readiness) are now doing one hell-of-a-job, wouldn't you say?.

They are doing a GREAT! job Bill, and always have. But the morale and readiness was not what it should have been. But again, take a look at the small number of people actually deployed for it. We aren't talking about a large battle or a large portion of our troops, it's a pretty small op. in scale. It's mainly our S.F guys and their support people. Regardless they will always do a fantastic job and are doing so now. My point is that because we slashed numbers of troops and because they left in droves due to guess what,,,,,,morale and pay under Willie. We aren't as comabt ready as we should be. Very similar to what happened in 41'. It takes time to train troops and replace equipment. But with an op that's pretty small in scale it's handled quite well. A larger op would be more dangerous because of lack of experienced leaders that left and equipment breakdowns from previous cuts, it would cost many more lives than need be. As for our troops deployed now, you'll get zero argument from me what a great job they are doing, no doubt.

Bill Fold,

The fact STILL remains that the current forces were inherited from Clinton, and so far, Bush has not sent forth a mjor "Rebuilding" bill to the Congress. I guess he mus be pleased with what he has?

No Bill, the FACT IS that he DID set forth a major rebuilding bill it's been in all the papers. Here's some FACTS. Now I will post them from a few different sources, if you wish to believe them, that's up to you. Here you go.

From the U.S Department of State.

The fiscal year (FY) 2003 budget request that President George Bush submitted to Congress February 4 would increase defense spending to $379,300 million, or a 14 percent increase over FY 2002 spending, according to Pentagon figures. The Bush budget request represents the largest increase in military spending in 21 years.

Hmmm, what do ya know another pay raise as well.

In addition to fighting terrorism, the 2003 defense budget year, which begins October 1, includes a 4.1 percent pay raise for military personnel, defenses against missile attack, vastly increased development of pilotless planes for surveillance and attack, and hundreds of millions for a new generation of stealth fighter jets and Navy warships.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02020402.htm

More continued on next post.

From the Center for Defense Information.

Feb. 4, 2002

The administration of President George W. Bush is requesting $396.1 billion for the military in fiscal year 2003 ($379.3 billion for the Defense Department and $16.8 billion for the nuclear weapons functions of the Department of Energy). This is $45.5 billion above current levels, an increase of 13 percent. It is also 15 percent above the Cold War average, to fund a force structure that is one-third smaller than it was a decade ago.

FUNDING BY FUNCTION Military Personnel - $94.2 billion (15 percent increase) Operations & Maintenance - $150.2 billion (18 percent increase) Procurement - $68.7 billion (12 percent increase) Research & Development - $53.9 billion (11 percent increase) Military Construction - $4.8 billion (27 percent decrease) Housing - $4.2 billion (2 percent increase)

http://www.cdi.org/issues/budget/FY03Highlights-pr.cfm

from the BBC

President George W. Bush has proposed a $2.13 trillion budget to Congress that would pour billions of dollars into the armed forces but cut government spending to keep the deficit down.

Defence spending is projected to rise by $48bn, or 12%, the biggest increase in 20 years, while domestic 'homeland' security spending will jump 111% to $37.7bn.

Here's an interesting tidbit.

Defence spending as % of GDP
US: 3%
Israel: 8.1%
UK: 2.5%
Germany: 1.5%
Japan: 1%
Source: SIPRI (figures for fiscal 99

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1800000/1800954.stm#map

From radio free Europe

U.S.: Analysts Say Bush's Military Budget Proposals On Target, Difficult To Criticize By Andrew F. Tully
  

Washington, 25 January 2002 (RFE/RL) -- Many political and military analysts say it would be a mistake for U.S. President George W. Bush's opponents in Congress to oppose his proposal for an increase of $48 billion in military spending for the 2003 fiscal year.

U.S. President George W. Bush announced on 23 December that his proposal for the federal budget for next year will include an increase in military spending of $48 billion. This is the largest rise in military spending in two decades. Bush's opponents in Congress complain that the president's fiscal policies have greatly reduced the comfortable surpluses that characterized the country's budgets in the past few years. But analysts say it would be a miscalculation for them to criticize Bush's spending on defense as he pursues his military campaign against international terrorism.

I can post more if you like showing more facts if you'd like, CDI and the department of state are hopefully good enough. He DID propose a major rebuilding bill the largest in two decades. It's up to congress to sign it. Let's hope they do.

Now that being said Bill, I don't think all the cuts have been bad, like anything there has to be a balance. But we went to far, too many times I heard mostly democrats saying, the cold war is over, we don't need it as much. That's all fine and good until it is needed or we might have to fight simultaneously in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel ? Syria, Yemen etc. ? Lets hope we don't find out. Again all the cuts weren't bad, some were needed, we just went too far. The biggest problem I see as someone not too far removed is that we lost MANY good and experienced leaders due to those cuts, they are hard to replace. Hopefully we can recover quickly, our troops always are professional and do their job the best they can with what they have and are doing a phenominal job now. They deserve and are getting improved support. Let's hope congress passes it.

Well isn't that lovely.

VA says errors on deaths skewed earlier study on Gulf War veterans' exposure to nerve gas

Associated Press

Published May 3, 2002 WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Veterans Affairs acknowledged Friday that it erroneously concluded that Gulf War veterans who escaped exposure to nerve gas were dying at a higher rate than those who were exposed.
  

A VA analysis released in February compared death rates among soldiers who were and were not exposed to nerve gas when a chemical weapons depot at Khamisiyah, in southern Iraq, was destroyed in 1991.

The study concluded that soldiers who escaped exposure were dying at a rate 10 times higher than those believed to have been exposed to low levels of toxic gas.

But the VA said Friday the findings were skewed because 1,050 deaths of exposed soldiers were not counted and an additional 563 deaths of exposed soldiers were counted as being among soldiers who escaped exposure, the VA said.

VA Secretary Anthony Principi ordered the investigation of the analysis, which had caused alarm among some veterans groups.

"In this instance, some information was released before being properly scrutinized and scientifically validated," Principi said. "The bottom line is that Khamisiyah veterans have death rates similar to their non-exposed counterparts and less than half the rate of their civilian counterparts."

The findings are not likely to satisfy Gulf War veterans' groups that say the Pentagon and federal government have not been forthcoming on troop exposures to toxic substances while serving in the Gulf.

"It does not matter what they say, the numbers that had been provided to the VA by DOD were wrong from the beginning," said Steve Robinson, director of the National Gulf War Resource Center. "DOD provided VA with numbers that excluded people who had died."

The Pentagon has said about 101,000 soldiers were exposed to deadly gases when the weapons depot was blown up by U.S. combat engineers in March 1991. The Pentagon created computer models in 1997 to replicate the vapor cloud created after the Khamisiyah demolition. It revised the computer model in 2000, using new weather and troop location information. The new model showed a different track for the vapor cloud.

After the second model was completed, about 34,000 soldiers were told they were no longer considered exposed.

The VA's initial analysis showed 1,011 deaths for that group. But the VA now says 563 of those deaths were mislabeled. The group's size also was decreased to 32,627.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/2717318.html

Personally I don't think that "Gulf War Syndrome" Is from the chemicals at all. I think it's from the 7 unknown pills we took daily that were never told what it was. I know of several I served with that have symptoms of the disease. I have been lucky so far. I see the proud tradition at the VA continues. Thanks.

Cipro, 12 tabs for roughly $80.

Nexium, one month's supply will cost about $180.

U.S. prescription drug prices are a scandal.

Bill, from your ample experience in veterans affairs and citizen advocacy, can you recommend any good, reliable Canadian pharmacies -- those on the Web -- that our hardpressed people could use to acquire needed medicine at more reasonable cost?

Now that we have laws allowing such importation.

Thanks for the story on Gulf War Syndrome.

I'm not buying the "stress" bit for onr minute are you ?
Last I heard stress didn't give you arthritis, Lou Gehrig's disease, stomach and liver problems etc. etc.

I have been lucky so far but some of the guys from my old unit haven't been but the wierd part is that I also know guys, much as the story said who were miles apart. A friend of mine is an Apache pilot and was based in Saudi and he has symptoms so he was never even on the ground. but he DID have to take all the anti chemical and anti bio pills. Everyone there to the best of my knowledge was ordered to take them. I think even guys on ships in the gulf had too but I'm not sure. I could be 100% wrong on this but I have heard the scuttlebut that many think this is the cause. But "stress" give me a break.

Dang it, Bill.

I started to.

I realized it was really good and important.

But I fell asleep just as the Dong Hoi raid got underway...

Please whatever it is that you might be doing this Memorial day weekend. Take a minute from the barbeque, fishing, working around the house, gardening etc. and remember why we celebrate this day. I am not saying this to be preachy or lecture etc. because we all get busy and wrapped up in what everyone has going in their busy life, myself included.

Please take a minute to remember those who have served, those who are disabled and most importantly those who paid the ultimate price. Remember the wives, the sons, the daughters, the brothers the mom's and the dad's who lost someone that meant their entire world to them. Remember that they lost much too. There are 3 soilders in particualr I think of everyday but more this day probably, I miss and wish I could tell in person.

The soilders who died didn't debate politics in their final moments, they weren't fretting about the economy or even the politics of the matter. They simply went becasue their country asked. And they never saw those loved ones again either. Please, no matter your politics or your personal feelings on the just or unjustness of any conflict remember that they didn't ask. They just went and never came home. So please take a minute in your own way to remember and honor them and thank them in your own way. They deserve that much at the very least.

Bill, since this is where I know I'll find you...

There was official confirmation today about something that's been asserted in the alternative media for a long while, namely that our Navy personnel were used as unwitting guinea pigs for bio-agent tests...getting sprayed with the stuff about the time you served.

Did you ever hear anything about it back then?

Also, with India and Pakistan frighteningly close to all-out, possibly nuclear war, what's your judgment of where the radioactive fallout would spread, based on your experience with weather and wind currents?

Dennis:

It's not quite that simple. It depends on how they deploy the weapon. Is it an above ground detonation, surface, or sub surface? It determines how the blast will spread. Also, are they using a fission or fusion bomb? Or maybe a "dirty nuke"? Hard to say.

http://www.nando.net/nation/v-text/story/412617p-3287616c.html

The requested link...

fold fails to see, due to his liberal indoctrination, that vouchers provided to parents is not government sponsorship of religion. The government's decision to give vouchers to parents is neutral to religion. Government isn't involved in what school gets the funds it is simply providing funding for education the responsibility government has taken on.

Bill Fold,

to eventually, eliminate the VA system altogether. That has been the dream of republicans in the Congress for a long time. But, the new system will resemble the VA system in that it will eventually ELIMINATE choices, and provide inferior care, as it relates to Veterans, but eventually all will suffer inferior care, period, and the conservatives will have gutted the system, as they have said they would like to do for a long, long time

Really so Republicans want to eliminate the VA ? Wow that's news to me Do you have a link or have documents showing that the R'S do ? Seriously I have never ever heard anyone say such a thing. From the author of the bill we're discussing.

Let's see how those nast republicans want to eliminate the VA.

Prime Sponsor: Mr. Christopher H. Smith R(NJ)

H.R. 1291 – Signed by President Bush on December 27, 2001

Authorizes more than $3.1 billion over five years to expand and increase educational, housing, burial and disability benefits.

Boosts the MGIB college education benefit amount by a record 46% over 2 years, increasing the total college benefit for qualified veterans from $24,192 to $35,460.

The GI Bill is one of the most successful government programs ever implemented, helping to create the modern middle class and serving as the Armed Forces’ top recruiting tool.

Restores lost MGIB benefits for reservists and National Guard members called up to active duty.

Increases VA guaranteed home loans from a maximum mortgage of $203,000 to $240,000.

Increases Specially Adapted Housing grants for severely disabled veterans from $43,000 to $48,000.

Increases the Automobile and Adaptive Equipment grant for severely
disabled veterans.

Increases burial and funeral expense benefits by 25% and doubles burial plot allowances.

Makes type II Diabetes a service-connected condition for Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange.
Adds undiagnosed conditions, such as fybromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome and chronic multi-symptom illnesses to list of service-connected conditions for Gulf War veterans.

http://www.house.gov/chrissmith/VetsEducBenBill2001.htm

Looks like they're really trying to eliminate it.

Sorry Bill I have to disagree with this one.

Also, the elimination of the VA and Medicare are on the "High Hopes" list of the conservatives.

Really ? More on the author of the bill in question.

CONGRESSMAN SMITH TO RECEIVE
VFW CONGRESSIONAL AWARD

WASHINGTON, D.C., Jan. 29, 2002– The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. (VFW) today named Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ.), Chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, as recipient of the 2002 VFW Congressional Award for ‘outstanding service to the nation.’ Smith will receive the award at the VFW Legislative Conference at the Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2002.

Last week, President Bush signed legislation authored by Congressman Smith that adds $1.4 billion to expand and strengthen health care programs for the nation’s 25 million veterans. During the 107th Congress, Chairman Smith sponsored five major pieces of veterans’ legislation that have been enacted into law.

One measure, Smith’s bill to expand the Montgomery GI Bill signed into law in December, resulted in a landmark 46% increase in the Montgomery GI Bill--monthly payments will increase from $672 to $800 in January, 2002, to $900 in October, 2002 and to $985 on October 1, 2003.

His list of legislative accomplishments during the 106th Congress includes ground breaking new laws on health care for veterans, human rights, terrorism prevention, and combating trafficking and violence against women.

“Chairman Smith has consistently brought a level of participation, knowledge, commitment and sheer energy that are without equal. Through his on-going concern and support for our men and women who served in the armed forces as evidenced by his commitment to strengthening veterans health programs and a reinvigorated GI Bill, he has gained our respect and esteem,” said VFW Commander-in-Chief, James N. Goldsmith, of Lapeer, Mich.

http://www.vfwdc.org/PA/news/2002/PA012902.htm

In the St. Paul school system, there are many, many choices too, yet some will be given money now, cash money vouchers, and be able to take them to Cretin if they like. If I want to go to a different VA, I have to drive 350 miles.

Bill, That bill directlry adress that and would give you the choice so you wouldn't have too.

Freeholders Working to Establish a Veterans Outpatient Clinic in Monmouth County In A Cooperative Effort With Congressman Chris Smith
  

>Freehold, NJ - The Monmouth County Board of Chosen Freeholders has joined with Congressman Chris Smith (R-4th) to find a suitable location for a Veterans Outpatient Clinic in Monmouth County.

Here it is.

Congressman Smith is chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee and was instrumental in passing the Veterans Affairs Health Care Personnel Act, which will, among other things, create a pilot program enabling veterans who rely on VA care but reside far from the nearest VA hospital to receive care at a closer community hospital. The announcement was made by Freeholder Theodore J. Narozanick, himself a decorated veteran of World War II. Freeholder Narozanick said he had received a letter from Rep. Smith indicating that the Director of the New Jersey Veteran Health Care System, Ken Mizrach, had agreed that there is "a need to expand health care services in Monmouth County to satisfy the need for access in this fast growing area of the state."
  

Sounds good to me

"I couldn't agree more," said Freeholder Narozanick, "a veterans outpatient clinic in Monmouth County will enable local veterans to receive their needed care at nearby private hospitals if they deem a trip to the VA facility is too burdensome or too far." The Deputy Director of the Board, Freeholder Thomas J. Powers, concurred, adding that he has been in touch with Congressman Smith's office and is in agreement that "the Board should assist in finding a suitable location; one that is centrally located, easily accessible to the public and near one of our hospitals."
  

>Freeholder Edward J. Stominski suggested that the County's Department of Economic Development be employed to help in the search. "They have a listing of all vacant facilities in the county and could be a great help in the search," he said.

More on NON eliminaton of the V.A

Congressman Smith indicated that, "this is a program which is totally voluntary." "No veteran who feels uncomfortable participating in the program is forced to do so. This is not intended to replace the parent program which has served veterans so well in the past. It is just another added benefit for those who may find it helpful," added Rep. Smith.

Mr. Narozanick commended Congressman Smith for his work on behalf of veterans, "Veterans of New Jersey and across the nation who rely on VA care often find difficulties in having to travel long hours to receive care at the nearest VA hospital. These veterans should have the option, once they receive a referral from the local VA clinic, to then go to a local hospital that is much closer to their home than the VA hospital in East Orange," he noted.

http://www.visitmonmouth.com/publicinformation/veterans_clinic.htm

Bill Fold,

As a matter of policy, the conservatives have always wanted to do away with entitlement programs such as VA Healthcare, SS, etc., and active-duty entitlements for our G.I.'s, many of whom quit rather than feed their families with Food Stamps in recent years...?

You don't need to be a brain surgeon to know that.

Then I would assume you would know that last statement of "and active-duty entitlements for our G.I.'s, many of whom quit rather than feed their families with Food Stamps in recent years...?" To be false. Hmmm I wonder under whose admin equippment that saves lives was cut? I wonder under whose admin their was a MASS exodus of skilled and highly trained people? I wonder under whose admin we ran out of cruise missles? I wonder under whose admin we were deployed more than under other presidents? Yes the Democrats have always been so frinedly to the active military. We can exchange FACTS all day on that one, I served under 3 Presidents, the Clinton years were so wonderful in the military, ppffft. Yea sure. Whatever floats your boat. We've already had that discussion.

From the story you provided.

Last month, Rockefeller, along with the Committee’s Ranking Member, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) requested a $1.7 billion increase for VA health care in the FY ‘03 budget to reflect

Hmmm an R in front of Specter's name. Yea there they go trying to get rid of it.

(Washington, D.C., Feb. 6, 2002)—The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. today acknowledged the Bush administration's FY 2003 funding request for the Department of Veterans Affairs and cited the funding as an important step in enhancing VA services, benefits and health care for the nation's veterans.

Emphasizing the need to shore up a veterans' health-care system that is becoming "overwhelmed" because of the skyrocketing demands of a rapidly aging veteran population, VFW Commander-in-Chief James N. Goldsmith praised the president's action. "In asking for a increase of almost $1.5 billion for VA health care, President Bush is showing he truly intends to match his words with deeds in providing for this nation's defenders in their time of need," Goldsmith said.

Yea, there he is trying to get rid of the VA again.

As for your assertion that conservatives want to somehow do away with the V.A then I am sure you'll be happy to provide some FACTS showing where they have said that. Funding issues are one thing, just because a budget is cut or the amount requested is doens't mean they want to get rid of it. There are many programs that get cuts as well it doesn't mean they want to get rid of it and you know that. Now Would I say that all thier needs are met or that we shouldn't increase spending on that ? Probably not, we'd find little to disagree on there. There's a pretty good increase this year and if I remember correctly the next 2 years will see good increases as well. Now will that still be enough ? Probably not everyone always wants more If you find an admin R or D that has met all the needs of the V.A let me know.
So budget cuts don't mean they want ot get rid of something. There are politicians from BOTH sides that have done more for our vets and there are some who do less and our vets deserve good care. But I'd love to see a FACT showing where conservatives have said they want to get rid of the V.A. ...........Let me know when you find one, good luck.

Bill Fold,

Rob, you know as well as anyone that Arlen Specter is practically a Democrat, and has taken heat for years because of that fact.

Either way I still don't see anything from you for facts that shows where any conservative or as a group have said they want to get rid of the V.A. Cutting a budget or not getting what they request does NOT mean they are trying to get rid of it. Budget requests are negotiated all the time, either way it doesn't mean they are trying to get rid of it. Conservatives have openly talked about the need and problems with S.S. I tend to agree. I have never seen ONE say anything similar about getting rid of the V.A. If you have proof of that, please pass it along so I can start writing letters to them to tell them how bad an idea that would be. Let me know.

Also, GDubbya inherited a force from the Clinton years that is still mostly intact, and doing quite a nice job thank-you, in the WOT. GDubbya's proposed changes, small as they have been, are only now coming into play in regards to the Armed Services

Agreed they are doing a great job. Again a reminder that about 10% of our total force is being used. It's a realitivly small operation.

... In fact, there are less ships now than at ANY time in the 20th Century and we have forces stretched so thin that without an expansion of numbers, he will never be able to invade IRAQ, which he so wants to do.

Gee I wonder why? , I wonder WHO ? Cut new shipbuilding ? You were in the Navy, so you know that new ships aren't built overnight. WHO cut the military budgets and let it deteriorate? Take a look, but then again you might not like the answers and facts don't seem to be a concern of yours on this topic. We can gladly get into some facts on that one any day any time.

That "Blame Clinton" for the military's shortcomings is a tired argument that holds little water.

In short, B.S, Take a look at the numbers Bill, you don't replace 10 and 15 year highly skilled MOS' in 2 years. It doesn't happen you know that. Cuts are easy because they are pretty immediate, replacing those people and equipment once they're gone is not.

If people who served during his years didn't like him, So Fucking What?

That's real nice Bill and frankly I am saddened and surprised that you would say that. If someone said that about a vets issue you and I would rightly take them to task for it. I'm not sure why you said it or why you are blind to the facts that our forces were reduced, life saving equippment was stripped and morale was horrid, and we were depolyed more in more places than any other modern president talk about spread thin? you would have been amazed. And yet your response even though you know that he had a bad effect on the military is So fucking what ? Nice Bill, thanks.

How many people died in Military Actions during the Clinton years, and how many have died during GDubbya's reign?

I don't know I have an idea but do you have some numbers or facts ? Please post them.

I can sit here and post links and stories and "Facts", and you can do the same, but the fact remains that the VA does more with less than at any time in it's history and it is a system that SUCKS, as you would know if you spent any amount of time out there... Please do so, then tell me how great it is.

So I should take your word that life in the VA sucks but I have told you how bad life in the active side was under Clinton and I got a "so fucking what" and a denial that things were bad ? Thanks. Thing is Bill is that I wouldn't disagree with you that we should be doing more for our vets, no question hands down. You are very active in it and should be commended for it.

Bill,

You are the one that claimed Clinton was using our armed forces irresponsibly, so when you find those numbers let me know.

Where did I say he used them irresponsibly ? go back and look, I said, that we were deployed more than any other modern president. We were, your response was. "What about right now?" Take a look at the number of deployments. It's a fact, not an opinion.

BUT, when I was in, a guy named NIXON was the one they blamed for everything bad, and while I served under his "Watch", I lived with it, and that is what I meant by "So Fucking What". I had NO control over his actions, I simply had to follow orders and so I did. Like you did under Clinton.

No kidding it doesn't mean that I should have been happy about it. I followed orders too and saw our military lose alot of good people and saw the effect on the ones that stayed. I saw many marriages fall apart because of those overdeployments. What I'll never get over is that I lost 2 friends, equipment failed and we were overextended because of those cuts and they died needlessly, that's so fucking what, gee, sorry if I just can't let it go.

well if I remember right, Bush Sr. was the one who started our actions in Somalia, where life was lost big-time, and our forces complained that they didn't have food to give their families without food-stamps)

The op under Bush Sr. was the food relief program. Pres. Clinton is the one who correctly in my opinion went after Adid ala: black hawk down where he made the mistake is when he pulled us out of there after that incident, and it set a bad precedent. I don't remember families being on food stamps when Bush Sr. was CIC. But I don't think we want to compare military quagmires. Can you say Bosnia ?

as they have been reduced ever since the Vietnam War was over and even more so once the cold-war ended and with the expressed support and votes of Republicans, who are the ones who passed most budgets for funding while Clinton was President)

The president is the one who has to ususally sign them and submit them. The R's didn't have enough people to override vetos. It was His budget take a look. Of course spending after Vietnam went down it went down after WW2 too. And sure we needed to reduce the military budget, to a point. As in all things there is a balance but many of our leaders from the left were quick to say during the early to mid nineties. "The cold war is over, we don't face the threats from Russia etc." "We don't need as large of a military" They never mentioned China but they were right to a point. Trouble is they went too far and we're NOT better off today because of those cuts.

And there's your exact reason why we'd have a lot tougher time doing a large scale op in Iraq etc. Oh we would be victorious i'm sure but alot more people would DIE. Because we have lost many good and experienced leaders with combat experience. We have a much smaller force in numbers, more troops means more force, more force means your enemy is overwhelmed sooner and less people die. But hey we saved some money but so fucking what.

The only reason, before 9/11, that the Middle East was important was because of oil. Rick, do you have any idea how much the economies of the world, not just the US, depend on oil? It's absolutely vital for commerce, more and more in the developing countries. World demand for oil will increase for the forseeable future. Until cheap alternatives are found and widely available, oil is gold. Thus the Middle East is important to the whole planet, not just America.

But 9/11 made it personal, and made it devastatingly clear that we have enemies there who would destroy our civilization. Their mindset is the 7th century. They will give no quarter. Negotiation is seen as weakness, as only a way for them to gain time to advance their development of weapons of mass destruction, so that they can attack us more brutally.

Bush named the three members of the Axis of Evil. When you attack your enemies, you go for the weakest spot. That's what Iraq was. That's why they're pouring in there. They know that if they lose Iraq, they're toast. That's why it's vital that we win there.

First of all, you certainly implied that he was irresponsible by his use of troops.

I didn't say it but he was in some cases, not all. See next post.

Fourth, stop with the "So fucking what's" already. You know what I meant, and your insults are not only transparent but also a bit below your usual understanding-self. You are letting your anger dictate what is a rather benign argument.

No Bill I didn't know what you meant. You're the one who said so fucking what and somehow I am the one who insulted you ? Wow, amazing to say the least. Go back and read your post, if you don't want to admit that it was wrong or insulting or could be taken that way, so be it. But you are right about one thing, I'm angry about it although it's not a benign argument because people died. Sorry if I am a bit upset. It makes it no less a tragedy than those who died needlessly in Vietnam.

Lastly... Take a peek at this headline, and then tell me that Clinton had more troops involved in more efforts around the world(By the way...If I am not mistaken, not one life was lost by even one member of our forces in Bosnia?) (wrong).than does GDubbya, at this very moment. Pakistan, Bosnia, N. Korea, Afghanistan, Russia, and now the Phillippines... and that is only half the list.

First of all I would say that deploying troops in those areas is a tad more important than some of the aimless chickenshit U.N deployments and Clinton admin forrays but I am not going to argue that. We are in Bosnia because Billy got us into it and if we abandoned our NATO and UN allies it would be a political nightmare. There have ben troops in Korea since before WW2 And those pesky areas of Afghanistan, Pakistan ,Russia and the Phillipenes all have this little thing called AlQuieda, maybe you've heard of them they've been in all the papers.

Bill Fold,

Take a peek at this headline, and then tell me that Clinton had more troops involved in more efforts around the world

Really? Then you have some FACTS to back that up ?

Hmmm, lets see about deployments. As I said Clinton had more troop deployments than any other modern president.

By Katherine McIntire Peters

In the last 10 years, American troops have been deployed overseas for 10 major operations—as many as in the previous 30 years. Of the troops that were sent on those deployments, 70 percent came from the Army. And yet the Army consumes only 24 percent of the Defense budget. Such are the statistics that trip off the tongues of senior Army officials.
  

http://www.govexec.com/procure/articles/98top/08a98s9.htm

Clinton increased deployments 16-fold, assigning U.S. troops to a litany of "peacekeeping" and "humanitarian" missions in places such as Haiti, Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Macedonia. In fact, U.S. armed forces were deployed more often in the Clinton years than during the Cold War.

Between 1992 and 2000, then President Bill Clinton cut national defense by $50 billion and reduced personnel by one-third. The Navy has gone from 565 ships to less than 350, the active-duty Army from 18 divisions to just 10, and the Air Force from 36 fighter wings to only 20.

BTW that ship total is less than we had in 1941.

http://www.rollcall.com/pages/pb/00/2001/05/pb0514c.html

President Clinton deployed that smaller, aging force at unprecedented rates, initiating 124 unbudgeted peacekeeping missions – an increase of nearly 400% from the Cold War years. As a result, our troops and the equipment they depend upon have been worn ragged,

http://www.house.gov/cunningham/on_the_issues/foreign_affairs.htm

I don't neccessarily agree with all of his points in this rant, especially his lack of acknowledgment of Norman Schwartzcopf, but for a usually-conservative, old-warrior, this is a good read.

I agree with some of it as well and you're correct that he overlooked "Stormin Norman" I would also disagree with his assertion on Powell. I have heard him speak in person and he is alot different that when he is on meet the press. I considered him an utmost professional soilder. I also think that many of the top Generals also feel a certain way and don't say it because of international politics and being P.C.

Bill, I'll adress these posts in the other thread as it's more appropriate. That way this thread can be dedicated soley to vet's issue's.

Bill Fold,

I commend you on your honesty. I admit it would be hard for me to go to the DFL or "dark side" :) (just kidding) I have voted DFL 1 time and 2 Ind. in my life because I liked the candidate and the politics more than the "R" running. Pawlenty does seem honest to me, His background is similar to mine and I like that. His support at the last poll was more than Moe or Ms. Money Penny. But only by 1 point. Penny is going to split the election and whomever is our gov will be in there with 30% of the vote like bobblehead. Thanks money Penny.

HI Bill....I finally got your mesage, and responeded..;-)

Re Pawlenty...don't know him personally, but went to school with one of his relatives. Is that a good reason to vote for someone? NOT!! Besides that wouldn't let me into a MN voting place
<g>.

SNEAK ATTACKS AND AMERICAN AGGRESSION

By Marty Jezer, AlterNet, September 11, 2002

Growing up in the Bronx in the years after the Second World War, there was a game that boys used to play in the schoolyard. One boy would walk up to another (usually smaller) boy and say, "Let's play Pearl Harbor."

Then he'd grab the kid by the crotch and shout, "Sneak attack!"

Make no mistake about it -- if we launch a unilateral attack on Iraq, it would be the moral equivalent of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. This time, however, we'd be the "Japs." In the eyes of the world, we'd be the aggressor nation.

To be sure, the idea for such an attack is no longer secret. But that's only because opponents of an attack, inside the Bush Administration, leaked the plans to the New York Times. Subsequent articles in the Times provoked the current discussion.

If it were up to the Administration, the idea of attacking Iraq would still be a secret. We'd wake up one morning to televised pictures of Baghdad being bombed and anti-American demonstrations throughout the world.

Is an attack on Iraq something we want to be responsible for as a nation? I agree with Texas Republican Dick Armey who, early in August, said,

"If we try to act against Saddam Hussein, as obnoxious as he is, without proper provocation, we will not have the support of other nation states who might do so. I don't believe that America will justifiably make an unprovoked attack on another nation. It would not be consistent with what we have been as a nation or what we should be as a nation."

...False accusations and dubbing opponents "evil" do not justify a war of aggression. So far, Bush's argument for "taking out" Saddam consists of ad hominem name-calling. This is schoolyard stuff. Just because Bush can't goose Saddam (and perhaps avenge his father) is no reason to set Iraq afire.

...Without U.N. backing, without sufficient evidence to win support from our allies, the United States has no right to go to war against Iraq. If Bush starts a war without congressional backing, he ought to be impeached for violating the U.S. Constitution. And any member of Congress who votes for war without U.N. backing ought to be voted out of office, no matter what his or her party.