Bush - AWOL from Supporting our Troops
This is from a decidedly anti-Bush website. On the front page is a list of actions that show just how truly supportive the current administration and their Repblican allies really are. While they make claims that any dissent about the war "sends mixed signals to the troops" (who apparently have no minds of their own, and must be protected from all but pro-war sentiment), just what kind of signal does this list appear to send to them?
(There are brief explanations under each of those items. The rest of the site just rambles on about Bushs' questionable military service.)
Talk about sending mixed signals. What I'd like to know is, just how is cutting funding for actual support for the troops, both in regards to financially supporting them and their families, as well as saving money by sending an ill-equipt, and way too small a force, off to war, supporting the troops? We all know that had a sizable enough force been sent in the first place (with proper equipment), it could've restored order to Iraq much sooner, and cost far less American and Iraqi lives. Even one of their own, John McCain, recently suggested rising the level of troop deployment to Iraq, because as a veteran himself, he knows full well that that an insufficiant force can lead to disaster. Too bad it's too little, and way too late.
Questioning the war is anti-American, confusing to the troops, immoral, and giving aide to terrorists, but underfunding is ok? Make no mistake, they aren't trying to save money because they're fiscally responsible. On the contrary, they're just as tax-and-spend as the Democrats, with the only difference being who gets taxed, and who gets to benefit. What incredible hypocracy.
Link
* Bush Administration cuts $1.5 billion from military family housing.
*Bush Republicans support millionaires instead of military veterans.
*Bush Administration underfunded veterans' health care by $2 billion.
*Bush Administration proposal would end health care benefits for 173,000 veterans.
*Bush Administration budget cuts force more than 200,000 veterans to wait for health care.
*Bush Administration opposed plan to give National Guard and Reserve Members access to health insurance.
*Bush Administration cuts $172 million allotted for educating the children of military personnel.
*Bush Administration tax cut denies military families increase in child tax credit.
(There are brief explanations under each of those items. The rest of the site just rambles on about Bushs' questionable military service.)
Talk about sending mixed signals. What I'd like to know is, just how is cutting funding for actual support for the troops, both in regards to financially supporting them and their families, as well as saving money by sending an ill-equipt, and way too small a force, off to war, supporting the troops? We all know that had a sizable enough force been sent in the first place (with proper equipment), it could've restored order to Iraq much sooner, and cost far less American and Iraqi lives. Even one of their own, John McCain, recently suggested rising the level of troop deployment to Iraq, because as a veteran himself, he knows full well that that an insufficiant force can lead to disaster. Too bad it's too little, and way too late.
Questioning the war is anti-American, confusing to the troops, immoral, and giving aide to terrorists, but underfunding is ok? Make no mistake, they aren't trying to save money because they're fiscally responsible. On the contrary, they're just as tax-and-spend as the Democrats, with the only difference being who gets taxed, and who gets to benefit. What incredible hypocracy.
posted by Fred | 11/19/2005 08:06:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home