SwiftVets.com

[Hesiod]

SENDING TROOPS INTO COMBAT WITHOUT PROTECTION: At the same time the president pushed trillions in new tax cuts and sent troops into battle, he failed to provide soldiers with adequate body armor and reinforced Humvees. Even this year, the White House has not requested funding to immediately plug serious funding gaps for armor, helmets and other protective equipment needed by military commanders. And the consequences have been severe: According to Newsweek, a new study circulating in the Army says the lack of equipment may have contributed to one out of every four American casualties in Iraq.

http://www.armytimes.com/TOP

http://slate.msn.com/id/2095705/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28903-2004Apr20.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4825948/

CUTTING TROOP PAY & MISTREATING THEM DURING WAR: In January 2003, as the White House pushed the nation to war, the president visited troops preparing for battle and told them "I want to make sure that our soldiers have the best possible pay." Only months later as troops were fighting in Iraq, the White House announced plans to "roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones." The Army Times quickly ran an editorial entitled "Nothing But Lipservice" calling the White House actions an "indignity" at "a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq." Meanwhile, in Iraq, instead of working to provide the troops with the best possible facilities, the White House continues to give no-bid contracts to Vice President Cheney's former company Halliburton, even as the company has been admonished for feeding troops unsanitary food.

http://www.armytimes.com/archivepaper.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-1954515.php

http://www.armytimes.com/archivepaper.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-1954515.php

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121903D.shtml

THANKING TROOPS, CUTTING THEIR HEALTH CARE: In October 2003, the President told troops "I want to thank you for your willingness to heed that important call, and I want to thank your families. I want to thank your sons, daughters, husbands and wives who share in your sacrifice, who are willing to sacrifice for our country." Two weeks later, the White House announced it was "formally opposing a proposal to give National Guard and Reserve members access to the Pentagon's health insurance system" even though "a recent General Accounting Office report estimated that one out of every five Guard members has no health insurance at all."

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=national&story_id=102403a17_guardhealth

TAX CUTS WHILE CUTTING HOUSING FOR TROOPS: Last year, only a month before the president sent troops into combat in Iraq, the White House proposed cutting $1.5 billion out of funding for military housing. The proposed cut came even as top conservatives on the House Armed Services Committee concluded that thousands of military families were living "in decrepit and dilapidated military housing." In response, progressive lawmakers offered an amendment to restore $1 billion in funding. The amendment would be paid for by slightly reducing the new tax cuts the president was proposing to give to the 200,000 Americans making more than $1 million. Instead of receiving a tax cut of $88,000, these millionaires would receive a tax cut of $83,000. With White House backing, House conservatives voted the legislation down.

http://federaltimes.com/index.php?S=869846

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/ObeyViewsMilCon.htm

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=15165

BULLYING TROOPS, WHILE REFUSING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY: The White House has repeatedly tried to bully and intimidate troops. When Sgt. Felipe Vega and Spc. Clinton Deitz admitted their disappointment in the Pentagon for misleading them about how long they would be in Iraq, they were threatened with a court martial. When Sgt. Georg Andreas Pogany had a panic attack while being shot at in Iraq, he too was court martialed. When Sgt. Samuel Provance acknowledged prisoner abuse in Iraq and admitted the complicity of higher ups in the administration, he was "disciplined by the military and stripped of his security clearance." Meanwhile, the White House has yet to hold any of its political appointees accountable for policies that "opened the door" to the abuse in the first place."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq030716_Abizaid.html

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/06/1068013327416.html?from=storyrhs

http://www.wxii12.com/news/3347636/detail.html

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4989422/

[Grampa]

#1 This is a logistics issue, not a presidential decision issue. Nice try to pin it on the CINC.

#2 The increase in those benefits was due to expire and Rumsfeld wanted to change the way the benefits were paid. But. predicably, Democrats, who haven't support the military much at all, except during election years, spun it into a Bash Bush issue. The point is moot anyways as the increases are now permanent. Army Times editorials are not news articles. They are opinion.

#3 So, you think part time workers should get fulltime health benefits? This was a socialist attempt to expand Government health care benefits using "support for the troops" . When part time troops are activated and sent into a war zone, they receive ALL the benefits of active duty troops and all the VA benefits for Combat veterans.

#4 Since when do Liberals and leftists give two turds about Military housing and the troops at all? 8 years of Clinton military base closures and budgets cuts have left the Military short. I would think with the current phony lib fad for a balanced budget, they might approve of military cuts. One may agree or disagree, but it hardly makes Bush evil; certainly it puts him on a par with the liberal hypocrits who are criticizing him for doing what they have done everytime they are in charge of the Military.

#5 Fatuous lie. The White House had nothing to do with any of those cases. Those actions, right or wrong, were initiated by local Commanders in the field.
_________________
Iraqi Freedom 2003-2004. We won't take any of that 1960s crap when We come home!

[Hesiod]

[sparky]

May 28, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration has told officials who oversee federal education, domestic security, veterans and other programs to prepare preliminary 2006 budgets that would cut spending after the presidential election, according to White House documents.

The programs facing reduction-- should President Bush be re-elected in November-- would also include the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department.

Many of the targeted programs are widely popular. Cuts could carry a political price for a president who has touted his support for schools, the environment and other domestic initiatives.

A spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget said the documents, obtained by The Associated Press, contained routine procedural guidelines so officials could start gathering data about their needs for 2006.

Decisions about spending levels "won't be made for months,'' said the spokesman, J.T. Young. "It doesn't mean we won't adequately fund our priorities.''

Democrats said the papers showed the pressures that a string of tax cuts Bush has won from Congress have heaped onto the rest of the budget.

"The only way we can even begin to pay for these huge tax cuts is by imposing cuts on critical government services,'' said Thomas Kahn, Democratic staff director of the House Budget Committee.

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., in a teleconference set up by Democratic presidential contender John Kerry's campaign, called it the end of an administration "hide the ball'' budget strategy.

"The ball is now out for everyone to see,'' Graham said. ``The only thing that's left in place is the part of the ball that is labeled 'tax cuts for my rich friends.'''

A May 19 memorandum from the White House budget office to agencies said they should assume 2006 spending levels specified in an internal administration database that accompanied the 2005 budget that Bush proposed in February. The government's 2006 budget year begins Oct. 1, 2005.

"If you propose to increase funding above that level for any account, it must be offset within your agency'' by cuts in other accounts ``so that, in total, your request does not exceed the 2006 level assumed for the agency,'' the memo read in part.

The memorandum and portions of the internal database were obtained by The Associated Press from congressional officials who requested anonymity. The officials read other portions of the database to a reporter.

Congress is just beginning to consider the 2005 federal budget, which will total about $2.4 trillion. About two-thirds of it covers automatically paid benefits like Social Security, and the remainder-- which Congress must approve annually-- covers agency spending.

According to the database, that one-third of the budget would grow from the $821 billion Bush requested for 2005 to $843 billion in 2006, or about 2.7 percent.

But that includes defense and foreign aid spending, which are both slated for increases due in part to wars and the battle against terrorism.

The remaining amount-- for domestic spending-- would drop from $368.7 billion in 2005 to $366.3 billion in 2006. Though that reduction would be just 0.7 percent, it does not take into account inflation or the political consequences of curbing spending for popular programs.

"Continuing the strategy of last year's budget, the 2006 budget will constrain ... spending while supporting national priorities: winning the war on terror, protecting the homeland and strengthening the economy,'' the memorandum said.

The documents show spending for:

--Domestic security at the Homeland Security Department and other agencies would go from $30.6 billion in 2005 to $29.6 billion in 2006, a 3 percent drop.

--The Education Department would go from $57.3 billion in 2005 to $55.9 billion in 2006, 2.4 percent less.

--The Veterans Affairs Department would fall 3.4 percent from $29.7 billion in 2005 to $28.7 billion.
--The Environmental Protection Agency would drop from $7.8 billion in 2005 to $7.6 billion, or 2.6 percent.

--The National Institutes of Health, which finances biomedical research and had its budget doubled over a recent five-year period, would fall from $28.6 billion to $28 billion, or 2.1 percent.

--The Interior Department would fall 1.9 percent from $10.8 billion in 2005 to $10.6 billion.

--The Defense Department would grow 5.2 percent to $422.7 billion in 2006, and the Justice Department would increase 4.3 percent to $19.5 billion in 2006.

[Grampa]

So? When Clinton gutted the military you weasils said "hurray! more money for welfare and Midnight basketball!"

Spare me the crocodile tears and phony concern for the welfare of the troops.
_________________
Iraqi Freedom 2003-2004. We won't take any of that 1960s crap when We come home!