Which Willl It Be?

[skeeter]

I can see it all developing.. You cannot stand the likes of John Kerry, as some of you think he dosn't care about the Veterans. And most of you "Republicans" feel he shouldn't be called a veteran himself for what you say, he did upon returning from Vietnam.

You know very well what the veterans benefits are from the "weasel" we have now. And are you expecting a mircle from him? I think not!.. So you bitch about all, and a lot about nothing.

So lets draw a "battle plan" for the Republicans and Democrats.
Lets just go with the present Veterans plan for those Republicans.They like George and the way he doing. They don't care for anything the Democrats stand for.. I don't know why, just about all the good things they have now, has come from the Liberal's side of the aisle. Ok!.

Now let's have the Democrat plan. Lets assume that John Kerry wins in November.. His first "big deal" will be a wonderful Veterans benefits program. No one has ever done such a great thing for the Veterans. But wait just a "minute" here, he cannot be for all Veterans, he just wants it for the Democrat Veterans, for those that have supported him from day one, and that goes back to the Vietnam days.

Pipe down! you Veterans that hate John Kerry.. NOW I can hear the uproars.. We are veterans too, we are entitled to the these benefits that the Democrat Veterans are getting. We are all American War Veterans of wars.

Now just wait a darn minute here, remember when John Kerry was running for President, how you Republicans could not stand the man, now you want to KISS HIS A-- because he can do something for you.

I have seen it all. "that is the way conservatives" act. I don't want to vote for it, pay for it, but if it's free I want it..

[phuloi]

Trust me on this one,Skeeter:This conservative has yet to kiss ANYONE`S ASS,and the likes of Jane Kerry will certainly not warrant the first!

[skeeter]

phuloi;

You have been selected as the first one to say you are satified with the present Veterans benefit plans.

[reconeil]

I understand the typical Party Line involving America's Veterans. But, since me and your Party don't exactly speak the same language and travel in the same circles,...could YOU just name me one thing that Kerry would do any better for The American Veteran? I (no doubt many others) would like to know.

Besides, and answer from YOU could be better believed (both today and tomorrow). If I asked Kerry the same question,...I'm fairly sure that today's answer and tomorrow's answer would be TOTALLY DIFFERENT and/or which ever way the wind is blowing.

Neil

[phuloi]

Yup..Very satisfied w/my medical treatment and the disability check I recieve from VA.
This does not mean,however that I will not continue to fight for the rights of other WORTHY veterans.
Kerry does not meet that criteria.

[SuperScout]

What Griz said, double for me!

[skeeter]

reconeil;

First on the Plate: You may consider me as a "liberal conservative", or a "Conservative Liberal".. I'm not a PARTY Line type. I vote for the "heart of the person" politices, and what he or she can and will try to get done.

Now on to what Mr. Kerry may try to do if elected. To me, it would seem since he has been in the Senate for the X number of years, he surely knows how and what it takes to get some legislation past into law. I'm sure he has some friends on both sides of the aisle that may go with his ideas. If not, then we all are in the same trap as we are today, nothing being done for the Veterans.

You may see my view points as political, but I can assure you, I don't like the political sides as we have today.
I would rather see our U. S. Congress in Washington, and at the State level become "for human kind" and not political fools.

It's like two "bullies"standing opposite each other on a street corner. One remarks to the other about his or her "wrongs". The other pulls a "switch-blade" knife, the other pulls two "Switch-Blades, the other pulls a "Machete", and the other pulls two "Machetes"..
Oh! I think you get the picture here.

[reconeil]

"In the senate for X number years, and certainly knows what it takes"...is exactly why I asked YOU the one question, instead of Kerry. After all, if Kerry didn't do zilch for The Veteran in: "X number of years" in The Senate, why-the-hell should any Veteran believe that "He" would be better for them IN THE FUTURE??? Makes no sense.

Neil

[Gimpy]

Well...........it's time to set the "record" straight!
Before George W. Bush's political operatives started pounding on John Kerry for voting against certain weapons systems during his years in the Senate, they should have taken a look at this quotation:

"After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. ? The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office."

The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992.

They should also have looked up some testimony by Dick Cheney, the first President Bush's secretary of defense (and now vice president), three days later, boasting of similar slashings before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. ? And now we're adding to that another $50 billion ? of so-called peace dividend.
In the years under Cheney the budgets proposed and the final outcomes followed patterns similar to the FY 1990 budget experience. Early in 1991 the secretary unveiled a plan to reduce military strength by the mid-1990s to 1.6 million, compared to 2.2 million when he entered office. In his budget proposal for FY 1993, his last one, Cheney asked for termination of the B-2 program at 20 aircraft, cancellation of the Midgetman, and limitations on advanced cruise missile purchases to those already authorized. When introducing this budget, Cheney complained that Congress had directed Defense to buy weapons it did not want, including the V-22, M-1 tanks, and F-14 and F-16 aircraft, and required it to maintain some unneeded reserve forces. His plan outlined about $50 billion less in budget authority over the next 5 years than the Bush administration had proposed in 1991.

Over Cheney's four years as secretary of defense, encompassing budgets for fiscal years 1990-93, DoD's total obligational authority in current dollars declined from $291.3 billion to $269.9 billion. Except for FY 1991, when the TOA budget increased by 1.7 percent, the Cheney budgets showed negative real growth: -2.9 percent in 1990, -9.8 percent in 1992, and -8.1 percent in 1993. During this same period total military personnel declined by 19.4 percent, from 2.202 million in FY 1989 to 1.776 million in FY 1993. The Army took the largest cut, from 770,000 to 572,000-25.8 percent of its strength. The Air Force declined by 22.3 percent, the Navy by 14 percent, and the Marines by 9.7 percent.

Cheney proceeded to lay into the then-Democratically controlled Congress for refusing to cut more weapons systems.

Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. ? You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s?all great systems ? but we have enough of them.

And then, in the last election he had the unmitigated GALL to say, "?I do not presume to speak for the military, but I am now speaking to them,? Cheney said. ?To all of our men and women in uniform, and to their parents and families: Help is on the way!?, end quote! Man did THAT turn out to be a WHOPPER of a LIE! What a HYPOCITE!


The Republican operatives might also have noticed Gen. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearings, testifying about plans to cut Army divisions by one-third, Navy aircraft carriers by one-fifth, and active armed forces by half a million men and women, to say noting of "major reductions" in fighter wings and strategic bombers.

Granted, these reductions were made in the wake of the Cold War's demise. But that's just the point: Proposed cuts must be examined in context. A vote against a particular weapons system doesn't necessarily indicate indifference toward national defense.

Looking at the weapons that the RNC says Kerry voted to cut, a good case could be made, certainly at the time, that some of them (the B-2 bomber and President Reagan's "Star Wars" missile-defense program) should have been cut. As for the others (the M-1 tank and the F-14, F-15, and F-16 fighter planes, among others), Kerry didn't really vote to cut them.

The claim about these votes was made in the Republican National Committee "Research Briefing" of Feb. 22. The report lists 13 weapons systems that Kerry voted to cut?the ones cited above, as well as Patriot air-defense missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and AH64 Apache helicopters, among others.

It is instructive to look at the footnotes however. Almost all of them cite Kerry's vote on Senate bill S. 3189 (CQ Vote No. 273) on Oct. 15, 1990. Do a Google search, and you will learn that S. 3189 was the Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act, and CQ Vote No. 273 was a vote on the entire bill. There was no vote on those weapons systems specifically.

In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans, you don't see the administration screaming about THEM though, DO YOU?)) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank and complete dishonesty.

Another bit of dishonesty is RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie's claim, at a news conference recently, that in 1995, Kerry voted to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. John Pike, who runs the invaluable globalsecurity.org Web site, informs what that cut was about: The Air Force's National Reconnaissance Office had appropriated that much money to operate a spy satellite that, as things turned out, it never launched. So the Senate passed an amendment rescinding the money?not to cancel a program, but to get a refund on a program that the NRO had canceled. Kerry voted for the amendment, as did a majority of his colleagues.

An examination of Kerry's real voting record during his 20 years in the Senate indicates that he did vote to restrict or cut certain weapons systems. From 1989-92, he supported amendments to halt production of the B-2 stealth bomber. (In 1992, George H.W. Bush halted it himself. HUH???) It is true that the B-2 came in handy during the recent war in Iraq?but for reasons having nothing to do with its original rationale.

The B-2 came into being as an aircraft that would drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. The program was very controversial at the time. It was extremely expensive. Its stealth technology had serious technical bugs. More to the point, a grand debate was raging in defense circles at the time over whether, in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range cruise missiles, the United States needed any new bomber that would fly into the Soviet Union's heavily defended airspace. The debate was not just between hawks and doves; advocates and critics could be found among both.

In the latest war, B-2s?modified to carry conventional munitions?were among the planes that dropped smart bombs on Iraq. But that was like hopping in the Lincoln stretch limo to drop Grandma off at church. As for the other stealth plane used in both Iraq wars?the F-117, which was designed for non-nuclear missions?there is no indication that Kerry ever opposed it.

The RNC doesn't mention it, but Kerry also supported amendments to limit (but not kill) funding for President Reagan's fanciful (and eventually much-altered) "Star Wars" missile-defense system. Kerry sponsored amendments to ban tests of anti-satellite weapons, as long as the Soviet Union also refrained from testing. In retrospect, trying to limit the vulnerability of satellites was a very good idea since many of our smart bombs are guided to their targets by signals from satellites.

Kerry also voted for amendments to restrict the deployment of the MX missile (Reagan changed its deployment plan several times, and Bush finally stopped the program altogether) and to ban the production of nerve-gas weapons.

At the same time, in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)

Are there votes in Kerry's 20-year record as a senator that might look embarrassing in retrospect? Probably. But not the ones the republicans keep misleading us about!
######

[Gimpy]

Indignities Endured by U.S. Military Veterans
A NEWS ANALYSIS

"I believe that our laws must reflect our gratitude to the men and women who so valiantly served our nation in battle. But to many veterans, it seems like they are remembered in Washington only on Veterans Day. Speeches are all well and good, but daily advocacy is needed too in such issues as health care and compensation claims."

Prior to the 2000 presidential election, President Bush outlined these views on issues affecting veterans. Some of his comments, like the one above from a campaign position paper, have been archived by Disabled American Veterans Magazine.

Today it's clear to many veterans that the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress think of them on other days of the year besides Veterans Day. They're thinking of veterans as they work to cut off VA healthcare. They're thinking of veterans when they refuse to address lingering health problems from the first Gulf War. They're thinking of veterans when they block full retirement and disability benefits. And they're thinking of veterans when Bush decides, yet again, not to attend a solider's funeral or pay a visit to those who are recovering from injuries at Walter Reed Army Medical Center just a few miles from the White House.

All that thinking has only hurt veterans of this country. Obviously, they deserve much better. And they deserve our full support.
We should be committed to revealing the numerous ways in which Bush has gone back on his pledge to be an advocate for veterans. Excerpts from news stories, editorials and speeches detailing Bush's and Congress' actions should be provided for all to see.
* * *
Wartime money not going toward Iraq vets' health care
Herald Tribune
Sen. Bob Graham of Florida argued last April that wounded soldiers were a certainty in the new Iraq war.

He asked for $375 million for their health care at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Appropriators bargained that down to $100 million in a 2003 war-spending bill and allowed the VA to use the money for other things.

Now thousands of Iraq veterans are using VA hospitals and clinics, but none of that $100 million will go toward their health care. The VA plans to spend it on processing benefit claims instead.
"Particularly with the large casualties that we've suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm stunned that they're not going to use it for that purpose," said Graham, the ranking Democrat on the Veterans Affairs Committee.
* * *
Wounded U.S. veterans get a raw deal at home
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Commentary)
There's no emotional sting like the one inflicted by that 500 number. It's larger now, the total of Americans dead from an Iraq war launched on false pretenses, but 500 is getting a lot of usage as the ultimate cost of this mess. It's a cost 500 can't begin to illuminate.

How about at least 9,000 servicemen and women wounded, sickened or injured? How about 6,891 troops medically evacuated for non-combat conditions between March 19 and Oct. 30, 2003?
"There are about 2,500 combat casualties," Dave Autry said on the phone from the Disabled American Veterans offices in Washington. "The rest are attempted suicides, vehicle accidents, other accidents, illness. Something that's becoming a big concern is lesions caused by exposure to sand fleas that carry a particularly virulent bacteria."

All of this could be categorized as the inevitably horrible cost of post-modern war in the desert, but the scandal is what is happening to these survivors once their government brings them home. Tom Keller, the immediate past commander of the DAV in Ohio, wrote to me last month about the secretive nature of the process.

"I can't speak for the DAV's national organization," Tom said, "but I have my own feelings about why the Bush administration is bringing the casualties back to the States in the middle of the night and wants to keep organizations like the DAV away from them. I believe the administration wants to keep the American people in the dark about the number of troops being wounded, the severity of the injuries they are receiving and the types of illnesses that may be surfacing."

* * *
Veterans say Bush overhaul of overtime will cost them
St. Louis Post Dispatch
Catie Shinn figures she made two "mistakes" that could end up costing her money: She served her country as a captain in the Army, and she earned a master's degree in college.

Either one, she says, could keep her from getting overtime pay under regulations the government is preparing to issue next month. Veterans and labor groups say 8 million other workers could lose their overtime.

A handful of veterans and members of the St. Louis Labor Council and Jobs for Justice gathered Thursday inside the museum at Soldiers Memorial downtown. With Navy torpedoes and Civil War-era pistols as background, they protested the Labor Department's new overtime rules and an appearance in St. Louis planned on Saturday by Vice President Dick Cheney.

"It's unthinkable that those people who have served their country so diligently in the armed forces now would be denied benefits," said Bob Soutier, secretary-treasurer of the Labor Council.

* * *
Board member wants more awareness of homeless vets
The Beacon News
Dorothy Sanchez admitted she should have known better.
But the County Board member, D-Aurora [Ill.], said recent developments have opened her eyes to a problem she did not realize was as critical as it is: homeless veterans.
She said the realization came as she watched Democratic Party presidential candidates donating to a homeless shelter for veterans in Iowa.

"I'll be the first to admit I did not realize the situation," Sanchez said Monday at a County Board Public Service Committee meeting. "You just assume that people who go to fight for this country are cared for. When you find out they're not, it's nauseating. They risked their lives, and now they're homeless, and we can't do enough about it?"

Her comments were made to John Carr, Kane County Veterans Affairs office director, who said estimates are that of the about 3,000 homeless people in Kane County, 1,000 are veterans. That one-third ratio holds true nationally, Carr said. There are 26,480 veterans living in Kane County, he added, the seventh most in the state.

* * *
Letter to President Bush
(editorial commentary)

I am appealing to you on behalf of thousands of military families that are being treated unfairly. I speak of the Survivors Benefit Plan. The SBP is not free. It has been a costly investment for our family. We have paid into SBP since 1973 and see no end to this inequity. This year (2004) my husband will be 86 and I will be 77 years old. The proposed law to stop paying into SBP after 30 years participation in 2010 is hardly acceptable. We have already paid more than 30 years.
There is also another penalty. My husband's birth date puts him in the "Notch Baby" category for Social Security benefits which effectively lowers the SBP. I do not see how in good conscience the Congress of the United States is able to find monies for congressional pay raises, space exploration, military actions, yet deny the military retiree what was promised back in 1973. Something is very wrong with this country. No commercial insurance company has the right to change a policy. The government should also be held to its obligations.
(An overview of the Survivor Benefit Plan can be found at Military.com)

* * *
Government Gives Few Contracts To Disabled Vets Wall Street Journal
The federal government has a long tradition of encouraging veterans who want to start their own small businesses, especially those with disabilities related to their military service. But like Mr. Kemp, who lives in Duxbury, Mass., entrepreneurial-minded veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan won't find the level of support that greeted troops from earlier conflicts.
"They are not going to get as much, and they are going to have to fight for that," said sociologist Paul Camacho, who researches veterans' economic issues at the University of Massachusetts at Boston.

Indeed, the already small percentage of federal contracts awarded to businesses owned by service-disabled veterans plunged further last year despite a federal law that specifically directs federal agencies to send more business their way.
Meanwhile, the Small Business Administration under its primary lending program guaranteed 6,750 small-business loans in fiscal 2003, ended Sept. 30, a 24% increase from fiscal 2002 but still far below the 8,300 such loans guaranteed in 1995.
"There's a lot of talk, but little action when you really need assistance," said Army veteran Rex Tolman, owner of an environmental engineering concern in Jamestown, N.Y. His troubles in landing federal contracts have led him to concentrate on state and local government work, where he has had better luck.

* * *
Vets say visits restricted to U.S. wounded
CNN

One of the nation's leading veterans' service organizations accuses the Pentagon of "severely restricting" its counselors from visiting wounded and injured service members at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

As of January 7, the Pentagon said 2,431 military personnel have been wounded in action and an additional 383 wounded in non-hostile incidents in Iraq.
Most service members severely wounded in Iraq and returned to the United States are treated at Walter Reed.

In a letter sent this week to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Dave Gorman, executive director of Disabled American Veterans, complained that the DAV is being blocked from carrying out its congressionally chartered mission.
* * *
Wounded "Held Captive" at Walter Reed
Disabled Vets Fire Back at Rumsfeld

(wire services)
And so now we learn that ever since Operation Iraqi Freedom got underway, it has been easier for a terrorist to get into the United States legally than for a DAV representative to get into a military hospital to help wounded soldiers with their benefit applications.
Sickeningly, the Pentagon has been severely limiting DAV access to wounded veterans and doing it on grounds of "security." Oh, yes, and protecting "privacy."

It protects the veterans' privacy by not allowing them to speak with DAV representatives "unmonitored."

Fortunately someone blinked and it wasn't the Disabled American Veterans.

When he got back to the office after celebrating New Year's and opened his mail, Donald Rumsfeld found a letter informing him that he had messed with the wrong people this time.
* * *

Bush's Budget for 2005 Seeks to Rein In Domestic Costs
The New York Times

Facing a record budget deficit, Bush administration officials say they have drafted an election-year budget that will rein in the growth of domestic spending without alienating politically influential constituencies.

Mr. Bush proposed last year to double co-payments on prescription drugs for many veterans, primarily those with higher incomes and no service-connected disabilities. The White House reaffirmed its support for that proposal in November.

In the last week, the Pentagon has been considering a new proposal to increase pharmacy co-payments for retirees with at least 20 years of military service. Under the proposal, the charge for a generic drug would rise to $10, from $3, while the charge for a brand-name medicine would rise to $20, from $9.

The Military Officers Association of America criticized this as "a grossly insensitive and wrong-headed proposal." In e-mail messages to the White House, members of the association asked Mr. Bush, "Why do your budget officials persist in trying to cut military benefits?"

* * *

Bush drug proposal enrages veterans

Houston Chronicle

The Bush administration is considering dramatic increases in the fees military retirees pay for prescription drugs, a step that would roll back a benefit extended 33 months ago and risk alienating an important Republican constituency at the dawn of the 2004 campaign season.

Pentagon budget documents indicate that retirees may be asked to pay $10 -- up from $3 -- for each 90-day generic prescription filled by mail through Tricare, the military's health insurance program. Tricare's current $9 co-pay for a three-month supply of each brand-name drug would jump to $20.

The proposal also would impose charges for drugs the retirees now receive free at military hospitals and clinics. There would be a $10 fee for each generic prescription and a $20 charge for brand-name drugs dispensed at those facilities.

A Pentagon spokesman declined Wednesday to comment on the drug plan, calling it "pre-decisional." But word of the proposal was being spread at the speed of light by veterans service organizations, who were urging their thousands of members to send calls and letters of protest to the White House and members of Congress.

* * *

Bush Pays Lipservice to Vets, Then Slashes Their Health Care
(Atlanta Journal)

Late last week President Bush visited combat veterans at Walter Reed Medical Center. During his visit, he said "We have made a commitment to the troops, and we have made a commitment to their loved ones, and that commitment is that we will provide excellent health care - excellent care - to anybody who is injured on the battlefield."

His comments stand in stark contrast to the policies he has pushed - and the record he has amassed - as President. Just this year alone, the President "announced his formal opposition to a proposal to give National Guard and Reserve members access to the Pentagon's health-insurance system"- a slap in the face to thousands of troops, especially considering "a recent General Accounting Office report estimated that one of every five Guard members has no health insurance." The President also this year proposed to cut $1.5 billion (14%) out of funding for military family housing/medical facilities. This followed his 2002 budget which, according to major veterans groups, "fell $1.5 billion short" of adequately funding veterans care.

* * *

Bush Budget Shortchanges America's Veterans

Even as middle-class Americans are struggling to achieve financial security, the Bush budget ignores the very real challenges they are facing. It fails to create jobs, and instead creates record deficits. It shortchanges education, health care, veterans' benefits, and small business. Instead of helping working families, it provides additional tax breaks for those who need them least, and billions of dollars in new giveaways to HMOs and other wealthy corporate interests.

Proposes new increases in the cost of veterans' health care. The President's budget raises health care costs for over 1 million veterans, increasing drug co-payments and imposing new enrollment fees that will cost veterans over $2 billion over five years. For Priority 7 and 8 veterans, the budget imposes a $250 enrollment fee to receive healthcare and doubles their pharmacy co-pay from $7 to $15. This will result in driving about 200,000 veterans out of the system, and discouraging another 1 million veterans from enrolling. Every year since taking office, the Bush Administration has proposed to increase the cost of health care for veterans.

Fails to provide meaningful investment in veterans' health care. Right now, 30,000 veterans are waiting six months or longer for an appointment at VA hospitals. But the President's budget includes an increase of less 2 percent - not enough to maintain current services and nearly $3.0 billion less than veterans' organizations agree is needed. And over five years, the budget for veterans' health care programs is $13.5 billion below the amount needed to maintain services at current levels. The Bush budget also does nothing to reverse the impact of the across-the-board cut in veterans' funding eliminating health care services for 26,500 veterans that was part of the omnibus.

Slashes funding for long-term care for America's veterans. The Bush Administration's budget cuts $294 million from nursing home services for veterans, reducing the number of patients treated by more than 8,000.

Refuses to end the Disabled Veterans' Tax. The President's budget fails to repeal the Disabled Veterans Tax, which forces disabled military retirees to give up one dollar of their pension for every dollar of disability pay they receive. The budget continues to require two-thirds of military retirees with service-connected disabilities - nearly 400,000 people -- to continue to pay the Disabled Veterans Tax.

Does not end the Survivor Benefits Tax. The Survivor Benefit Plan penalizes aging survivors, mostly widows, of the veterans of our county. Military retirees pay premiums for years and anticipate that upon their death, their spouse will receive 55 percent of their benefit. But when their survivor reaches 65, a Social Security "offset" drops the benefit to a mere 35 percent. The Bush budget forces the spouses of military retirees to continue to pay this unfair tax.

Fails to expedite disability claims and threatens all veterans' benefits. The President's budget includes only $25 million to increase the processing of disability claims - far less than what is needed. Today, there are 335,000 veterans awaiting a decision on their disability claims. About 84,000 of those veterans have been waiting six months or more for their decision. Despite this backlog, the budget makes it harder for veterans to get their disability, education, pension, housing and employment benefits by cutting 4% of the people who administer veterans' benefits.

Cuts 50,000 VA home loans. The Bush budget cuts the number of VA home loans for veterans by 50,000 - denying VA home loans to veterans who have taken out a VA home loan in the past.

Cuts in medical and prosthetic research. The President budget calls for a $50 million cut in award-winning VA medical and prosthetic research. This would set the research grant program back six years to FY 1999 funding levels, just as many of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are coming home with terrible injuries that may require this expertise.

Health services for Gulf War & Iraqi veterans fail to meet growing need. The President's budget calls for only about 6% more for the Gulf War programs to provide health-related services to veterans of the Gulf War, as well as veterans now returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, funds for counseling for post-traumatic stress disorders will increase by only 8%, and readjustment counseling will increase only 3%. To meet the needs of returning troops, these programs will likely have to increase significantly more.


February 4, 2004
Source: Based on information provided by non-partisan Veterans Service and Military Retiree Organization resources and Web Sites.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 2, 2004
CONTACT: Susan Edgerton @ 202-225-9756

VETERANS HOUSE GOV.COM

BUSH ADMINISTRATION ?05 VA BUDGET REFLECTS MISPLACED PRIORITIES, PLACES GREATER BURDEN ON SOME VETERANS

Washington, D.C. -- Calling this year?s Bush Administration budget proposal for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) a matter of ?seriously misplaced priorities,? Rep. Lane Evans (IL), the Ranking Democratic Member of the House Veterans? Affairs Committee said ?a significant portion of this document should be quickly and soundly rejected.?

?I?m not aware of anyone who will celebrate an increase in the veterans? medical care budget of less than 2 percent,? Evans said. ?Plus, we?ve seen before?and rejected on a bipartisan basis?many of the Administration?s proposals that would increase pharmacy and primary care copayments and establish user fees for veterans,? Evans continued.

The Bush Administration requested about a $500 million increase for veterans? medical care, for a total of $27.4 billion, which does not include money collected from veterans and their insurers. In sharp contrast, without the projected savings from legislative initiatives or management efficiencies, VA would require more than $2 billion in additional appropriations. ?The President said this was a ?tough? budget and he wasn?t wrong about that in terms of its impact on America?s veterans,? said Evans.

Evans said the VA health care system has costs that are not within its control?federal pay raises are mandated, for example, and the system must negotiate within the high-cost health care industry for everything from prices of its pharmaceutical drugs to contracts for physicians with highly specialized skills. Also, the Administration?s budget calls for $340 million of vaguely defined management ?efficiencies? in addition to the almost $1 billion of ?efficiencies? it already has imposed on the system.

Other provisions of this year?s budget submission that Evans called into question include:
? Cuts in VA?s nursing home program that will bring its average daily census below the capacity mandated by federal law;
? Cuts in VA?s research program that will take staff and resources away from already thin support services;
? Overly optimistic medical care cost recovery collection targets which are meant to substitute for appropriated resources.
? Insufficient resources in the VA construction program to make a significant start in the Department?s major infrastructure restructuring process.

Evans cites the Administration?s newest ?disappointing? budget proposal as a ?profound example of the need to take VA spending out of the political arena.? Evans has introduced legislation, the ?Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act of 2003,? which has nearly 150 cosponsors in the House. Two companion bills have been introduced in the Senate. The bill would establish a formula based on the number of veterans enrolled for VA health care and the hospital inflation rate projected for each year and provide necessary funding directly from the U.S. Treasury to VA.

Evans said four major veterans? service organizations?AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States?have produced a budget recommendation of about $31.1 billion for all VA medical programs and construction. These organizations and five other major veterans? service organizations have made passage of a ?mandatory funding? bill, such as Evans?s, their top legislative priority this year.

Evans said he is deeply concerned by Bush budget proposals to reduce the number of VA employees available to process claims for compensation and pension, education, home loan and vocational rehabilitation benefits. VA acknowledges that a significant number of employees responsible for processing of compensation and pension claims will be eligible for retirement in 2005 and will be replaced by trainees. Nonetheless, VA expects these trainees to process an increased workload, without loss of timeliness and accuracy.

?This is unrealistic. A country that can afford to send men and women into harm?s way can afford and must provide the resources to care for them on their return,? said Evans.

Evans called upon the President to revisit his priorities. ?This budget is certain to come under broad-based scrutiny because it lacks funding for the continued missions in Iraq and Afghanistan,? said Evans. ?We?re in a time of war?veterans and defense should be high priorities, even if the wealthiest Americans have to wait a little longer for their tax relief,? he said.

###

Now....................THAT is what you've gotten so far from Bush & Company!

[SuperScout]

Has there been any increase in the budget for the VA during the Bush administration?

Has there been any additional benefits accorded to retired and disabled or partially disabled retirees?

"Sen. Bob Graham of Florida argued last April that wounded soldiers were a certainty in the new Iraq war...." Gee, how did I miss this NEWS FLASH, to think that there would actually be casualties in a war! How did this dastardly idea escape me? Or to ask it a different way, how does Sen. Graham find his feet in the morning? No wonder the Democrat voters rejected him early on in the campaign!

".... not to attend a solider's funeral or pay a visit to those who are recovering from injuries at Walter Reed Army Medical Center just a few miles from the White House...." utter lies. Just because the President doesn't make it a "photo-op" every time he comforts a wounded warrior, or consoles a grieving family, the whiners perceive this as "not caring."

[Gimpy]

Why didn't you answer the charges published that were based on honest and accurate information provided by non-partisan Veterans Service and Military Retiree Organization resources and web sites of:

the Atlanta Journal (Bush Pays Lipservice to Vets, Then Slashes Their Health Care), the Miami Herald Tribune (Wartime money not going toward Iraq vets' health care), the Houston Cronicle (Bush drug proposal enrages veterans), The Military Officers Association of America , who (criticized this as "a grossly insensitive and wrong-headed proposal.), the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ( Wounded U.S. veterans get a raw deal at home), the St. Louis Post Dispatch (Veterans say Bush overhaul of overtime will cost them), The Beacon News (Board member wants more awareness of homeless vets), the St. Petersburg Times (editorial commentary-Letter to President Bush), the Wall Street Journal (Government Gives Few Contracts To Disabled Vets), CNN (Vets say visits restricted to U.S. wounded), the AP wire services (Wounded "Held Captive" at Walter Reed, Disabled Vets Fire Back at Rumsfeld), The New York Times (Bush's Budget for 2005 Seeks to Rein In Domestic Costs).

All of these reports deal with some of THESE issues that Bush and his cronies have failed so miserbly at, like the Presidents budget for example!

The Presidents budget proposes new increases in the cost of veterans' health care .

Fails to provide meaningful investment in veterans' health care.

Slashes funding for long-term care for America's veterans.

Refuses to end the Disabled Veterans' Tax.

Does not end the Survivor Benefits Tax.

Fails to expedite disability claims and threatens all veterans' benefits.

Cuts 50,000 VA home loans.

Cuts in medical and prosthetic research.

Fails to meet the growing needs of health services for Gulf War & Iraqi veterans .

*********************
All the above is substantiated and verified by the Military Service Organizations (DAV, VFW, AMVETS, American Legion, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, etc., etc.) and the newspapers and news organizations mentioned!

How anyone could try to "gloss over" a despicable, horrendous and SHAMEFUL record of deceit, and broken promises with comments like, "Has there been any increase in the budget for the VA during the Bush administration ? " And, "Has there been any additional benefits accorded to retired and disabled or partially disabled retirees? " is well beyond the bounds and limits of truly describing and cataloging the injustices and contempt the Bush Administration have been guilty of in the past three years!

Considering the degree and depth of severity for the failures to even come CLOSE to keeping their "promises", and the few "bones" they have thrown out to try and appease the Veterans of this country, we should not even warrant them any hope at all to continue their indisputable record of cruelty and inhumane treatment towards us!

[SuperScout]

Contrary to your "cut-and-paste" prowess, which is simply obfuscation, a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the simple questions would have sufficed. And then let me add another simple question: What did the Democrat party do during the previous 40 years when they were in power, and almost total control over the budgetary process and approval procedure? Truth be told, it has been a bipartisan failure to effectively deal with the issues that surround veterans. A simple partisan activity of returning the other party to power holds no guarantee of any solutions; what is truly required is a major restructuring of the mindset of how benefits, and what benefits are to be provided. To continue to empower the current VA system of care (?), with its bloated bureaucracy, fraud, waste and abuse, frequently inept care providers, and total lack of accoutability is simply perpetuating an inadequate system.

[Gimpy]

Originally posted by SuperScout A simple partisan activity of returning the other party to power holds no guarantee of any solutions;

You want a "simple answer?

I got one for ya.

The indisputable, irrefutable, undeniable evidence listed in no less than the Congressional Record PROVES WITHOUT A DOUBT that during the PAST TEN (10) YEARS, the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of DEMOCRATS voted FOR measures and funding to solve these problems..while on the other hand the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of REPUBLICANS voted AGAINST THEM!

And.......the last three budgets appoved or proposed by Bush and Company proves the republicans could give-a-$hit about us as well!

As far as the "past 40 years" of Democratic control..........no, it's not a record they should be proud of either..........But, their "record" of improvements in health & benefits for Veterans FAR OUTWEIGHS anything that the Republicans have demonstrated in the past TEN (10)!

[SuperScout]

Are you sure you're not a lawyer? I ask for a simple "yes" or "no" answer, and I get more obfuscation, rhetorical bombast and baloney. Objection! Relevance! Sustained!

[Gimpy]

can "object" all you want.

There is PLENTY of "relevance" that is "sustained" by the evidence I've posted.

You GOT your answer.................you just can't answer MINE! :D

[BLUEHAWK]

Congress approves all budgets...

Repeat...

C O N G R E S S approves ALL budgets.

ALL budgets, for EVERYTHING.

[Gimpy]

The Congress is majority controlled by WHO?

THE REPUBLICANS!

And WHO is the great leader of that "party in power" that submits a "budget" to Congress for their approval?

George Walker Bush!----------That's WHO?

And which "party" has tried time, after time, after time to INCREASE the $$$$$ in that budget to help sick & disabled veterans?

The DEMOCRATS!

Only to be "shot down" and refused by the REPUBLICANS in the majority...............usually under THREAT of "veto" by the WHITEHOUSE (ie: GWB)!

FACTS-----FACTS, undisputed, irrefutable, undeniable FACTS!

No way to get around those FACTS!, HUH?? ;)

[BLUEHAWK]

Herding cats, in either case :D

[MORTARDUDE]

I think having to wait six months for an appt. sucks. Anyone who says this is fine is wrong. Just IMHO.

Larry

[SuperScout]

I can understand the angst and other emotions concerning any waiting period for an appointment with the VA. To ascribe that delay to any president is childish and specious, when in fact, the problem is systemic. At its current stumbling, mumbling rate of inefficiency, ineptitude and mismanagement, there is not enough money in the entire world to adequately fund the VA so that it could provide the care we deserve. The VA, like Social Security, Medicare, and other bloated bureacracies, are really sacred cows long overdue being led to the slaughterhouse of reform and change.

A footnote of History: for 40 years, the Democrat party had control, stranglehold, if you will, over all things coming and going out of DC. If they really cared about veterans they could have set up a system that would have given us our due, but alas, they had other more important things to do, but for the life of me, I can't think of anything they did.

Here's a little tidbit to brighten your day:
Little David was in his 5th grade class when the teacher asked the children what their fathers did for a living. All the typical answers came up -- fireman, policeman, salesman, doctor, lawyer, etc.

David was being uncharacteristically quiet and so the teacher asked him about his father.

"My father's an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes in front of other men. Sometimes, if the offer's really good, he'll go out to the alley with some guy and make love with him for money."

The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other children to work on some exercises and took little David aside to ask him, "Is that really true about your father?"

"No," said David, "He works for the Kerry campaign, but I was too embarrassed to say that in front of the other kids."

[Gimpy]

for Larry.

But, I think you're little "tale" is DISGUSTING!

Typical behavior from the far radical right.

BTW...............the VA medical centers are WORLD RENOWNED for their "expertise" in many, many fields of "specialized medicene & treatment" and have been operating FINE before Bush & company took over!

The GAO and several private organizations such as the AMA, PMA and others have concluded that IF the "private sector" were left to handle and treat the sick & military veterans of this country...........it would be nothing short of a DISASTER!

And, the democratic party in their, "40 years" of "control" as you call it..................DID have a great deal to do with the advancements seen in treatment and care for these veterans and their families. Not to say the couldn't have done MORE, sure they could have.

But, and there is absolutely NO WAY you can deny this, the Republicans in the past 10 years have done MORE to undermine, underfund and make things WORSE than anything the Democrats have done , or NOT done in the past 40!

The votes in Congress in the Congressional record PROVE this!

[reconeil]

So much rhetoric used is to be expected, since quite typical of politicos to answer so many questions never even brought up, even if never answering the very first question (the norm, since usually CAN'T favorably, and thusly JUST WON'T ANSWER). Therefore, there's really no point asking again what better would Kerry and clique be for Veterans, than Bush and clique. So, I'll simply deal with what I know to be a mathematical fact.

I personally know a 10% (the lowest percentage there is) Service Connected Disabled American Veteran, receiving a monthy check. He confided to me that his very small Monthly Disability Check would usually (yearly or so?) be increased by 2-3 dollars, until Clinton and Dems held the purse string for 8 years. Any increases during that time became 1 dollar and/or like no such low increases he had ever seen before.

Then, along came Bush,...and Voila, and just like magic, his 3-4(?) dollar increases miraculously came back. So, wouldn't my Veteran Friend be quite stupid to vote for Kerry and Democrats,...just so he might again start getting 1 dollar increases again and/or so that Democrats might have more money for their friends instead,...and at the expense of The Veteran?

That's what Democratic Math for Veterans teaches me about chump-change, and that for big bucks it would undoubtedly be worse. The only reasons Dems now make outrageous proposals for ANY monies for ANYONE even though knowing the figures won't fly and are out of the question,...are solely to make The Reps look bad, and since being in control now they must bring the outrageous numbers down. When Dems have control,...it becomes a whole different story.

Hey,...it's a given that Dems always want more of THE PEOPLE'S MONEY in general anyway. So, how-the-hell could any Veteran honestly believe that Kerry and Dems would do A Total 180 about money,...just for The Veterans? It just doesn't compute,...WHATSOEVER. Unless one is: "Connected"?

Neil :d: :b:

[reconeil]

Do you think I'm being too overly critical of the quite suspect of intent and credibility: "Friends on the other side of The Aisle", as many hypocritical politicos hating the other guy's guts, often and quite politically-correctly say?

I honestly don't think it should be a-big-deal to get a straight answer from ANYONE? Am I just being dinosauric and/or old fashioned and just expecting to much? I don't think so,...unless the other person simply has something to hide, or is often embarrased about answers that usually make His Party (ABOVE ALL ELSE) LOOK BAD and/or QUITE DECEPTIVE for political gain (ABOVE ALL ELSE).

Besdes, what do you think about people, especially those most always feigning to be open and aboveboard,...that simply won't answer any question that might show "Them" in an unfavorable light? I don't think too highly of SUCH,...much less the thought of having SUCH political (ABOVE ALL ELSE) zealots and fanatical followers lead me and Country down The Garden Path TO OBLIVION. Hell,...The People deserve much better than that kind of political B.S., anyway. Don't you think?

Hey SS,...just a thought.

Neil

[Gimpy]

here my rhetoric shouting, information challenged, unable to accept the F-A-C-T-S friend.

Your so-called "personal knowledge" of a "10% service-disabled aquaintence" of which has passed on bull...t to you is of absolutely NO CONSEQUENCE in this arguement. He (and YOU) are DEAD WRONG!

The evidence I've placed upon THIS forum and others that shows without a DOUBT the Republicans and GEE-W have FAILED the VETERANS of this country, refutes and destroys ANY crediblity that your "10% service-disabled vet" may have tried to convince you otherwise.

I have SHOWN you the evidence...........it's ALL in the Congressional Record AND in the "archives" of ALL the Military Service Organizations web sites and documents!

No amount of subterfuge and rhetorical horsecrap can DENY these absolute F-A-C-T-S! :d: :d:

BTW........They (GW & his Repub cronies) just got through "screwing" us AGAIN!

*****

We got SCREWED again by the Republicans! This is becoming SOP for these jerks!

###

CONGRESS PASSES @.$2 TRILLION BUDGET

AP Wire Services
By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Republicans muscled a $2.41 trillion budget through the House on Thursday that sets up a clash over a Senate-passed plan to make it harder for Congress to approve President Bush (news - web sites)'s tax cuts.


The House measure largely embraces Bush's budget proposal, but recasts it in acknowledgment of the record federal deficits that Republicans worry may haunt them in November's elections. The GOP plan pinches Bush's tax reductions and spending proposals and accelerates his goal of halving deficits in five years.

But taking a stand for a Republican priority, the House budget ignores efforts by Democrats and moderate GOP lawmakers to make it harder for Congress to enact future tax cuts without paying for them. The Senate included such a plan in the budget it approved two weeks ago, over the opposition of the White House and its own Republican leadership.

After overcoming disaffection by some GOP deficit hawks and veterans advocates , majority Republicans pushed their fiscal outline for 2005 through the House by a mostly party-line vote of 215-212.

Republicans said the public wants government to spend federal dollars more wisely without turning to tax increases.
"We're going nowhere but up," said House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, the plan's main author, who cited the rapid economic growth of recent months. "Quit blaming tax cuts for all the problems in the world," said Nussle, R-Iowa.

Democrats chastised the GOP for repeatedly pushing tax cuts through Congress even as the four-year string of annual surpluses that preceded Bush's presidency evolved into record deficits now approaching $500 billion.


For Democrats, that budget gap has become a political surrogate for the lack of jobs afflicting the U.S. economy.
"If the current plan we've been under for three years is such a huge success, why are we broke?" said Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark. "Why are there no jobs? Why are we going deeper and deeper in debt?"

Earlier, the House rejected three Democratic alternatives that would have erased already enacted tax cuts for the richest Americans and plowed the money into deficit reduction and programs for schools, veterans' health care and others.

A budget by the Congressional Black Caucus (news - web sites) was defeated 302-119; one by conservative Democrats lost 243-183. A proposal by Democratic leaders that claimed to reach balance by 2012 fell short by 232-194.

Also turned aside 309-116 was a plan by conservative Republicans that mapped sharper spending cuts and quicker deficit reduction than the main GOP plan.

Congress' budget does not become law, but sets limits on tax and spending bills to follow.
Its enactment also provides procedural protections that could make it easier for the Senate to approve tax cuts this year and for the House to avoid a direct vote on a needed ? but politically embarrassing for Republicans ? increase in the government's $7.4 trillion debt limit.

The budget the Senate approved earlier this month requires future tax cuts or benefit expansions to be paid for with tax increases or spending cuts.

House leaders, adamant about protecting future tax reductions, omitted similar language from their budget. This angered deficit-hawk Republicans, who want the process to at least apply to expenditures. Top Republicans have talked about a House vote this spring on a separate bill requiring spending cuts to pay for any benefit increases.

Some Republicans also complained that the budget lacked enough money for veterans. It proposes $30.7 billion for veterans' services, mostly for health care. That is $1.2 billion more than Bush proposed but short of what some lawmakers wanted by an additional $1.2 billion.

Underscoring the growing Republican concern over the political price they may pay for deficits, the House plan claims to cut this year's projected $477 billion deficit in half by 2008, a year earlier than Bush claimed to do the same.

Even so, the smallest deficit over the budget's five-year projections would be $234 billion. Like the similar plans by Bush and the Senate, much of the reductions come not from specific budget savings but from assuming that a growing economy will produce more federal revenue.

The House plan pares Bush's proposed $181 billion in five-year tax cuts to $138 billion, but ignores his call to make permanent tax reductions expiring at the end of the decade. It also slices 0.5 percent off his planned 10 percent boost for anti-terrorism programs at home.

While it provides the full 7 percent increase Bush wanted for defense, to $418 billion, it holds domestic agencies to $369 billion, the same as last year and $1.3 billion less than Bush sought.

It proposes $13 billion in five-year savings from benefit programs that could include Medicaid. While that is a relatively small figure, it puts Republicans in the position of advocating savings from politically sensitive programs.

###

:d: :d: :d: :d: :d: :d: :cd:

[reconeil]

Gimpy, Gimpy, Gimpy,...you can fluster and bluster all you like. After all, no one would expect anything less than tantrums from Libs/Dems not having their way...TOTALLY. It must be inate?

Still,...wouldn't it be so much easier and less time consuming to just say what you believe Kerry and clique would do better for Disabled American Veterans,...rather than just flustering and blustering on sheets of typing. Damn-Man. You must love to type. I hate to.

Neil :d: :b:

P.S. Gimpy, and Re. "Credibility":
The increases mentioned regarding Disability Check Increases were Gospel (Man/Bank keeps good records) . Plus, ANY stating differently are actually the ones having very low "Credibility", or just don't know how to add or compare increases well.

[SuperScout]

Here I come to save the day: Gimpy started out in life as a real slow typer, usually hunting and pecking for the right, er,,, the correct key. He ultimately became known as a Huntin'Pecker typist, kinda reminding me of a girl from my old high school. But when he tired of huntin pecker, he became a cut'n'paster. In fact, he's getting so good we soon be authorized to call him a MasterPaster. :D

All this blather about deficits - when the Democrats were spending madly, they culdn't even spell deficit, much less know how to deal with it. And the deficit that occurred during the LBJ years? Anybody curious about what happened to it? It went the same way as all other deficits have - poof! Growth of the economy, and with it increases in revenue for the government, will make the deficit disappear faster than the effect of botox on Kerry's forehead. Now, the libs think that you can tax yourself out of a deficit, a pattern of logic akin to screwing for virginity. No nation, government, or any othe political entity has ever taxed themselves into prosperity.

[Gimpy]

Originally posted by reconeil

P.S. Gimpy, and Re. "Credibility":
The increases mentioned regarding Disability Check Increases were Gospel (Man/Bank keeps good records) . Plus, ANY stating differently are actually the ones having very low "Credibility", or just don't know how to add or compare increases well.

Like I said before.........................."Credibilty" is on the PUBLIC record as stated in the Congressional record. You, and others like you are just either afraid to admit it or don't have the intestinal fortitude to admit it! My "facts" are there for the ENTIRE public to view and determine WHO is "credible" or not..........are YOURS?

Now, as for the supersnickers little "story telling" fiasco. Wasn't that CUTE?

Don't you (Super) tire of your childish and feeble, backbiting, infantile diatribes of abusive narrow-minded attempts to show prolonged behavioral tendencies that continue to cause a further degradation of your already somewhat perverted and indifferent conduct and reputation that demeans and impunes the character of others around here? Don't you think it's time to "grow up"!

You can't seem to "win" any "points" in the arguements you choose to involve yourself in without attempting to virtually degrade, demean and assasinate anothers character. This must be some sort of radical "right-wing" phenomenon exclusive to those who have extreme difficulty in understanding the bounds of overt rudeness and condescending, vulgar behavior? It appears very, very frequently with most folks that choose to "debate" as you do, are you aware of that? Just check out the "debate" tactics of Rush Limabeanburger, Sean Hannity, Neil Boortz, Bill O'Reiley and others like you.

Anyway.........................you STILL haven't adequately "defended" the "record" of the republicans and GEE-W that I've been so glad to continue to post? And....will CONTINUE to do so as long as I can get another breath my friend?

Have a NICE day! :D

[skeeter]

reconeil;

I'm concerned about your health.. You have used the word "politicos" three times in a ten word sentence.
So I recomend that you take four or five pills for your constipation and get that out of your system.

[reconeil]

Thanks for the suggestion. Didn't know it was that easy to get rid of all the foul: "Politicos" and/or worthless political turds out of my system,...just by taking a few pills? Normally a few(?) Moulsons does the trick. :D :D :D

Maybe you also have some helpful hint on how I can overcome the stench that often accompanies such foul: "Politicos and/or worthless political turdsl? That too would be greatly appreciated. :D :D :D

Neil

[skeeter]

Neil;

Now you have done it, see how easy it is to get rid of all that hostility.

You just admitted to it, that "politicos and/or worthless political turds" are to blame. Does that really include "demorcats & republicians" you are calling turds.?

I'm pleased to read you finally know the "politicos" republicians can be as corrupt and dangerous as the other side.

[reconeil]

Nope. I was just alluding to the: "demorcrats" and/or any fanatically self-righteous cliques, which one cannot distinguish from The French, Germans, Russians or UN turds,...except for having different accents.

Besides, how-the-hell could I ever go along with such zealots that would put me and mine and All Americans at more risk than should ever need be,...JUST FOR A LOUSY VOTE. Then too, Mama raised no idiots,...much less any easily duped and obedient political followers.

Hope I answered your question satifactorilly. :D

Neil ;)

[SuperScout]

Go back and review allyour posts, and memorize all the name-calling you have done in trying to describe Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, myself, and othe rothers that you have a difference with. Your hypocrisy is showing again, not surprisingly. I might suggest that you strive diligently to acquire a sense of humor, in order to extend your life.

[Gimpy]

Gimmie a freakin break!

That "name-calling" was the "old" Gimpy... :md:

This is the "new", and "improved" Gimpy... :D

You should try it sometime... :D

And, by the way.......If you'll check YOUR "history" of "name-calling" and especially other narrow-minded, infantile, somewhat perverted, vulgar attempts to demean the character of whomever you are "debating" with, it seems to always end up eventually using some sort of obscene innuendos of vulgar, overt, improper sexual behavior!

Is that another "phenomenon" exclusive to those of the radical right-wing persuasion?? Evidently so, since you and the "other" fellows I mentioned before seem to always return to that "tactic"!

You know what most psychologists and psychiatrists have to say about that type of behavior which frequently lends itself to overt, vulgarity involving sexual innuendo don't you??

Well, maybe I'll let you look that one up for yourself? OK? :D

That "humorous" enough for ya? :D

PS:........You STILL haven't answered my charges from "Well...........it's time to set the "record"straight!"...and "Indignities Endured by U.S. Military Veterans A NEWS ANALYSIS" which were in the first portion of this thread. Hmmmmmmmmmm, I wonder WHY?

[skeeter]

reconeil;

May I have the opportunity to ask you your thoughts on this?

In your life time, you may have had the chance to see this item that is on a head harness, more often called a bridle. Farmers used this item, when they had horses and mules to plow their fields, gardens. and such. It was called "blinders" to keep the horse, or mule from going in another direction..

With you having such "blinders" that you cannot see outside the rim of the God Almighty Republician party, you have missed a lot of facts on bad Republicans, and the good Democrats.

I can except the fact, there are bad Democrats/Republicians, and good Republicians/Democrats.. I look at the human side and not the political side.

[BLUEHAWK]

Let us get in touch with ourselves....

Warriors deal with what IS... not what we/they/us/them/those/somebody/it/he/she/ wish it to be.

Let us now deal with what IS... we'll work out the details later fellas :D :a:

The enemy ain't too proud to watch us conlfate and ignoramus ourselves over mere party loyalty... whilst they do their best to destroy us, and all freedom loving people.

Rule A: Stick with the CINC in time of war (even if his name was Clinton).

Rule B: Improvise and survive, for the sake of our people whom we serve.

Rule C: Attack the enemy at his/her most vulnerable point.

Rule D: Never ever depend upon politicians to know what we are about to face in the line and order of battle.

Rule E: To thine own self be true.