NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems curious that Republican senators seem happy to back sending troops INTO warzones, and yet seem to consider them too much trouble once they return:

http://www.dav.org/news/news_20050414.html

The attempt (by two Democrat senators) earlier this year, to get nearly two billion dollars for medical care for veterans added onto emergency appropriation (during fiscal 2005, which had something like 27 billion dollars of 'pork-barrel' spending), was neatly shot down, almost exactly along party lines.

"“Less than half way through the current fiscal year, Veterans Affairs medical facilities across the country have already run out of money and face huge deficits, an emergency situation if there ever was one,” Sursely said... The amendment failed to win approval in two procedural votes that saw just one Republican, Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter, along with every Democrat and the Senate’s lone Independent voting in favor."

Looking forward, the same defecit situation is already looming in fiscal 2006:

http://www.dav.org/news/news_20050624.html

"“The DAV and other major veterans service organizations are united in calling on Congress to provide $31.2 billion for veterans medical care next year,” said Commander Sursely... “VA facilities in every region of the country have exhausted reserve funds to meet critical needs. Many have stopped hiring doctors and nurses because of shortfalls, while still others have cut back or even eliminated medical services. Health care for millions of today’s and tomorrow’s veterans is in limbo because Congress and the Administration have continually failed to adequately fund the VA,” Sursely said."

And, the sad news is that, again, Republicans killed an appropriation bid led by a Democrat (in this case, David Obey of Wisconsin)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002290347_spending27.html

"Republicans turned back, by a 223-194 vote, an attempt by Wisconsin Rep. David Obey, the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, to add $2.6 billion for veterans health care. He would have paid for it by increasing taxes on the wealthy".

Just as a note, however, the Seattle Times claims that Obey suggested "increasing taxes on the wealthy"... the DAV claims that Obey suggested funding the amendment through reducing taxbreaks on individuals who earn more than $1 million per year... perhaps a very different prospect.

So - twice, in the space of a year, Republicans have voted along party lines to block medical aid to disabled veterans...

Any thoughts?

Could it be because they are no longer able to do the fighting that the conservative elements of society seem to want them to do, and are therefore useless?

Eutrusca's not gonna like this thread! Let's see if he gets himself forumbanned again. :eek:

And I agree with Fan Grenwick about the theory. That's why Bush has to pretend he cares about Vets while cutting VA funding.

Eutrusca's not gonna like this thread! Let's see if he gets himself forumbanned again. :eek:

And I agree with Fan Grenwick about the theory. That's why Bush has to pretend he cares about Vets while cutting VA funding.
President Bush hasn't cut funding for the VA. As a matter of fact, he's increased it.

I don't ever want to be forumbanned again, ergo I'm trying hard to be a good boy! :D

President Bush hasn't cut funding for the VA. As a matter of fact, he's increased it.

I don't ever want to be forumbanned again, ergo I'm trying hard to be a good boy! :D
well, for your sake of staying on the forums, I won't get into Bush and his cutting of VA :D , true, he's inreased it recently, but earlier cuts (or "insuffuceint funding", if you prefer) nearly forced the closure of a VA hospital in my own town.

President Bush hasn't cut funding for the VA. As a matter of fact, he's increased it.

I don't ever want to be forumbanned again, ergo I'm trying hard to be a good boy! :D

First: Don't confuse the 68 billion (I think) allocated to the VA, with the approximately 28 billion which will go towards medical care... when a figure of about 31 billion was cited as enough to cover costs.

Second: If you increase something at less than the cost of inflation (not just regular inflation... but ALSO the inflation of medical costs), then you have actually not increased it in real-terms.

well, for your sake of staying on the forums, I won't get into Bush and his cutting of VA :D , true, he's inreased it recently, but earlier cuts (or "insuffuceint funding", if you prefer) nearly forced the closure of a VA hospital in my own town.

If you read the remainder of the April News Release that I posted part of... it gives a little detail of just how far into the red some of the VA medical facilites are... and Fiscal 2006 fails to offset that deficit spending... so, it's just a matter of time - unless more funding is forthcoming.

My thoughts are that this is politics.
The Dems requested this amount of money knowing that it would never pass. Ever hear of attaching a rider? That's where you tack on legislation to the end of a bill coming up for a vote, making it unnacceptable for the majority to vote for. In this particular case, it would have repealed the tax cuts.

Then hacks like you to come here and spread the idea that Repubs only care about able bodied veterans. I'm sure it fits into your stereotypical view of Republicans but that's your problem. It's too inane and trite for me to discuss any further.

My thoughts are that this is politics.
The Dems requested this amount of money knowing that it would never pass. Ever hear of attaching a rider? That's where you tack on legislation to the end of a bill coming up for a vote, making it unnacceptable for the majority to vote for. In this particular case, it would have repealed the tax cuts.

Then hacks like you to come here and spread the idea that Repubs only care about able bodied veterans. I'm sure it fits into your stereotypical view of Republicans but that's your problem. It's too inane and trite for me to discuss any further.

So republicans care more about tax cuts than veterans?

I don't think Republicans hate war vets. It's just that they value saving money over taking care of them. Kind of like a cold ambivalence, which IMO is worse. Personally I'd rather someone loathed me than not care at all about me.



Quick question: My grandfather was in the navy in WWII but back in those days black people could only be cooks and janitors. Would he still technically be considered a WWII veteran?

I don't think Republicans hate war vets. It's just that they value saving money over taking care of them. Kind of like a cold ambivalence, which IMO is worse. Personally I'd rather someone loathed me than not care at all about me.


The 'saving money' issue is possible... but something like 27 billion dollars were attributed in fiscal 2005 to 'pork-barrel' spending... so it can hardly be claimed to be the most fiscally conservative fiscal year...

Money was happily attributed to 'pet-projects' (by both parties, don't misunderstand me)... but then Republicans voted along party lines AGAINST medical care for veterans. Twice.

My thoughts are that this is politics.
The Dems requested this amount of money knowing that it would never pass. Ever hear of attaching a rider? That's where you tack on legislation to the end of a bill coming up for a vote, making it unnacceptable for the majority to vote for. In this particular case, it would have repealed the tax cuts.

Then hacks like you to come here and spread the idea that Repubs only care about able bodied veterans. I'm sure it fits into your stereotypical view of Republicans but that's your problem. It's too inane and trite for me to discuss any further.

How am I a 'hack'? What do you even mean by that?

And what is my 'stereotypical view' of Republicans?

Note that I didn't say Republicans in my tagline... I said "Republican Senators"... I realise we are talking 'politics'.

If it helps to allay your confusions... by American political standards, I am 'non-Partisan'. You are in error when you assume that I am looking for fodder against Republicans... I was just dismayed to see a party-line AGAINST helping veterans. I'd have made the same thread if the Democratic Representatives had voted along party-lines in similar fashion.

Nice dismissal. It's 'too inane and trite'. That kind of apathy is why the situation exists in the first place, I suspect.

Senators (Dem and Rep) like veterans, but hate people who need social assistance. So, when they send people to war because they are too old, fat or had too many poinodial cysts to go themselves, they expect them to come back and be okay. If they come back and they aren't okay, then they should take care of themselves, because no one deserves a handout from the government. It isn't the Senator's fault, after all, that the soldier failed to move his un-armored Humvee when he saw the RPG streaking towards it, so it should be his responsibility to take care of himself, his VC, the gunner, and the two dismounts who were wounded and permanently disabled. The Senator was very far away when it happened, how can we honestly blame him for it? Why should he vote to send the hard earned taxes from his state to help those soldiers that should have known better than to drive down Route Irish and set off an IED? These guys are out in the desert, away from the wife, kids, and all responsibility for a year or more, having the time of thier lives at government expense, yet they want to keep riding the wagon when they get home. Disgraceful. After all, it was the military that wanted to go fight this war, not the government, so why do they complain?

(Let's start counting how many people just don't get it.)

My thoughts are that this is politics.
The Dems requested this amount of money knowing that it would never pass. Ever hear of attaching a rider? That's where you tack on legislation to the end of a bill coming up for a vote, making it unnacceptable for the majority to vote for. In this particular case, it would have repealed the tax cuts.

Then hacks like you to come here and spread the idea that Repubs only care about able bodied veterans. I'm sure it fits into your stereotypical view of Republicans but that's your problem. It's too inane and trite for me to discuss any further.
But yet they can't add another amendment that has the same effect without the rider?


And do you honestly thing hacks on your side don't do the same exact thing? *cough*homelandsecurity*cough*

My thoughts are that this is politics.
Foreign policy and its' enforcers (troops) is politics....how astute of you.

The Dems requested this amount of money knowing that it would never pass.
You can prove this assertion or are you just playing politics?

Ever hear of attaching a rider? That's where you tack on legislation to the end of a bill coming up for a vote, making it unnacceptable for the majority to vote for. In this particular case, it would have repealed the tax cuts.
What proposed bill was the ammendment attached to?

Then hacks like you to come here and spread the idea that Repubs only care about able bodied veterans. I'm sure it fits into your stereotypical view of Republicans but that's your problem. It's too inane and trite for me to discuss any further.
Unless you can prove otherwise, then the claim is valid? You have offered no proof to your claim?

My thoughts are because the republicans want the vet's to come home as hero's, get jobs, and actuelly work for their own medicine like everyone else instaed of sit there and drain the treasury. They should get free healthcare while they are part of the servise. When they leave, they aren't part of the military so should get jobs and work like everyone else.

My thoughts are because the republicans want the vet's to come home as hero's, get jobs, and actuelly work for their own medicine like everyone else instaed of sit there and drain the treasury. They should get free healthcare while they are part of the servise. When they leave, they aren't part of the military so should get jobs and work like everyone else.
And the ones who are disabled in the lines of duty, unable to work at their prime or at all ever again?

There is already enough money for the wounded and disabled, they do not need to expand the money simply for them. If we stopped paying for the healthy vets, it would be fine.

There is already enough money for the wounded and disabled, they do not need to expand the money simply for them. If we stopped paying for the healthy vets, it would be fine.

Bold assertions...

Let us see your evidence?

My thoughts are because the republicans want the vet's to come home as hero's, get jobs, and actuelly work for their own medicine like everyone else instaed of sit there and drain the treasury. They should get free healthcare while they are part of the servise. When they leave, they aren't part of the military so should get jobs and work like everyone else.
That's not always possible. I haven't been able to find anything other than "Security Guard" positions since I almost killed my fool self in that military parachuting accident way back in 1996! It's seldom a matter of wanting the government to support you as it is of not being able to convince employers to overcome their ageist, anti-disabled and anti-veteran bias. And it definitely does exist out there in employment-land.

Fortunately, I've been able to earn a bit extra by going into various businesses on my own, primarily on the Web.

American politicians don't give a shit about the heroes of the nation, outside of their rhetoric.

There is already enough money for the wounded and disabled, they do not need to expand the money simply for them. If we stopped paying for the healthy vets, it would be fine.
There's a great deal of truth in this, unfortunately. Most of the veterans' organizations ( VFW, AmVets, etc ... but not the DAV ) claim that veterans' health care is underfunded; what they don't mention is that their idea of "underfunded" is where there's not enough money for every veteran, regardless of their health, to have free healthcare.

I'm of two minds on this. I'm almost always pro-veterans benefits, even for those in good health, but with the number of veterans in good health growing daily, it would be expensive in the extreme. I will raise holy hell when and if there is insufficient funding for veterans disabled because of combat-related injuries or illness, a bit less hell if funding for veterans disabled due to non-combat-related injury or illness is underfunded, and pretty much just sit on the sidelines when the issue is healthcare for veterans who have neither of the above.

American politicians don't give a shit about the heroes of the nation, outside of their rhetoric.
Not true. Even if they personally couldn't care less, they're almost to a man or woman scared shitless of the veterans' organizations and the political clout they wield.

There's a great deal of truth in this, unfortunately. Most of the veterans' organizations ( VFW, AmVets, etc ... but not the DAV ) claim that veterans' health care is underfunded; what they don't mention is that their idea of "underfunded" is where there's not enough money for every veteran, regardless of their health, to have free healthcare.

I'm of two minds on this. I'm almost always pro-veterans benefits, even for those in good health, but with the number of veterans in good health growing daily, it would be expensive in the extreme. I will raise holy hell when and if there is insufficient funding for veterans disabled because of combat-related injuries or illness, a bit less hell if funding for veterans disabled due to non-combat-related injury or illness is underfunded, and pretty much just sit on the sidelines when the issue is healthcare for veterans who have neither of the above.
I'm sorry, but I have to say that the veterans' organizations have it right on this one. You give up a lot in terms of rights when you join the military, as I'm sure you know, Eutrusca. The least we can do as a country is make sure that we give them something back in the form of long term benefits once they're out, disabled or not. We owe it to them for being willing to give up some of their freedoms.

The part of this that no one has mentioned is the reason the VA has funding problems. It's because over the last three years at least, Congress has refused to provide--and Bush has refused to ask for--an increase in funding over the regular appropriation even though any idiot would know we needed to plan for an increase in services thanks to Bush's splendid little war in Iraq. Just another example of short-sightedness on the part of this Republican administration and Congress.

hmmm....

maybe im wrong here, but im kinda under the impression that if they took better care of their troops while they are enlisted, then they would have less permanent injuries, therefore less disabilities, and less veterans health-care costs.

but that might be a really small fraction cost-wise compared to other factors...

hmmm....

maybe im wrong here, but im kinda under the impression that if they took better care of their troops while they are enlisted, then they would have less permanent injuries, therefore less disabilities, and less veterans health-care costs.

but that might be a really small fraction cost-wise compared to other factors...
If we went to war when we absolutely had to instead of when Bush decided he needed to look tough for the voters, we'd have fewer injuries, fewer disabilities and thus lower costs as well.

This is terrible. There's no reason they can't fit 2 billion in to the budget for such a noble expenditure. They have no problem unloading 295 billion in bullshit highway spending but can't fund the veterans. Disgraceful; I'd say without a doubt that this Congress is something to be ashamed of.

hmmm....

maybe im wrong here, but im kinda under the impression that if they took better care of their troops while they are enlisted, then they would have less permanent injuries, therefore less disabilities, and less veterans health-care costs.

but that might be a really small fraction cost-wise compared to other factors...
And just how do you propose to accomplish making combat less hazardous, hmmm?

And just how do you propose to accomplish making combat less hazardous, hmmm?
Provide bubblewrap and kevlar vests.

And just how do you propose to accomplish making combat less hazardous, hmmm?
well, first it's good to start by not waging random wars. Second some thorough planning helps too. And "going with the army you have rather than the army you want" is complete bullshit if you're the most powerful nation in the world and you have control over when you start the war.

well, first it's good to start by not waging random wars. Second some thorough planning helps too. And "going with the army you have rather than the army you want" is complete bullshit if you're the most powerful nation in the world and you have control over when you start the war.
The US doesn't wage "random wars." The military is better at planning than virtually any organization of comparable size. No Army has the luxury of when they go to war, that's dictated by circumstances. If you don't use the Army you have, then you're up the creek without a paddle.

So republicans care more about tax cuts than veterans?
duh, vets are too party line for the oens that need this assistance to offset them so they keep playing the tax cut line to keep the vote of their constituents

Ihatevacations']duh, vets are too party line for the oens that need this assistance to offset them so they keep playing the tax cut line to keep the vote of their constituents
That statement makes no sense whatsoever. :rolleyes:

The US doesn't wage "random wars." The military is better at planning than virtually any organization of comparable size. No Army has the luxury of when they go to war, that's dictated by circumstances. If you don't use the Army you have, then you're up the creek without a paddle.
that's why we're in Iraq without a plan? From the SNL during the debates:

"BUSH: and uh...Phase 1, we invade. Phase 2...we uh, lull them into a false sense of security; phase 2, the lulling phase.
LEHRHR or whoever: What about phase 3?
BUSH: uhhh, uhhhh, we're still workin' on phase 3."

So the circumstances when we invaded Iraq: they were minding their own business, possibly trying to get uranium, but we don't know for sure, so it was imperative, that we invaded that second? We couldn't wait to reinforce humvees. If the Army was so great at planning, they would've known that there was going to be an incredibly long insurgency, right? Or were they slacking?

That statement makes no sense whatsoever. :rolleyes:
thanks for the encouragement

Achtung 45-

What are you some sort of clarivoyant, military logistics expert?
Are you upset because the Army didn't consult you before they invaded?
I'm sure your plans for armoring up humvees and planning for the insurgency were right by the phone weren't they?

Achtung 45-

What are you some sort of clarivoyant, military logistics expert?
Are you upset because the Army didn't consult you before they invaded?
I'm sure your plans for armoring up humvees and planning for the insurgency were right by the phone weren't they?
wow, I'm not a four star General so why rely on me to make all the decisions? If you want I could lay out a detal plan that should've worked better than the "shock and awe" strategy that we retardedly employed thinking it would work.

For example, go in with a small covert group of Special Forces and take out primary targets w/out any "collateral damage" or sending 150,000 U.S. troops.

And also, why do all the convoys consist of bright, shiny, new 2005 SUVs that are incredibly easy to spot and blow up? Why don't we blend in like the insurgents if it works so well? Oh yeah, that makes too much sense.

wow, I'm not a four star General so why rely on me to make all the decisions?

Based upon what I've read so far, 4 star general isn't in your future. I think I can speak for all Special Forces ops when I say thank you for not serving your country.

Based upon what I've read so far, 4 star general isn't in your future. I think I can speak for all Special Forces ops when I say thank you for not serving your country.
good! :D I don't want to be a four star general. I can aim much higher. :p

I could lay out a detal plan that should've worked better than the "shock and awe" strategy that we retardedly employed thinking it would work.

For example, go in with a small covert group of Special Forces and take out primary targets w/out any "collateral damage" or sending 150,000 U.S. troops.

And also, why do all the convoys consist of bright, shiny, new 2005 SUVs that are incredibly easy to spot and blow up? Why don't we blend in like the insurgents if it works so well? Oh yeah, that makes too much sense.
There are so many things wrong with the above statement that I scarcely know where to begin!

"Shock and awe" during the beginning of the current Iraqi conflict was nothing more than a ploy to rattle the Iraqi military. True "shock and awe" strategy or tactics were never used.

The primary function of Special Forces is to train insurgents on insurgency operations, or to train indegenious military forces in counterinsurgency operations.

It is unwise in the extreme to ever underestimate your opponent. You send as much as you can in the expectation that you can back off later should your opponent turn out to be somewhat less than what you expected.

Military combat vehicles are never "bright and shiny." Regulations require that they be painted in appropriate camouflauge before being shippped to the area of operations.

It is impossible for an invading force, most of whom not only don't look like the indegenious population but cannot speak the language, to "blend in like the insurgents."

I could go on, but that's a good start.

The primary function of Special Forces is to train insurgents on insurgency operations, or to train indegenious military forces in counterinsurgency operations.
not really, Special Forces were used mainly in the past to do such operatoins.
It is unwise in the extreme to ever underestimate your opponent. You send as much as you can in the expectation that you can back off later should your opponent turn out to be somewhat less than what you expected.
That's why we went in with more than enough force, underestimating their strategy. We have enough troops to take on a fuckin' army, but we don't have the brains to take on the insurgency! That's why the insurgents just retreated into the cities as we made our grand march toward Baghdad.
Military combat vehicles are never "bright and shiny." Regulations require that they be painted in appropriate camouflauge before being shippped to the area of operations.
No, I'm talking about the "civilian" contractor's convoys that are being blown up, not the tanks and what-not.
It is impossible for an invading force, most of whom not only don't look like the indegenious population but cannot speak the language, to "blend in like the insurgents."
I was referring to using old cars like those found in Baghdad instead of giant SUVs for the convoys. :rolleyes:
I could go on, but that's a good start.
Aren't we America!?!?!? The superpower of the world!?!? Can't we beat any force we encounter?!

"We can outcompete with anybody." -- GWB, Bay Shore, New York, Mar. 11, 2004

Then why haven't we won in Iraq?

But that's enough of this fun little hijack.

not really, Special Forces were used mainly in the past to do such operatoins.

That's why we went in with more than enough force, underestimating their strategy. We have enough troops to take on a fuckin' army, but we don't have the brains to take on the insurgency! That's why the insurgents just retreated into the cities as we made our grand march toward Baghdad.

No, I'm talking about the "civilian" contractor's convoys that are being blown up, not the tanks and what-not.

Then why haven't we won in Iraq?
Thank you for letting me know that I've been misinformed for all these years about what I was suppose to be doing. :rolleyes:

In any conventional combat, you almost always use more force than you later discover to have been necessary. Doing otherwise will get your people killed.

Counterinsurgency operations is perhaps the most difficult type of operation the military ever undertakes. The key usually lies in figuring out how to best separate the insurgent from his population base, either physically or psychologically, or both. It's not a matter of having the "brains." We have those. It's a matter of the American people having sufficient patience.

If you want to know about civilian contractors, perhaps you should talk to the companies for which they work. I don't have sufficient information.

Why haven't we won in Iraq? We have. Now we just need the time to counter the terrorism.

Thank you for letting me know that I've been misinformed for all these years about what I was suppose to be doing. :rolleyes:
maybe we're thinking about different types of Special Forces as, if I remember correctly, there are multiple Special Forces branches for each section of the military.
In any conventional combat, you almost always use more force than you later discover to have been necessary. Doing otherwise will get your people killed.Explain Midway then. How did we beat the largest Japanese fleet with only three carriers and few other ships and weak ground defenses on the island itself? How did we crush 4 carriers and a hundred other ships with the small and half destroyed force Nimitz had to work with? Oh yeah, that was when the military was smart.

Counterinsurgency operations is perhaps the most difficult type of operation the military ever undertakes. The key usually lies in figuring out how to best separate the insurgent from his population base, either physically or psychologically, or both. It's not a matter of having the "brains." We have those. It's a matter of the American people having sufficient patience. Sufficient patience while we spend $1,575 per second to occupy Iraq while we see no benefits whatsoever and there is no end in the foreseeable future? Oh yes, the contractors have set up camp in Iraq to stay for a loooong, loooong time.

If you want to know about civilian contractors, perhaps you should talk to the companies for which they work. I don't have sufficient information.They all mysteriously tie into one large company, Halliburton. But I'm not getting into that and I don't know why you brought it up since the contractors (the private security forces) shouldn't even be there in the first place.

Why haven't we won in Iraq? We have. Now we just need the time to counter the terrorism.lol, Is that what Big Brother told you?

snip

Sorry to say Eutrusca, but in my opinion Achtung 45 has you on all counts! Of course it's just my opinion, but he makes one hell of an argument. You don't.

Sorry to say Eutrusca, but in my opinion Achtung 45 has you on all counts! Of course it's just my opinion, but he makes one hell of an argument. You don't.
why, thank you! :)

Not true. Even if they personally couldn't care less, they're almost to a man or woman scared shitless of the veterans' organizations and the political clout they wield.
As opposed to the corporate and conservative lobbies who will advocate any spending reduction in order to get a tax cut?

As opposed to the corporate and conservative lobbies who will advocate any spending reduction in order to get a tax cut?
Perhaps. I really wouldn't know.

Perhaps. I really wouldn't know.
I find the concept that is apparently popular among US Republicans, that the government can spend big money on military and other programmes, and yet give you a tax cut, disturbing.

I find the concept that is apparently popular among US Republicans, that the government can spend big money on military and other programmes, and yet give you a tax cut, disturbing.
I find lots of things about both parties "disturbing."

And just how do you propose to accomplish making combat less hazardous, hmmm?



sorry, shoulda clarified that one.

wasnt referring to combat as much as the medical attention you do get (or more likely dont get) while enlisted. ive had more then a few people ive known that while in the military, either had injuries out right dismissed, denied medical treatment, or were 'blown-off'/procrastinated until they got out, and by then the damage was done, and left some permanent scarring.

actually, i heard someone credit our current body armor(unless your in one of those unlucky units thats understocked...) with a drastic reduction in combat casualties, and said it also increased our effectiveness on ops, since it would pretty much take an (accurate) headshot to drop a us soldier/marine.

sorry, shoulda clarified that one.

wasnt referring to combat as much as the medical attention you do get (or more likely dont get) while enlisted. ive had more then a few people ive known that while in the military, either had injuries out right dismissed, denied medical treatment, or were 'blown-off'/procrastinated until they got out, and by then the damage was done, and left some permanent scarring.

actually, i heard someone credit our current body armor(unless your in one of those unlucky units thats understocked...) with a drastic reduction in combat casualties, and said it also increased our effectiveness on ops, since it would pretty much take an (accurate) headshot to drop a us soldier/marine.
And the Army is starting to roll out instant-coagulating bandages. Neat stuff.

And the Army is starting to roll out instant-coagulating bandages. Neat stuff.


sounds like that would hurt like hell to take off.... :p

My thoughts are that this is politics.
The Dems requested this amount of money knowing that it would never pass. Ever hear of attaching a rider? That's where you tack on legislation to the end of a bill coming up for a vote, making it unnacceptable for the majority to vote for. In this particular case, it would have repealed the tax cuts.

Then hacks like you to come here and spread the idea that Repubs only care about able bodied veterans. I'm sure it fits into your stereotypical view of Republicans but that's your problem. It's too inane and trite for me to discuss any further.

I think I'm going to compile a conservative dictionary that uses the same criteria that dictionaries use. Observe how a word is used, however incorrectly, and then make up a definition that seems to fit.

Inane - adj. (of a statement) proof from refutation. Scrupulously accurate.
Trite - adj. (of a statement) Patently obvious, impossible to disprove.

As opposed to the corporate and conservative lobbies who will advocate any spending reduction in order to get a tax cut?

That's old school conservatism. These days conservative means spend freely, just so long as it doesn't actually help people, but don't pay for it.

sounds like that would hurt like hell to take off.... :p
Yeah well, between being dead or hurts like hell...

And just how do you propose to accomplish making combat less hazardous, hmmm?

Well, armouring all the vehicles would have been a good start, no?

As another poster pointed out, the whole 'going to war with the army you have' line is BS... the US didn't 'need' to put ANY troops in Iraq, and did so purely as part of political maneuvering.

Saddam had been in power for an eternity, and was showing no signs of going anywhere. So - the US could have hung back for a few months (or years, even), and gone to war prepared.

And, the excuse that it should have all been over quickly, is not worth discussing. The whole idea that Iraq would just roll over, and great the invading forces with open arms, was ridiculous. One has only to look at how glad Lebanon was for the 'assistance' of Syria, to see that.

I think I'm going to compile a conservative dictionary that uses the same criteria that dictionaries use. Observe how a word is used, however incorrectly, and then make up a definition that seems to fit.

Inane - adj. (of a statement) proof from refutation. Scrupulously accurate.
Trite - adj. (of a statement) Patently obvious, impossible to disprove.

This is excellent. :)

It really does seem that the poster was basically using 'inane' and 'trite' as reasons to 'ignore' an argument he/she couldn't compete with.

that's why we're in Iraq without a plan? From the SNL during the debates:

"BUSH: and uh...Phase 1, we invade. Phase 2...we uh, lull them into a false sense of security; phase 2, the lulling phase.
LEHRHR or whoever: What about phase 3?
BUSH: uhhh, uhhhh, we're still workin' on phase 3."

So the circumstances when we invaded Iraq: they were minding their own business, possibly trying to get uranium, but we don't know for sure, so it was imperative, that we invaded that second? We couldn't wait to reinforce humvees. If the Army was so great at planning, they would've known that there was going to be an incredibly long insurgency, right? Or were they slacking?
It's the Underpants Gnomes strategy for waging war.
Phase 1, Invasion
Phase 2
Phase 3 Profits! (or Democracy/Capitalism/whateer they're calling it this week)