Blue Dog Coalition Trying to Shaft Soldiers

The war in Iraq has been a nightmare. It’s been especially worse for the soldiers. Bush demands, not asks or requests mind you, but DEMANDS that Congress – read the taxpayers – just hand him over all the money HE wants for his war! Personally, I’d like an accounting of those funds.

Remember in the beginning all the horror stories about not enough ammunition, no bullet proof vests, bad helmets, bad humvees, bad this, bad that? You really do have to wonder where all this money was going. What’s worse, is that these soldiers, other peoples’ sons, daughters, husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, nieces, nephews and grandchildren were fighting in a war we had NO business starting to begin with, AND they were doing so without the proper tools. Read this story from 2004 – a year AFTER we went into Iraq – that 60 Minutes did and see how much Bush “supported the troops”.

GIs Lack Armor, Radios, Bullets

What About The Troops, Asks 60 Minute‘s Steve Kroft

Oct. 31, 2004

(CBS) Two weeks ago, a group of Army reservists in Iraq refused a direct order to go on a dangerous operation to re-supply another unit with jet fuel.

Without helicopter gunships to escort them over a treacherous stretch of highway, and lacking armored vehicles, soldiers from the 343rd Quartermaster Company called it a suicide mission.

Oregon Army National Guard Spc. Eric S. McKinley, 24, of Corvallis, Ore., was killed north of Baghdad when his unarmed Humvee hit a roadside bomb on June 13, 2004. (AP Photo/Statesman Journal)

The Army called it an isolated incident, a temporary breakdown in discipline, and an investigation is underway.

But the 343rd isn’t the first outfit to be put in harm’s way without proper equipment, and commanders in Iraq acknowledged that the unit’s concerns were legitimate, even if their mutiny was not.

© MMIV, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Read the FULL STORY here.

Bush has demanded more and more money ever since, each demand larger than the last. To add insult to injury, once wounded the soldier is treated like dirt – See HERE, HERE, HERE AND HERE. That’s just a small sampling of what a google search brings up on Iraqi Vets healthcare (Results 110 of about 2,570,000 for iraqi veterans get no health care). So we bribe the kids into joining up, and then if they get injured or suffer trauma we renege on our deal? What the hell is up with that?

Then I read this on Huffington Post about Veteran Benefits. Now remember as you read this, these kids are sold this bill of goods to sign up in the service (blackmail and entrapment come to my mind here):

Congress: Money for War, But No Money for the Troops?

Posted May 12, 2008 | 11:25 PM (EST)

By: Paul Rieckhoff Paul Rieckhoff

When it comes to hypocritical “Support the Troops” rhetoric, I thought I’d seen it all. But I was wrong. This week, a small group of Democrats are using back door dealings to torpedo the widely-supported new GI Bill. For anyone new to the issue, here’s the bottom line up front:

In 1944, FDR signed the original GI Bill, which gave every veteran a chance to go to college. It paid for tuition, fees, and books, and gave veterans a living stipend. The GI Bill helped the “Greatest Generation” readjust to civilian life, it helped pull us out of a post-war recession, and it helped build the middle class. Every dollar spent on educational benefits under the original GI Bill added at least seven dollars to the national economy.
Today, 1.7 million troops have come home from Iraq and Afghanistan, but the GI Bill no longer covers anything like the cost of college. So a bipartisan coalition of veterans now serving in the Senate introduced a new GI Bill, modeled on the World War II legislation. This bill recently got added to the war funding bill currently in Congress.

In the real world, two things are obvious:

1) If you send troops to war, caring for the veterans who come home is an unavoidable and necessary cost of that war.
2) The GI Bill is a proven program, and a smart financial investment that pays for itself.

It just makes sense. That’s why the 300-plus Senators and Representatives from both parties and all the major veterans organizations in America have endorsed the legislation.

In Washington, however, it seems like nothing is ever easy. A couple of Congressmen, including Rep. John Tanner (D-TN), Jim Cooper (D-TN), and Allen Boyd (D-FL), all members of the Blue Dog Coalition, have gotten together to OPPOSE paying for the GI Bill this week. (If you live in their districts, you can urge them to support the GI Bill by clicking here.)

As Representative Tanner quipped, “Some of us oppose creating a new entitlement program in an emergency spending bill, whether it’s butchers, bakers or candlestick makers.” Really? Does the Congressman usually explain major policy decisions by quoting Mother Goose?

Seriously, though–by saying that the GI Bill shouldn’t be in the war funding bill, Representative Tanner is supporting the war, but not the warriors. That kind of thinking used to only appear in parodies. Moreover, these Representatives insist on referring to the GI Bill as a “new entitlement” – even though we’ve had a GI Bill for more than 60 years. But the most remarkable logical pirouette they’ve offered so far is that they oppose the GI Bill because they are “fiscal conservatives.”

Copyright © 2008, Inc

Read the FULL STORY here.

So now we have Congressmen/women willing to give bush even MORE money to fund his war, but they don’t think the GI Bill should be part of the war funding package? The package is for more than $180 Billion and the GI Bill portion of this is only $780 Million. Look at the graph to get a real picture of it:

Our government has been paying for basically the entire war “off-budget”–the equivalent of racking up billions in credit card debt. Everyone thinks this is a bad way of doing business. But it’s not the whole supplemental that these Congressmen are threatening to vote against; it’s just the GI Bill. For those of you playing along at home, here’s what that looks like:

This circle is the spending bill we’re talking about. The big red part? That’s spending that is A-OK with these Congressmen (more than $180 billion). It’s that tiny blue sliver that represents the GI Bill, and that’s the dealbreaker for these folks ($780 million).

It’s absurd. Anyone who can find the money to fund the war has no excuse for voting against the tiny fraction of money needed for veterans’ education benefits. The fiscal conservative argument seems even more ludicrous once you realize that even five years of spending on the GI Bill would only cost as much as nine weeks of war in Iraq.

Copyright © 2008, Inc

As you can see, the GI Bill funding is barely visible. You have to wonder what is in the minds of these morons. IF they were really “fiscal conservatives” I seriously doubt we’d be in the debt we are currently in. And NOW they want to tell these kids that were basically bribed into joining the service to fight that they can go to hell?

Any other business operating the way our government does would be out of business in short order. WHAT the hell are we letting them get away with this for?

Click HERE to see if your representative is part of this coalition trying to shaft our soldiers.

Click HERE to find your representative to contact him/her and tell them to “SUPPORT THE TROOPS”!!!!!!!!!


~ by swfreedomlover on May 14, 2008.

One Response to “Blue Dog Coalition Trying to Shaft Soldiers”

  1. OMG! This is the measure of insanity that these people are elected to Congress. GET THEM THE HELL OUT! They need to be kicked to the curb!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: