The "WAR" president????

[Gimpy]

This "War President" Betrays America's Veterans

A WWII Veteran's Opinion

Bernard Feder served in the 11th Airborne Division during World War II. He lives in Gainesville, Florida.

Almost a year ago the Army Times criticized the Bush administration for the disparity between the President's rhetoric about supporting the troops and the reality of the administration's policies. While the administration has been remarkably generous in its dealings with war contractors and big business in general, it has been equally stingy in its dealings with the young men and women who have volunteered to serve the nation.

The administration proposed to curb the skyrocketing costs of the Iraqi campaign and occupation by cutting support for the troops. It resisted attempts to ease tax residency rules for military personnel sent overseas and called congressional proposals to raise the $6,000 gratuity paid to the families of servicemen killed on active duty "wasteful and unnecessary." It fought to roll back modest increases for hazardous duty pay and for family separation allowances.

Now, the recently expanded "stop-loss" policy of the armed services freezes the release of troops who are scheduled for rotation or discharge, a policy described by some of the troops as "a form of slavery." When the Pentagon learned of CBS's plans to interview soldiers for a "60 Minutes" segment on this plan for "extended tours," it called the idea "dangerous" and tried to control the selection of those to be interviewed.

Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker has made it clear that the policy rests on two considerations: a philosophical commitment to a "lean and mean" high-tech army and the desire to save money. Schoomaker estimates that it costs the army $3.6 billion a year for 10,000 replacements in personnel costs and training. Anyhow, he told an interviewer, soldiers are expected to make sacrifices.

Apparently, comparable sacrifices are not expected of the well-placed. It is noteworthy that none of the children of the key members of the administration are in the service. And the idea of trimming some of the massive tax cuts for the wealthy was never seriously considered. A proposal to criminalize overcharges by war contractors was recently defeated in Congress by a party line vote. Involuntary military service by patriotic young Americans seems to be the tactic of choice for reducing costs.

It is interesting to see the same pattern now in terms of support for veterans. Interviewed by Tom Brokaw on the anniversary of D-day, President Bush, with an air of solemn sincerity, said, "I hope Americans never forget the sacrifices that these men made." How has this sentiment translated into presidential behavior? The administration's policy seems to be based on the notion that it is a waste to spend money on military personnel who are of no immediate value ? remember the administration's plan to charge wounded soldiers for their meals in Army hospitals? (Is this for real?!) It was abandoned only after a public outcry?

Bush's re-election campaign points to a 40 percent increase in veterans' health care spending since he took office. But veterans organizations point out that the increases haven't translated into better care because they have not kept pace with the ballooning growth in enrollment and the skyrocketing cost of health care. So, the Bush administrations claims actually translate to just so much more "rhetoric".

One glance behind the rhetoric: On the same January day that Bush visited Walter Reed Hospital for a photo-op with wounded soldiers, 164,000 veterans were cut off from the VA health care system.

The administration vigorously opposes mandatory funding for VA health care. Bush's fiscal 2005 budget calls for an annual user fee of $250 for veterans who don't have service-connected disabilities, and a doubling in the drug co-payment, which had already quadrupled in the last two to three years. Only veterans with the most severe service-connected disabilities would have access to VA nursing homes.

The Bush administration, which has no problem with huge cost overruns by war contractors ? ever hear of a military project that came in at or below estimate? ? opposes the Retired Pay Restoration Act. This act would abolish the "disabled veterans tax" that reduces retirement benefits on a dollar-for-dollar basis for veterans who receive disability benefits. And while it supports huge tax cuts for the wealthy, the administration sees this law, supported by 84 percent of Congress, as a "budget buster."

The self-styled "war president" may exhort Americans to remember the sacrifices of our veterans, but his behavior betrays them.

###END###

[grunt66]

I cannot say that I always agree with President Bush but he is there & making decisions . I cannot equate disaggreement with
" treason" . But then I am too old to get all inflamed over politics .

[Gimpy]

I'll just have to agree with the author, Mr. feder!