Print Article
THE CURRENT PRESIDENT & THE GOP CANDIDATE HAVE SHOWN NO SHAME IN THEIR LACK OF TROOP SUPPORT.
Well we've been at war a long time now and we are coming up to a another presidential election. And just like it was in 2004, the Republicans are trying to win again by scaring the country into giving them your vote for the better "Commander-in-Chief". And this time it's supposed to be their, Senator John McCain.
If this is the case, under these circumstances, one would think that the US military would be the real "jewel in the crown" of the Republican Party. One would also expect that no other single group of individuals would be treated better than the current members of the US Military. Unfortunately for our troops, many that are still in "harms way", they have been treated by the Bush Administration about as bad as one could imagine. In addition, if you think you need to vote for the GOP candidate in order to be better protected, then you need to adjust your thinking.
I will now show you just a bit of history of how the troops have been so called, "supported" by Bush, his Administration and by Senator John McCain:
THE GOP's TREATMENT OF THE TROOPS:
>>> Senator John McCain has voted 10 times "against" bills in the US Congress that supported our veterans.
>>> McCain also did not support Senator Jim Webb's latest up-dating of the GI BILL "until the very last moment", when President Bush was forced into signing it. If the president didn't sign, he would have been over-ridden by the Democrats and his own party members in congress. Now, John McCain is trying to take credit for the new GI Bill.
>>> The past debacle at the Walter Reed Military Hospital in Washington DC was caused in many ways, "due to the Bush Administration's out-sourcing the hospital's management to an unqualified sub contractor that cut corners on the wounded vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan". Even though most of those issues have since been fixed, new problems have recently started to occur at the Veteran's Hospitals in Seattle, Washington, and in Okalahoma City, Okalahoma.
>>> President Bush has tried every year in his two presidential terms to cut the budget of the Veteran's Administration (VA). It was so bad a couple of years ago that the head of the VA had to declare that due to a lack of funding, they were cutting back on the care given to the vets. He also stated that by mid-year, he would declare the VA totally broke. After this declaration, with a strong push by the Democrats in Congress, additional funding was finally pushed through the Congress.
>>> When the then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld was approached in 2004 in Iraq by a young, National Guard soldier who asked why he and his squad had to forage for, "Rusted scrap metal that had already been shot up, to put on their unarmored military HumVees in order to go into combat?" Rumsfeld dismissed the soldier by saying; "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want."
Let's just remember that President Bush chose the time to go to war. Since America was not attacked or invaded by Iraq, the Army could have waited until all the troops had body armor, all of the vehicles were armored and everything was properly staged. This is not the appropriate way to "support the troops".
>>> At the time the US went to war in Iraq, only 10% of the military's vehicles were armored against the kind of damage caused by the insurgent's Improvised Explosive Devices (IED's). (In fact, to date, almost 70% of the combat deaths in Iraq were caused by IED's.)
At the time, there was only one US manufacturing company that provided armor for the military's HumVee personnel carriers. The armor manufacturer was operating on only one 8 hour shift and was well below their normal manufacturing capacity.
The Bush Administration did nothing to demand that the company increase their output by working overtime or adding extra shifts in order to get the necessary armor protection to the troops.
>>> A vehicle was readily available in the US for the war in Iraq that is very successful at surviving IED explosions. These vehicles are called MRAP's. As late as 2007, the Pentagon stated that they would not meet their goal of sending a mere 3,500 MRAP's to Iraq. Instead, because of the bureaucratic wrangling and the Bush Administration's unwillingness to fund the more expensive MRAP's, four years later, only 1,500 of the 14,000 MRAP's requested by the military had been delivered. The MRAP only takes 4 months to manufacturer.
More support of the troops?
>>> A Pentagon study has stated that 80% of the Marines that were killed between 2003 and 2005 in Iraq would have survived if they would have had "upper body armor". As of late 2005, only 10% of the 28,000 upper body armor units on order had reached the US Marines in Iraq.
That the President of the United States would choose to go to war on his own schedule without sending properly prepared and outfitted troops is not only unpardonable, it's criminal.
>>>If President Bush supports the troops so much, why did the the Bush Administration only contract Textron Corporation of New Orleans to build less than 2,000 MRAP vehicles for Iraq?
Clay Moise, the vice president of Textron said; "That's all they said they had the money for."
This was coming from the US President that gave a $1.3 Trillion dollar tax break to the top 2% of the wealthiest Americans.
And this is support for the troops?
>>> It's hard to believe, but in 2003, the Bush Administration decided to discontinue the $75 per month bonus "combat pay" for those troops risking their lives every minute while serving in a combat zone. (FYI: The base pay for a private in 2003 was only $1,064.00 per month.)
The editorials in the Army Times, a widely distributed military personnel publication, immediately attacked the White House and the Pentagon for this callous and selfish position. In addition, the Democrats, military families and veterans groups loudly voiced their opposition to the Bush Administration.
The Bush Administration finally reversed themselves and withdrew their decision after so much "visible"opposition.
Yes sir, that's real "troop support".
>>> During past times of war, most presidents have been very careful in showing their concern for those risking their lives for their country's freedom. Those previous US "Commanders-in Chief" tended to stay out of the lime-light and were usually reserved in their public demeanor.
After a terrorist attack in early 2003 that killed dozens of innocent citizens, Bush was caught on video while playing golf where he said; "I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive."
Yep, now there's a head-of-state that's really concerned about the men and women that he has sent to fight and die, and all based on his lies.
>>> In August 2003, President Bush said that he was "quitting playing golf because it wasn't right to be having fun while the US troops in the Middle East were dying for their country". Actually, this was just one more lie by the president.
Bush was later "filmed playing a round of golf on October 13, 2003".
The truth is that at the time, Bush quit playing golf because he was suffering from knee problems throughout the latter half of 2003.
>>> As has been stated by the well-know prosecutor and best selling author, Vincent Bugliosi, that by taking America's young soldiers into a war that was based on the administration's lies, these troops did not therefore, "die for their country's freedom".
The US was not attacked or invaded by Iraq and it has been shown that neither Iraq nor Saddam Hussein had ties to either Bin Laden or al Qaeda. Therefore, those 4000+ young US Soldiers that died in Iraq, did not just die for "nothing", they died for "nothing worthwhile". They died for the dishonest likes of; George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld & Karl Rove.
In fact, this is why Mr. Bugliosi's feels that eventually, Bush and his people will be tried and found guilty in a world court for war crimes. This is also the basis for his latest book entitled; "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder".
Yes sir, President Bush and McCain & company really support the troops.....Right!
Well we've been at war a long time now and we are coming up to a another presidential election. And just like it was in 2004, the Republicans are trying to win again by scaring the country into giving them your vote for the better "Commander-in-Chief". And this time it's supposed to be their, Senator John McCain.
If this is the case, under these circumstances, one would think that the US military would be the real "jewel in the crown" of the Republican Party. One would also expect that no other single group of individuals would be treated better than the current members of the US Military. Unfortunately for our troops, many that are still in "harms way", they have been treated by the Bush Administration about as bad as one could imagine. In addition, if you think you need to vote for the GOP candidate in order to be better protected, then you need to adjust your thinking.
I will now show you just a bit of history of how the troops have been so called, "supported" by Bush, his Administration and by Senator John McCain:
THE GOP's TREATMENT OF THE TROOPS:
>>> Senator John McCain has voted 10 times "against" bills in the US Congress that supported our veterans.
>>> McCain also did not support Senator Jim Webb's latest up-dating of the GI BILL "until the very last moment", when President Bush was forced into signing it. If the president didn't sign, he would have been over-ridden by the Democrats and his own party members in congress. Now, John McCain is trying to take credit for the new GI Bill.
>>> The past debacle at the Walter Reed Military Hospital in Washington DC was caused in many ways, "due to the Bush Administration's out-sourcing the hospital's management to an unqualified sub contractor that cut corners on the wounded vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan". Even though most of those issues have since been fixed, new problems have recently started to occur at the Veteran's Hospitals in Seattle, Washington, and in Okalahoma City, Okalahoma.
>>> President Bush has tried every year in his two presidential terms to cut the budget of the Veteran's Administration (VA). It was so bad a couple of years ago that the head of the VA had to declare that due to a lack of funding, they were cutting back on the care given to the vets. He also stated that by mid-year, he would declare the VA totally broke. After this declaration, with a strong push by the Democrats in Congress, additional funding was finally pushed through the Congress.
>>> When the then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld was approached in 2004 in Iraq by a young, National Guard soldier who asked why he and his squad had to forage for, "Rusted scrap metal that had already been shot up, to put on their unarmored military HumVees in order to go into combat?" Rumsfeld dismissed the soldier by saying; "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want."
Let's just remember that President Bush chose the time to go to war. Since America was not attacked or invaded by Iraq, the Army could have waited until all the troops had body armor, all of the vehicles were armored and everything was properly staged. This is not the appropriate way to "support the troops".
>>> At the time the US went to war in Iraq, only 10% of the military's vehicles were armored against the kind of damage caused by the insurgent's Improvised Explosive Devices (IED's). (In fact, to date, almost 70% of the combat deaths in Iraq were caused by IED's.)
At the time, there was only one US manufacturing company that provided armor for the military's HumVee personnel carriers. The armor manufacturer was operating on only one 8 hour shift and was well below their normal manufacturing capacity.
The Bush Administration did nothing to demand that the company increase their output by working overtime or adding extra shifts in order to get the necessary armor protection to the troops.
>>> A vehicle was readily available in the US for the war in Iraq that is very successful at surviving IED explosions. These vehicles are called MRAP's. As late as 2007, the Pentagon stated that they would not meet their goal of sending a mere 3,500 MRAP's to Iraq. Instead, because of the bureaucratic wrangling and the Bush Administration's unwillingness to fund the more expensive MRAP's, four years later, only 1,500 of the 14,000 MRAP's requested by the military had been delivered. The MRAP only takes 4 months to manufacturer.
More support of the troops?
>>> A Pentagon study has stated that 80% of the Marines that were killed between 2003 and 2005 in Iraq would have survived if they would have had "upper body armor". As of late 2005, only 10% of the 28,000 upper body armor units on order had reached the US Marines in Iraq.
That the President of the United States would choose to go to war on his own schedule without sending properly prepared and outfitted troops is not only unpardonable, it's criminal.
>>>If President Bush supports the troops so much, why did the the Bush Administration only contract Textron Corporation of New Orleans to build less than 2,000 MRAP vehicles for Iraq?
Clay Moise, the vice president of Textron said; "That's all they said they had the money for."
This was coming from the US President that gave a $1.3 Trillion dollar tax break to the top 2% of the wealthiest Americans.
And this is support for the troops?
>>> It's hard to believe, but in 2003, the Bush Administration decided to discontinue the $75 per month bonus "combat pay" for those troops risking their lives every minute while serving in a combat zone. (FYI: The base pay for a private in 2003 was only $1,064.00 per month.)
The editorials in the Army Times, a widely distributed military personnel publication, immediately attacked the White House and the Pentagon for this callous and selfish position. In addition, the Democrats, military families and veterans groups loudly voiced their opposition to the Bush Administration.
The Bush Administration finally reversed themselves and withdrew their decision after so much "visible"opposition.
Yes sir, that's real "troop support".
>>> During past times of war, most presidents have been very careful in showing their concern for those risking their lives for their country's freedom. Those previous US "Commanders-in Chief" tended to stay out of the lime-light and were usually reserved in their public demeanor.
After a terrorist attack in early 2003 that killed dozens of innocent citizens, Bush was caught on video while playing golf where he said; "I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive."
Yep, now there's a head-of-state that's really concerned about the men and women that he has sent to fight and die, and all based on his lies.
>>> In August 2003, President Bush said that he was "quitting playing golf because it wasn't right to be having fun while the US troops in the Middle East were dying for their country". Actually, this was just one more lie by the president.
Bush was later "filmed playing a round of golf on October 13, 2003".
The truth is that at the time, Bush quit playing golf because he was suffering from knee problems throughout the latter half of 2003.
>>> As has been stated by the well-know prosecutor and best selling author, Vincent Bugliosi, that by taking America's young soldiers into a war that was based on the administration's lies, these troops did not therefore, "die for their country's freedom".
The US was not attacked or invaded by Iraq and it has been shown that neither Iraq nor Saddam Hussein had ties to either Bin Laden or al Qaeda. Therefore, those 4000+ young US Soldiers that died in Iraq, did not just die for "nothing", they died for "nothing worthwhile". They died for the dishonest likes of; George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld & Karl Rove.
In fact, this is why Mr. Bugliosi's feels that eventually, Bush and his people will be tried and found guilty in a world court for war crimes. This is also the basis for his latest book entitled; "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder".
Yes sir, President Bush and McCain & company really support the troops.....Right!
view author's RSS feed
