4 BILLION A MONTH!!!! What a worthless waste!

by ashitaka 37 Replies latest social current

  • Spartacus
    Spartacus

    William Penwell said:

    Bush was going to cut back the veterans pensions to. That's the thanks you get.

    I agree WP and it really pisses me off! , Spartacus

    http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0328-11.htm

    Published on Friday, March 28, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
    Support the Warrior Not the War: Give Them Their Benefits!
    by Ashley L Decker

    The recent rally cry "Support Our Troops" seems to me little more than a perverted, propaganda ploy to "Support the War." But we can support our troops, without supporting the war, by rectifying some of the following conditions.

    The House of Representatives have recently voted on the 2004 budget which will cut funding for veteran's health care and benefit programs by nearly $25 billion over the next ten years. It narrowly passed by a vote of 215 to 212, and came just a day after Congress passed a resolution to "Support Our Troops." How exactly does this vote support our troops? Does leaving our current and future veterans veterans without access to health care and compensation qualify as supporting them?

    The Veteran's Administration, plagued by recent budget cuts, has had to resort to charging new veterans entering into its system a yearly fee of $250 in order for them to receive treatment. It is a sad irony that the very people being sent to fight the war are going to have to pay to treat the effects of it.

    According to the Veteran's Administration, 28 million veterans are currently using VA benefits. Another 70 million Americans are potential candidates for such programs. This amounts to a quarter of the country's population. Veterans and their families will sadly begin finding that they have no place to turn for their medical treatment as V.A. hospitals across the country face closing their doors. With the budget shrinking, staff will be let go. This could mean the loss of over 19,000 nurses. Without these nurses, this leads to the loss of over 6.6 million outpatient visits. Approximately one out of every two veterans could lose their only source of medical care. That is, if they even realize help is available to them. The Bush Administration recently ordered V.A. medical centers to stop publicizing available benefits to veterans seeking assistance. This follows discontinued enrollments of some eligible veterans for healthcare benefits as of January, 2003.

    Bush Administration funding cuts will also prevent veterans from receiving their disability pensions. My father was granted 100% disability six years ago for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder associated with the Vietnam War. He deserves every cent of it. As do all soldiers who are willing to go to war. Under the Bush administration, being granted the ability to receive war related compensation has become a rare privilege, not a right as it should be. Nearly a third of Gulf War veterans, about 209,000 veterans, have submitted claims to to the VA for disability. The backlog of unprocessed claims has reached the astronomical count of 489,297, a number which is unfortunately increasing all of time. There are also currently 500,000 Compensation and Pension cases still pending.

    Making matters worse, forty percent of Vietnam Veterans are homeless. They went from the jungles of the war to the jungles of the street. Before President Bush decided to declare war, maybe he ought to have considered correcting this situation first. How many current veterans will return home, only to find themselves in the same situation?

    I have seen the effects of war written upon the face of a man who grew old at 17. I have seen it in the way he awakes from yet another night terror. I have seen it in the countless pills he has to take. They have only succeeded in erasing his memory, but the images of the war he fought are so graphic that they will never be able to stop playing themselves upon his mind.

    Even I, his daughter, have not escaped unscathed. Exposure to the chemical Agent Orange has left me with several genetic problems, including growth problems and digestive ones. I fear that these current soldiers will be exposed to toxins that will not only affect them, but their future offspring as well.

    And today we are told that we must "Support Our Troops." "Wear a yellow ribbon, wave your flag, support the Bush Administration's War on Terror and War on Iraq." Questioning the war is equated with deserting our troops or treason. And yet how are the warmongers supporting our troops? By eliminating their healthcare and slashing their pensions. Let us support the warrior without supporting the war.

    Ashley L Decker is a student at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown

    ###

  • Guest 77
    Guest 77

    How about the Billions of taxpayers dollars that FDR gave to Josef Stalin? Giving away money to foreign countries is nothing new under the sun. Why have we gone from gold and silver to fiat money?

    Guest 77

  • ashitaka
    ashitaka
    Ashikita: No MATTER how you feel, this was a VERY disrespectful thing to say.

    How is that disrespectful? Georgie, through lies and innuendo, misled his armed forces and the nation into taking over a country. Some of our boys are writing to congress complaining that they should be home now, because they were told that this was going to be a liberation, not an occupation.

    Georgie needlessly sent those boys over there. That's what waste is. Spending money, emotion, lives, on things that didn't require it. That's the definition of waste.

    ash

  • Reborn2002
    Reborn2002

    Perhaps some just got busy and have not had the chance to respond, but I find it curious that the Dubya defenders vanished after I posted the article complete with documented evidence taken from the White House and CIA websites ADMITTING the faults. Kind of hard to defend them when they incriminate themselves and you have written evidence FROM THEM to support it.

    I find it ironic that the Republican-controlled Congress is leaning in the direction of cutting benefits for the very soldiers their leader has sent to war. Yeah, he REALLY cares about you.

  • SheilaM
    SheilaM

    Ashikita: Because your comment makes light of the honor these young men deserve. I am not talking politics I am saying that the way you worded it is disrespectful and since my son is in the Marines and feels he is doing it to serve his country I think the boys deserve more than that from everyone. Disagree with Bush but respect the men that have given their life please.

  • Reborn2002
    Reborn2002

    On Yahoo News today:

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030716/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_tenet&cid=694&ncid=716

    Presidential Elections - AP
    Democrats Blast Bush, Tenet on Iraq Intel
    1 hour, 18 minutes ago

    By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer

    CHARLESTON, S.C. - Two of the Democratic presidential candidates called for the resignation of embattled CIA ( news - web sites) director George Tenet on Wednesday as the rest of the field faulted President Bush ( news - web sites) for misleading the public about Iraq ( news - web sites).


    Latest news:
    ·Bush 'Trafficked in Untruth' on Iraq - Kerry
    Reuters - 11 minutes ago
    ·Missile Fired at U.S. Plane in Iraq
    AP - 12 minutes ago
    ·Pentagon had not expected Iraqi security institutions to collapse: Abizaid
    AFP - 14 minutes ago
    Special Coverage

    "The president has to accept some responsibility," Joe Lieberman ( news - web sites) told supporters during a campaign appearance. "This president seems to be saying, 'The buck never stops here.'"

    The Connecticut senator spoke as Tenet testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee about questionable intelligence the White House used to justify war with Iraq. Bush's claimed in his State of the Union speech that Iraq sought uranium from Africa — a statement apparently based on a series of documents now known to be forgeries.

    Tenet accepted responsibility for allowing the reference to get in the speech, though officials with the National Security Council, the State Deparetment and the White House staff were also involved in drafting the address.

    Lieberman's rival, Howard Dean, said he has maintained for several days that Tenet should leave.

    "The reason the director should step aside is that he is now part of the shifting of the blame," the former Vermont governor said in an interview with The Associated Press.

    Dean, an outspoken opponent of the U.S.-led war against Iraq, argued that Tenet shouldn't receive all the blame, and faulted the National Security Agency, State Department and the vice president's office.

    Lieberman, one of the most forceful supporters of the war among the nine Democratic candidates, said Bush must be held accountable for misleading the public about his justification for military action. Democrats have suggested that Tenet has become the administration's fall guy, taking the blame to shield Bush from political fallout.

    "If, in fact, it was his fault, then George Tenet has to be held responsible," Lieberman said during a campaign appearance at Hyman's Seafood restaurant.

    In an interview afterward, Lieberman said he would seek Tenet's resignation.

    "The White House doesn't accept responsibility. Tenet steps forward and accepts responsibility. And then the president says he hasn't lost confidence in the CIA. Something's wrong here," Lieberman said.

    "I guess I'd say under these circumstances, if I was president and I was put in a position to make a statement in a State of the Union to the American people that was not truthful and the CIA director came forward and accepted responsibility, I'd ask him to leave," the senator said.

    The nine Democratic candidates have seized on the misleading intelligence to attack Bush on his greatest political strength — the war on terrorism — and raise larger questions about his credibility on domestic and foreign policy issues.

    The White House dismissed the criticism as revisionist history from several Democrats who last fall backed the congressional resolution given Bush the authority to wage war. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the administration does not have a credibility problem.

    "The president has been very straightforward about this from the beginning. He laid out a very compelling case, a very clear case," McClellan told reporters.

    In a little-noticed Virginia appearance on Tuesday, Lieberman turned up the pressure on Tenet.

    "Unlike the current president, I would not continue to have confidence in my CIA director, and would ask him to resign," Lieberman said. He added: "This president ought to hold someone accountable for causing him to say something that was not true."

    Sen. John Kerry ( news , bio, voting record) of Massachusetts, during a campaign appearance in New York, focused on what he called Bush's credibility gap on national security as did John Edwards, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

    "George Tenet has accepted his responsibility, and that's good," the North Carolina senator told reporters outside the committee room. "But at the end of the day, the president when he speaks, has to take responsibility for what he said. The responsibility is not the CIA's, it's not anyone else's. It is the president's responsibility. And those 16 words were spoken by the president and he has to take responsibility for them."

    ___

    Associated Press Writers Will Lester and Nedra Pickler in Washington contributed to this report.

  • Reborn2002
    Reborn2002

    Further evidence Donald Rumsfeld is excellent at misassessing situations and giving information which turns out to be erroneous.

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=1&u=/nm/20030716/ts_nm/iraq_usa_abizaid_dc_4

    U.S. General Says Iraq Has Become a Guerrilla War
    2 hours, 46 minutes ago
    Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. troops are facing a classic guerrilla war in Iraq ( news - web sites) spearheaded by Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites ) loyalists, and American forces need to adapt their tactics to crush this increasingly organized resistance, the head of the U.S. Central Command said on Wednesday.


    Reuters Photo

    Special Coverage
    Latest news:
    ·FBI Probes Iraq Intelligence Mishap
    AP - 5 minutes ago
    ·Lawmakers Question CIA Chief on Iraq Claim
    Reuters - 9 minutes ago
    ·General Says Iraq a Guerrilla War, New U.S. Death
    Reuters - 10 minutes ago
    Special Coverage

    This contrasted with an assessment given by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on June 30 that it was not "anything like a guerrilla war or an organized resistance."

    But Central Command chief Gen. John Abizaid, who commands U.S. forces in Iraq, said a guerrilla war is exactly what U.S. troops are confronting.

    "It think describing it as guerrilla tactics being employed against us is, you know, a proper thing to describe in strictly military terms," Abizaid said during a Pentagon ( news - web sites) briefing.

    He said U.S. forces are fighting remnants of Saddam's Baath Party throughout Iraq.

    He said mid-level officials of Saddam's government, including from the old intelligence and security agencies and the Special Republican Guard, "have organized at the regional level in cellular structure."

    Abizaid said they "are conducting what I would describe as a classical guerrilla-type campaign against us. It's low-intensity conflict in our doctrinal terms, but it's war however you describe it."

    "The level of resistance, I'm not so sure I would characterize it as escalating in terms of number of incidents. But it is getting more organized and it is learning. It is adapting -- it is adapting to our tactics, techniques and procedures. And we've got to adapt to their tactics, techniques and procedures," Abizaid said.

    I do not know who is more senile... Ronald Reagan or Donald Rumsfeld.

    He tends to forget what he says earlier or makes statements which are completely opposite of the truth. Maybe he should try working as Information Minister for the Baath party, he would fit right in with telling lies.

  • zugzfree
    zugzfree

    So they attacked Clinton for lying about oral sex, Bush sure better have to answer for lying about weapons of mass destruction.

  • Reborn2002
    Reborn2002

    I read this article on another website, and found it very appropriate and relevant for this topic discussion.

    Bush's Mis-State-Ment Of The Union Fiasco

    By Arianna Huffington

    Poor Karl Rove. He spends close to two years meticulously staging photo
    ops and carefully crafting sound bites to create the image of President
    Bush as a take-charge, man-the-controls,
    land-the-jet-on-the-deck-of-the-aircraft carrier, "Bring 'em on" kind of
    leader. But now the latest revelations about the Misstatement of the Union
    fiasco are threatening to bring back the old notion of W as a bumbling,
    detached figurehead-in-chief.

    And it's the president's own people who are painting this unflattering
    portrait.

    Take George Tenet: While robotically impaling himself on his sword, the
    CIA director took great pains to point out that he thought so little of
    the Niger/Saddam uranium connection that he and his deputies refused to
    bring it up in congressional briefings as far back as fall 2002. It just
    didn't meet his standards.

    Same with Colin Powell. The Secretary went on at great length about the
    intense vetting process -- "four days and three nights" locked up with the
    leaders of the CIA, working "until midnight, 1 o'clock every morning,"
    going over "every single thing we knew about all of the various issues
    with respect to weapons of mass destruction" -- that went into deciding
    what information would be used in his United Nations presentation. A
    presentation that ultimately did not include the Niger allegation because
    it was not, in Powell's words "standing the test of time."

    Hmmm, just how hard is that test? Powell's UN speech came a mere eight
    days after Bush's State of the Union -- leaving one to wonder what the
    expiration date is on patently phony data? About a week after a president
    uses it, it turns out.

    So here's the picture we're left with: When faced with using explosive but
    highly questionable charges in vital presentations leading up to a
    possible preemptive war, both Powell and Tenet gave the information they
    were handed a thorough going over before ultimately rejecting it. But not
    the commander in chief. Apparently, he just took whatever he was handed,
    and happily offered it up to the world. He was, therefore, little more
    than the guy in the presidential suit, mindlessly speaking the words that
    others had debated and polished and twisted and finally agreed he would
    say. And then when the uranium hit the fan, our stand-up-guy president
    decided that the buck actually stops with George Tenet.

    As the Niger controversy -- Yellowcake-gate -- is turning into a political
    firestorm, the question should be: What didn't the president know -- and
    why didn't he know it? And why does he know less and less every day?

    After all, it's becoming clearer by the day that just about everyone else
    involved knew that the president was using a bogus charge to alarm the
    nation about Saddam's nuclear threat. Whatever the opposite of "top
    secret" is, this was it.

    The U.S. ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, knew: She had sent
    reports to Washington debunking the allegations. Joe Wilson, the envoy
    sent to Niger by the CIA, knew: His fact-finding trip quickly confirmed
    the ambassador's findings. The CIA knew: The agency tried unsuccessfully
    in September 2002 to convince the Brits to take the false charge out of an
    intelligence report. The State Department knew: Its Bureau of Intelligence
    and Research labeled it "highly dubious." Tenet and Powell knew: They
    refused to use it. The president's speechwriters knew: They were told to
    remove a reference to the Niger uranium in a speech the president
    delivered in Cincinnati on Oct. 7 -- three months before his State of the
    Union. And the National Security Council knew: NSC staff played a key role
    in the decision to fudge the truth by having the president source the
    uranium story to British intelligence.

    The bottom line is: This canard had been thoroughly discredited many, many
    times over, but the administration fanatics so badly wanted it to be true
    they just refused to let it die the death it deserved. The yellowcake lie
    was like one of those slasher movie psychos that refuse to stay buried no
    matter how many times you smash a hatchet into their skull. It had more
    sequels than "Friday the 13th" and "Halloween" combined.

    Cherry-picking convenient lies about something as important as nuclear war
    is bad enough but the administration's attempts to spin the aftershocks
    have been even worse. They just don't seem to grasp the concept that when
    you're sending American soldiers to die for something the reasons you give
    -- all of the reasons -- should be true.

    Instead of a sword for Mr. Tenet, somebody should get this bunch a copy of
    "All the President's Men." The slow drip, drip, drip of incremental
    revelations and long-overdue admissions is not the way to stem a brewing
    scandal.

    Condoleezza Rice has been the worst offender. Now that we know that Tenet
    personally warned Rice's deputy, Steve Hadley, not to use the yellowcake
    claim back in October, and the role NSC staffers played in manipulating
    the State of the Union, Rice's widely publicized claim, made little over a
    month ago, that at the time of the State of the Union, "maybe someone knew
    down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that
    there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery" has been
    revealed for what it is: A bald-face lie.

    And even now as the truth comes flooding out, Rice continues to play fast
    and loose with the facts -- and stand by her man. "The statement that he
    made," she said on Sunday, speaking of the president, "was indeed
    accurate. The British government did say that."

    Joining the still-don't-get-it unit were Don "Haldeman" Rumsfeld, who
    termed the president's speech "technically correct," and Ari "Ehrlichman"
    Fleischer who offered up this classic bit of spinsanity: "What we have
    said is it should not have risen to the level of a presidential speech.
    People cannot conclude that the information was necessarily false."

    Watergate gave us the non-denial denial. Yellowcake-gate is giving us the
    non-admission admission.

    And that's not the only parallel. In July 1973, at the height of the
    Watergate hearings, Richard Nixon announced: "What we were elected to do,
    we are going to do, and let others wallow in Watergate." George Bush seems
    to be taking the same head-in-the-sand approach, letting it be known that,
    with Tenet taking responsibility for the Niger snafu, he considers the
    matter closed. "The president has moved on," said Fleischer over the
    weekend. "And I think, frankly, much of the country has moved on as well."
    Let others wallow in Yellowcake-gate, right, Ari? But wishing doesn't make
    it so, either for phantom uranium transfers or the evaporation of
    skepticism.

    In the spirit of Tricky Dick, let me make myself perfectly clear: I'm not
    saying that Yellowcake-gate is the equivalent of Watergate. I'm saying
    it's potentially much, much worse.

    At its core, Watergate was all about trying to make sure that Nixon won an
    election. Yellowcake-gate is much more than a dirty trick played on the
    American public. It's about the Bush administration's pattern of deception
    as it pushed and shoved this country into a preemptive war -- from the
    much-advertised but nonexistent links between Iraq and al-Qaeda to the
    sexing-up of Saddam's WMD.

    No one died as a result of Watergate, but more than 200 American soldiers
    have been killed and thousand more wounded to rid the world of an imminent
    threat that wasn't. To say nothing of the countless Iraqis who have lost
    their lives. And those numbers will only rise as we find ourselves stuck
    in a situation Gen. Tommy Franks predicts will continue for at least
    another four years.

    With the events of the last week, George Bush has come across as very
    presidential indeed. Like his Dad, he's been out of the loop; like Clinton
    he's become a world class word weasel; and like Nixon he's shown a massive
    propensity for secrecy and dissembling. Not exactly the role models Karl
    Rove had in mind.

    President Clinton was impeached for seven words he should never have
    uttered: "I never had sex with that woman." What price will President Bush
    have to pay for his sixteen-word scam?
  • William Penwell
    William Penwell

    Sheila,

    I feel for your son and all the others in the armed forces that have put their lives on the line. It is just too bad that they had to put their lives on the line for an administration that has lied and misrepresented the facts to the American public.

    Will

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit