Troops Deserve More Than Bumper Sticker Support

[RetiredGySgt]

SO LETS HEAR NO MORE BULLSHIT ABOUT BUSH CUTTING THE BUDGET FOR VETERANS AFFAIRS......

Facts do not matter to Liars, idiots or democrats.

 

[jillian]

Facts do not matter to Liars, idiots or democrats.

How about to people who are intentionally obtuse?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How about to people who are intentionally obtuse?

You mean like you? Claiming that not authorizing an increase as high as YOU want is a cut is ignorant at best, though I gave you the benefit of the doubt and let you admit it might just be politics at work.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

2007 and 2008 are estimates and don't count.

Now tell me how many more troops have been deployed and are in need of assistance and care since 2003 and break itdown per capita. Would you say there's a 70% increase in troops being deployed to war zones and being wounded, or would you say they're in the multiple hundreds of percentages.

You're still missing the point.

If they are estimates and thus do not count, your claim that Bush will freeze the budget in 2009 and later are not even estimates since he won't even be President then, now are they?

 

[Foxfyre]

If they are estimates and thus do not count, your claim that Bush will freeze the budget in 2009 and later are not even estimates since he won't even be President then, now are they?

Overwhelming evidence has been posted, with no credible evidence offered to dispute it, that veterans benefits have increased impressively during the Bush administration. But the leftwing blogs and partisan media sources continue to perpetuate the myth that Bush cut veterans benefits. And those who take their marching orders from those sources distribute that same garbage here.

Why would they do this? I have to speculate that a) they are so full of hate that they don't care whether the venom they spew is the truth and/or b) they are trying to wrest the loyalty of our military away from Bush; and/or c) liberalism is the primary factor in reading disorders.

Footnote: It has been awhile since I looked at it, but I believe the record will show that most Democrats voted against all those budgets. Using the kind of logic they use to analyze these things, could we extrapolate their votes to say that Democrats oppose increasing veteran's benefits?

Anyway the Democrats have the votes to control the budget now. Lets see how well they do for the Veterans.

 

[Psychoblues]

As a liar and a representative of the Republican Warmongers, is it also your position to represent the idiots?

Facts do not matter to Liars, idiots or democrats.

As a democratically minded American I think I can safely say that Americans are more than hungy for facts. Why is your party so secretive?

 

[Annie]

Kathianne, um the CBS story also demonstrated that veterans suicide rates are up overall. Regardless of gender shouldn't the Bush Administration even pretend to care about that and increase funding for suicide prevention. Like...how are you fighting this?

Actually catch up is happening:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/1119200...mnists/cbs_bogus_vet_suicide_stats_262041.htm

CBS' BOGUS VET-SUICIDE STATS

By MICHAEL FUMENTO

November 19, 2007 -- THERE'S "startling" and "stunning" news of a "hidden epidemic" of veteran suicides. So claimed CBS News in two reports last week.

Most of the airtime went for heart-rending interviews with wives of vets who had killed themselves. But CBS also provided statistics that it said showed that "veterans were more than twice as likely to commit suicide in 2005 than non-vets."

Problem is, we have absolutely no way of verifying the CBS data nor how the network claims it collected the info. CBS News admits to collecting the data itself, rather than relying on an independent outside party. It also concedes its rate is "much higher" than that in an uncompleted Department of Veterans Affairs study.

So somebody isn't telling the truth. And the evidence is overwhelming that it's CBS.

One hint of an agenda is the two "veterans' activists" CBS interviewed for the segments - hardly disinterested parties. One is also very much an antiwar activist, a fact that CBS failed to disclose. In all, the networks stacked three commentators hyping its claims against one (from the VA) questioning them.

But the most devastating evidence of the network's nefariousness lies in out- side studies, both individually and combined. For example, CBS put special emphasis on vets of the current wars.

"One age group stood out," it said: "veterans age 20 through 24, those who have served during the War on Terror. They had the highest suicide rate among all veterans, estimated between two and four times higher than civilians the same age."

CBS said the suicide rate of these young vets was 22.9 to 31.9 per 100,000 people.

Which looks very strange next to the data on active-duty soldiers in the War on Terror. Last month, the Army released a report finding that the suicide rate among these GIs in 2006 was 17.3 per 100,000 troops - rather lower than CBS's rate for veterans. Why would soldiers who were recently on active duty be killing themselves at a much higher rate than those still serving?

More important still, the Army study corrected for some key demographic facts - notably, that the military is largely male and that men are much likelier to commit suicide than women are. Among civilians who match the overall age, gender and race profile of the U.S. Army, the suicide rate was 19 per 100,000 - higher than for the troops....

 

[Psychoblues]

So,,,,,now that will lbe the excuse/excuses for the blind that encourage the insightful to follow them?

Why am I not surprised?!?!?!?!?!?!?!