The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.
To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.
Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back.
Someone please explain to me why Malkin and Bob Owens work themselves into a feedback screech about Scott Beauchamp rather than crap like this. Granted, the troop who reads the New Republic might have been a dog lover, and making him feel depressed is a crappy thing to do. I don’t know, call me crazy but shitting all over soldiers who just found out that they won’t walk again weighs a little heavier on my conscience.
***Update***
If this is the kind of support that the patriot brigades offer then I hope like hell that they never try to support me.
Some milbloggers, somewhat over-attuned, I’d say, to MSM anti-war sentiment, want to downplay Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. As in Blackfive:
“PTSD is not an illness. It is a normal condition for people who have been through what you have been through.”
Read the link for an informed dissent.
Of course admitting the danger of PTSD risks criticizing the administration’s cost-cutting VA policies that shaft PTSD patients. Troops are great and all, but we can’t have that.
***Update 2***
Yeah, I’m feeling unusually ornery today. It must be my Saddam-loving objectively pro-terrorist blame-America-firsting BSD acting up.
Mike S
Disgusting.
cleek
this doesn’t help The Party
GOP Über Alles
Mike S
A quick run through the usual cultists, err GOP blogs, shows not a single post on it.
Shocked, I tell ya.
cleek
FYI, the ads on the sidebar are reaaallllllyyyy slowing down page loads.
Jen
Come general election time, the Democrats need to take this stuff, and Walter Reed, and the fact that Republicans mocked the Democrats for daring to propose a tax to actually pay for this war, and the fact that troops are being discharged for previously-unknown “personality disorders” and “insubordination” rather than being treated for PTSD when they are a little screwed up after watching their buddies die — and they need to hammer it into the ground. They need to put it into every speech and every debate they give. Because these false patriots need to learn that it is not the War on Thanksgiving that they need to be worried about right now.
4tehlulz
Those that fail to martyr themselves in the grand struggle against Islamofascism must be punished. [/wingnut]
Zifnab
Shit. Wars are expensive. You go to Iraq with the budget you have, not the budget you wish you had.
WHERE’S MY $191 BILLION DOLLARS, BITCHES!
DragonScholar
I have to say this stunned me – I’d like to think its a bureaucratic snafu, but in this day and age I can’t say for sure.
And you have a good point – you think the supposed wingnuttia “pro-troop” types would be (understandably) up in arms over this. Funny how they aren’t, so far.
It’s ALMOST as if they just consider the troops a prop . . .
Illuminancer
That’s just vile.
Ed Drone
If the Pentagon wants the money back, let them take it from all that oil revenue the Iraqis have — you know, the revenue that was going to pay for rebuilding the country we blew to hell — since the cause of the soldiers’ inability to complete their commitment was the actions of people in Iraq. The soldiers would have finished their tours if those pesky insurgents hadn’t blown ’em up, so those are the ones the US should sue.
Sounds right to me, anyway.
Ed
Incertus (Brian)
I’m glad to see that there’s some legislation now pending that would keep the Pentagon from doing this, but it’s pretty effed up that they’d do it in the first place.
Jackmormon
Jesus Fucking Christ.
Well, I guess I’m not beyond shock after 7 years of Bush, after all.
r€nato
say, did Halliburton or any other government
war profiteerscontractors have to give back the money for uncompleted/poorly done projects?I’m pretty sure they haven’t, other than the odd exception here and there.
Between the ongoing clusterfuck in Iraq, the Walter Reed fiasco, and shit like this, I don’t know why anyone would be stupid enough to serve their country. You put your life and limbs on the line, and they treat you like this.
Libby Spencer
Words fail. Un-effin-believable. Excuse me while I take a moment to vomit and maybe break some crockery.
TR
Listen, when you lose $9 billion in totally unaccounted for money given to Halliburton, and massive pallets of cash given to the Iraqi provisional government simply disappear, you’ve got to find a way to cut corners to save on the overall cost.
Come on, if these troops didn’t want to give back the bonuses, they shouldn’t have gotten hurt in the war. They could’ve brought better armor with them, right?
Gus
And here I thought I was all out of outrage.
r€nato
damn straight. Tim, you’re a heartless, cruel bastard. Do you really expect Halliburton’s CEO’s trophy wife to do without a new Porsche this year for Christmas? How else can we afford to pay them $100 for a six-pack of Coke unless we cut costs somewhere?
r€nato
I’m sure that Clinton did it too, so it’s OK.
tBone
Tim, are you implying that some of our soldiers aren’t patriotic enough to happily pay back their signing bonus after being grievously injured in the line of duty? Why do you hate the troops?
Ugh
Clearly this is part of the Pentagon’s incentive program to encourage troops to do a better job. I’m sure we will see a marked decrease in the number of troop injuries now that this incentive has been put in place. Clearly the risk of losing arms, legs, eyesight, and hearing such that one can no longer serve is not enough. It’s the free market at work.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
Because Malkin and Owens are mean, vindictive people. Nothing more, nothing less.
John Cole
Look-
I am not going to say this isn’t outrageous and obscene, because it is. I am glad tim and others are bringing it to the attention of people, so it can be changed quickly (and the folks that paid their shit back get their bonus back).
But blaming this on Bush just makes you look stupid. There are a whole host of things to blame on Bush, but quirks in the Army accounting system are not really his fault. hell, if you have any idea how complicated and awful the Pentagon accounting system is (Hint- I don’t think they have ever passed an audit), you would realize that more than likely this is merely an automated bill or the result of different departments not communicating.
Tim F.
John,
Follow the link at the end of the post.
Jen
Uh, the article states:
At the forefront was a bill introduced last week and sent to committee that targets a Defense Department policy preventing eligible soldiers from receiving their full bonuses if discharged early because of combat-related injuries.
“Defense Department policy” doesn’t sound like an accounting quirk to me.
Jen
Sorry, I don’t know how to do the cool gray box quote thing.
Konrad
John,
It is so absurd one would think it is simply a ‘clerical error’ but in the KDKA article a congressman says he HAS proposed a bill…past tense suggesting this isn’t a one off:
“KDKA contacted Congressman Jason Altmire on his behalf. He says he has proposed a bill that would guarantee soldiers receive full benefit of bonuses.”
http://kdka.com/local/military.signing.bonuses.2.571660.html
tBone
Exactly. If the troops don’t like it they can just go find a different job.
norbizness
“You fucked up. You trusted us.”
John Cole
I can’t get that link to load, Tim. Tried five times and it just hangs.
And Defense Department policy may mean precisely what it says- it is Defense Department policy to take back bonusses of all soldiers who do not finish their commitments. That does not mean it is a policy to take back money from vets who are wounded and unable to finish their service, even though that is what it is doing. Expect it to be fixed, quickly.
And if not, then by all means have at Bush.
Zifnab
Bullshit, John. This isn’t some administrative snaffu. You don’t accidentally send out a host of form letters demanding people repay their signing bonuses.
I don’t know who, exactly, in the Pentagon came up with this particularly stupid idea to cut corners, but it got rubber stamped by someone who got his job from the White House.
And, for christ’s sake, its not like Gates or Gordon rushed to fix the issue. You’ve got House Reps who moved more spryly with legislation than the damnable Secretaries of Defense moved with squelching absolutely abysmal policy. This has all the earmarks of wingnuttery that gave us FEMA spending, FDA bungling, and assorted other stupidity.
How can you not blame the Administration for poor administration?
Jen
Well, I’m not trying to start a fight with you on your own blog, John, and I haven’t read the original source material, but it doesn’t say a Defense Department policy aimed at soldiers who do not finish their commitments. It says, [pretend there’s a gray quote box here] “a Defense Department policy preventing eligible soldiers from receiving their full bonuses if discharged early because of combat-related injuries.”
grumpy realist
I think what John is saying is the old comment by Napoleon of “never attributing to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.”
Read stories about the Crimean war and Florence Nightingale’s battles to get support for medical supplies–Same Old Stuff.
guyermo
john, you want something to blame on bush? how about laying off 150,000 civilian defense employees just before christmas?
grumpy realist
And John? This Administration has raised incompetence to such a high level that at some point we can only interpret it as malice.
This is almost equivalent to letting a toddler walk on the edge of a balcony with no railing and being surprised when the kid falls 50 feet.
gypsy howell
If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that “Clinton did it too,” then I might be willing to concede it wasn’t a policy Bush personally put in place to screw the disabled vets.
Until then though, I gotta go with the the default answer (which has a 99.9% record of accuracy) — it’s Bush’s fault.
Jen
Ah, but there is a special Bush variation of that credo — never attribute to simple malice that which can be explained by malice AND incompetence. I am in no way implying that there isn’t massive accounting weirdness going on at the Pentagon just because I am implying that there are singularly awful policies also in place at the Pentagon.
Tim F.
Works fine for me. Try here or here.
Davebo
Tell the phoney soldiers to shut the hell up and pay back the bonuses!
We need the money to pay off the 20 billion in contracts to unamed foreign companies.
And how do we know for sure their injuries aren’t self inflicted?
Xenos
Well then, let’s just get whoever it is who is in charge of the military and let him know so he can fix it… Oh crap, that guy is too busy declaring bogus and useless changes in FAA policy so that he can get credit for the bestest thanksgiving ever.
I am going to blame him for it until he takes notice and takes some kind of action to correct it. Anybody want to place bets when he does? If 60 Minutes takes three months to report on it, I would bet three months and one day.
incontrolados
This is from an interview dated October 21, 2004 in Newsweek (via LexisNexis) about a book called Purple Hearts by Nina Berman.
It looks like this is not a new policy.
I blame Bush and all the rest of them — top to bottom.
calipygian
I have to side with John here. The Pentagon accounting system IS atrocious. When General Schoonmaker was recalled to active duty after having retired, he wasn’t paid for several months. That’s because the customary reason for canceling retirement pay is that you die. And there really isn’t a mechanism for going from being paid by the VA to being paid by DOD. The vast majority of the time, it goes in reverse. BTW, I know many, many people who have had to pay back bonuses for one reason or another, including making officer after re-enlisting. After all, when you put on bars, you are not finishing your enlistment.
Libby Spencer
Jen – you must have missed the tutorial. If you click on the arrow at the top left of the comment box it will show a string of buttons. Highlight the text you want to box and then press the B-Quote button. It will put the code in for you.
Jake
To the GOP Cheerleading Squad “Support our Troops” means “Prop them up so the President can have a photo op.”
But I forget, we are talking about a party that accused a vet who lost both her legs in Iraq of “cutting and running,” when she ran for office as a Dem. Classy.
ImJohnGalt
Isn’t this the same DoD that tried to screw soldiers out of their GI Bill entitlements by sending them home a day before they hit the cut-off for them?
Tim F.
Or try here.
Pb
While we’re at it, there’s this:
First, cut the VA budget, and then privatize (more of) it out to those guys? Sounds like the Bush M.O. at work…
Laertes
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
horatius
What Laertes said
Jen
John, it should be something that can be empirically resolved, whether this is a policy to screw soldiers discharged early due to service-related injuries, as I think it seems to be, or something else. Have you found any more information on this to back up your idea?
Badtux
The problem, John, is that this has been happening for literally *years*. I found out about it two years ago in a story on returning vets in the San Jose Murky News. It’s not new, it’s news to you only because major media (i.e., national media, not local media) are only now willing to pick up on it rather than licking George W. Bush’s ass, and it can and should be ended by a simple executive order on the part of the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military, Emperor George W. Bush. The situation *has* been brought to the attention of His gatekeepers. If He has not yet issued a ruling, either He needs to choose better gatekeepers, or He does not give a shit. I vote the latter.
Zifnab
We should just pass out little purple heart band-aids and tell them to stop being wimps, right? That’s the Republican spirit.
John Cole
Look- I know all about Bush shafting the VA and think I have even written about it. I also agree with the general sentiment- these folks wrap them up in the soldiers to get what they want, then bend them over and ream them up the ass every chance they get.
I just want to see what really is behind this policy, and if it is what I think it is before I start in all the Bush bashing. I don’t think that is crazy.
scarshapedstar
Concern-trolling your own comment threads shall henceforth be referred to as “Coled Comfort”. :)
Jen
Well, “The President’s Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors” claimed in July 2007 that they had had a “gratifying accomplishment”, to wit: assurances by the DOD that payments retroactive to 2001 would be made to enlistees whose service was cut short by combat-related injuries. “We were confident this rule was surely not intended to apply to service men and women whose combat related injuries forced them to leave the military”. Page 24.
And if that had actually happened, then I don’t suppose this proposed legislation would be necessary.
John Cole
Fine. Bush sucks. I can’t believe Bush totally is personally responsible for taking money back from our wounded vets. I heard a rumor he was personally driving to their houses to rough them up. One guy even said he threatened his aunt.
/DU
John Cole
And I don’t concern troll. I am constantly hesitant to attack people unfairly. You all see it as a virtue when I call bullshit on what I think are quick or unfair attacks on Democrats. On Bush, notsomuch.
When I think they are in the wrong, though, I let them have it with both barrels.
SpotWeld
Maybe it’s not specifically Bush bashing, but it is a decidedly pointed criticism that is targeted at a whole administration that builds itself on the premise “Vision First, reality will follow”. Bush and his circle had a vision of a more economically accessible Middles East that would come about once the “democratic dominoes” started tumbling. So Bush started spoiling for a military action that would bring that about (not necessarily the Iraq War, but it certainly fit the criteria).
Then he started the action, confident that everything that could go wrong wouldn’t. He failed to plan. He failed to plan for a prolonged occupation; he failed to react to the resulting increases in demand on military medical and logistical support services. As near as I can tell, this whole administration is staffed on the premise that is you believe in the vision enough, everything you do will go right.
Bush left competence and basic ability to do the job out the equation in his organization decisions. These shortfalls, this utter failure of his administration are a direct result of that.
And the worst thing of all of this, is that the Bush administration doesn’t see this as a failure on their part, but a failure on those who are suffering in their inability to “have faith in the vision”.
It’s like faith healers. If you get better it’s because the “healer” has been granted great powers. If you die it’s because your faith wasn’t strong enough.
If a member of the press speaks out, they don’t support the troops. If a member of the military speaks out, they’re a “phone soldier”, etc. etc. etc.
That’s why this story is relevant to the Bush administration. (Sorry about the rant.)
demimondian
Now, look, John. We all know you, and we understand that you’d find an excuse for him even if the president ate a baby.
Jen
Settle down, John. It’s ok. It’s your blog. Everybody likes you. No Outrageomotron, o.k.? O.k. Va bene.
So let’s discuss. You think it’s unfair to Bush (I never said Bush, I’m discussing the DOD here) to put this on him and you think it’s mostly inadvertent. The dolphin caught in the tuna net. But you haven’t elaborated on this. If the DOD has a policy that you have to return your bonus if you haven’t completed your service, it seems fairly obvious to me that there should be a little asterisk (*uh, except, of course, if you’re disabled for a service-related injury). And if the DOD gets called out for not having that little asterisk in July by the Presidential Commission on Blah Blah Blah, and they say, of course that was unintentional, we’re going to reimburse those guys as of 2001, and the Presidential Commission on Blah Blah Blah pats themselves on the back, in July, and Jordan Fox gets a letter, in November, saying he has to pay back $3,000 of his enlistment bonus — then I think you have to defend your position a little more.
I want a job as guest blogger. :)
Badtux
John, do a Google search for “signing bonus injured soldier”. I won’t post the links here because WoodePressed marks it as “spam” and refuses to post it, but:
April 27, 2006, USA Today: “ABC News, which also got hold of the report in advance, told the tale of Army specialist Tyson Johnson. Seriously injured by a mortar blast, “his injuries forced him out of the military,” ABC reported, “and the Army demanded he repay an enlistment bonus of $2,700 because he’d only served two-thirds of his three-year tour. When he couldn’t pay, Johnson’s account was turned over to bill collectors. He ended up living out of his car when the Army reported him to credit agencies as having bad debts, making it impossible for him to rent an apartment.”
November 15, 2006, Steve Gilliard’s News Blog: “The final blow for Town came when he found out that, despite assurances from Wexler and other Fort Carson officials, the specialist would indeed have to give back the bulk of his $15,000 signing bonus. At the time of his dismissal, Town had served one year of his six-year contract.”
February 13, 2007, WPXI Pittsburgh: “Soldiers who were paralyzed, suffered brain damage and lost limbs owe the government enlistment bonus money. They must pay the money back because they didn’t fulfill their tour of duty.”
April 6, 2007, Now on the News: “We—we have to remember, this is a guy who served in Iraq in combat. Put his life on the line. Was wounded in a rocket attack. And now has to pay the army back for his signing bonus. it’s absolutely absurd. We owe this kid forever. And the idea that he—he and his family now have not only this financial burden, but this psychological burden and this personal burden of having to advocate on their own behalf to prove he was really injured is—is outrageous.”
John, once is an outrage. Twice is coincidence. Over and over and over again… that is enemy action. I am sorry, John, but the Bush Administration is the enemy of our veterans. You can’t have stories of this sort time after time, month after month, year after year (and those were just the stories on the FIRST PAGE of the Google results) and conclude anything else.
wasabi gasp
Bush’s Fault. Everything. Is.
/yoda
Zifnab
But John, at this point it’s almost trivial. What are you going to do? Subpoena the Bush Admin? There’s a scandal surrounding the process of uncovering scandals. The very act of discovery is so highly politicized. And beating against Bush will always be a lucrative en devour, even if you’re not left batting 1000. Walking into yet another of these debacles with the skeptic’s frame of mind – maybe it was all just one unhappy accident? – is officially the height of naivety.
It’s like the story about the plane bound for Louisiana that just happened to have nukes, with Louisiana just happening to be the staging group for flights to Iraq. Sure, it’s possible that someone just accidentally ordered a plane loaded with nukes when we just happen to be talking about nuking Iran.
Sure, this ghoulish penny-pinching just happens to occur when we just happen to be in a budget battle over funding the war – and by extension the entire Defense Department.
I mean, it’s possible the Pentagon made a silly little mistake.
And it’s possible that Iraq still has WMDs. But its not fucking likely.
Pb
Regarding the bonuses, here’sa bit more:
Jake
Slightly OT: IslahomocommieamericahatersVoteVets.Org has a blog.
I’m sure the fRight will go marching right in there to give them what for and then some.
Cinderella Ferret
The military issues all new trainees boxers that have a hole in the front and the back. That way the can fuck you without having to pull your shorts down.
I’m a vet. I know. I still have a difficult time sitting down every Veterans Day, what, with a sore ass and all. And I served more than 35 years ago!
But this doesn’t surprise me. The US Military is one the largest bureaucracies this side of the former planet Pluto. Much like the Walter Reed disgrace it is the callousness of the bureaucracy, and those that run it, that create these problems and allow them to fester. You can’t blame this on the Former Cheerleader, but if it isn’t fixed ASAP–have at it. The fact that it is now public should make a difference, but with these rat-bastards at the helm you have to verify every detail or they will cut corners.
Punchy
Only phony soliders lose their limbs. Maybe if they spent less time listening to Ed Schultz on their Hummer’s radio and more time looking for IEDs, they’d still have their stems.
Bubblegum Tate
And like the Coultergeist pointed out, it’s phony soldiers like them who caused us to lose Vietnam. Snerk.
guyermo
John, if President Bush is willing to furlough 150,000 civilian employees in a temper tantrum over his war funding, is it entirely unreasonable to think that he’d ask for bonuses back?
John Cole
Guyermo- no.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Bush met this whole thing with gross indifference. That has, after all, been the defining characteristic of this administration, with epic incompetence right behind.
demimondian
Bush isn’t furloughing 150,000 civilian employees in a temper tantrum; he’s hoping that those employees will blame the Dems for his action. Frankly, it’s a ballsy move, worthy of Rove at his best — take the opponents strongest suit (“you don’t really support the troops”) and attack it.
If the Congress stands up right, it’ll be a losing proposition for the President. If they stand up wrong — or if they fold — it’s going to be a big win for him. We’ll have to see who controls the narrative for the next little bit. Reid’s choosing to not let the Pres put in any recess thugs makes me a little more optimistic, particularly if the House holds the line on the Blue Dogs…
Andy K
The difference, for the last 6+ years, at least, is that Bush is the chief executive: he is ultimately responsible for the defunding of the V.A. and for orders that wounded vets repay their bonuses.
I’ll give the guy a pass if he’s not making sure that each and every exit on the interstates is well marked. I don’t think anyone expects that type of micro-management from the President (well, Jimmy Carter, maybe). But when something this significant is proposed and Bush didn’t know one damned thing about it he should issue an apology in prime-time, reinstate the bonuses/funding, and shit-can the people who didn’t make fuckin’-A-sure that the President was fully aware of these policies.
And there are still going to be questions as to whether Stupor Mundi was informed anyway and is now just playing a little CYA. I’m leanin’ to the teflon Hanes boxer-briefs explanation.
jcricket
I’m sure that was tooootallly random, an innocent mistake. Unintentional, as it were, like all the statements Cheney made linking Saddam and 9/11 and Al Queda.
John’s right, in that it’s doubtful this was Bush himself making a policy. But he is indirectly responsible for the situation.
* From getting the US (and the soldiers, as importantly) involved in a never-ending unnecessary war.
* Using “support the troops” not as an actual policy guideline, but as agitprop.
* Fucking over the VA in countless ways
Bush may not have signed the order to do this, but he can fix it, and chooses not to until the Democratic congress pushes him to do it. Because he doesn’t care about the troops as people, but as props for his crusade against Islamofascism or whatever.
Just like the President is never directly responsible for the economy getting better or worse. But you can make a good situation mediocre, or a bad situation worse, and Bush has done a bang up job of both in the last 7 years.
guyermo
he’s not hoping the employees will blame the democrats.
he’s hoping the democrats blame themselves for the possibility of a future reaction to a threat he may or may not actually
follow through on.
And it is a temper tantrum. He just got a 420 (give or take) billion dollar defense budget. But it didn’t have war funding. So he turns into a 5 year old kid who gets an Ipod nano instead of an Ipod 160 and smashes it with a hammer to get revenge on whoever got it for him.
Regardless, he’s counting on the Democrats to do what they always do and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
demimondian
I disagree. I do not think that this is not a temper tantrum.
In my opinion, temper tantrums are infuriating to the adults they’re aimed at, but, ultimately, they’re the small things children do. This is a coldly thought-out piece of cruelty in inflicted by the most powerful man on earth on a bunch of powerless civilians who are vulnerable simply because of their patriotism.
John Cole
I am running a little slow tonight- what are we referring to regarding the furlough?
Mr. Furious
Here is another link to the story from a CBS affiliate. Tim F’s links weren’t taking me anywhere either. Got this from Andrew Sullivan.
demimondian
Oh, sorry, John. Here’s a link. Basically, SecDef is threatening to start laying off civilian support personnel if the president doesn’t sign a bridge funding bill.
Michael Gass
The reason for this (the recoupment of bonus money) is because if the kids had read the contract they signed when they enlisted for that bonus, it flat states in the fine print that they must serve out their entire enlistment and tour duty length; that if they are injured, lose a body part, etc, they will be required to repay a portion.
It sucks, it isn’t right, but, that is the contract these kids are signing without having this thoroughly explained to them.
Jen
If what Michael Gass has just written is true, it kinda blows that whole “inadvertent” idea out of the water, doesn’t it? I mean, if it’s spelled out in the contract, you can’t really argue that it’s an accounting glitch when it happens.
JWW
T. French,
I do agree, this is absolutely the wrong thing to do. If your audience(most of the comments above) would make the take the time too write a Congressman or Senator instead of spitting out (I told you so), this issue would be reversed in 30 days.
The voice of our nation and the honor we bestow on our military would make the decision maker cower and request a name change. Request that your readers focus on change with their voice.
Also, don’t give a mixed signal of wrong doing by pointing out another blog. If you feel in the right, go for it on your own.
Delia
It’s simple. All the dough’s going to Halliburton, private contractors, oil companies, and the billionaire boys’ club. The Pentagon doesn’t actually have that much money to pay soldiers’ salaries or benefits, so they’ve got to cut corners wherever they can. It’s like a health insurance company that’s set up to deny your claim when you actually get sick. So is it directly Bush’s fault or is that he just doesn’t give a damn? And does it really matter?
Meanwhile, for your art education and edification, it’s time to look at some line drawings from the Weimar artist George Grosz, who also protrayed wounded veterans and the poor and rich bastards who didn’t give a shit. Here’s one
http://pirazhvu.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/the-owners_1920.jpg
Here’s another.
http://www.artscope.net/VAREVIEWS/images/weimar5.jpeg
Later on, he did pictures about the fascism that followed. We won’t go there just yet.
heywood jablomy
Let’s put this discussion in a proper focus:
— Wingnuts: Bush and Rightists care about our troops because …
– they send them to war without proper vests or fortified hummers.
– they order them to bypass stores of weapons and armaments ultimately used to kill them.
– they let them molder is wretched sick wards when they get home wounded.
– they deny them bennies for PTSD, underfund them for mental and physical therapy and double and triple their duty tours.
– they grab back their bonuses and challenge their benefit and pay claims.
John, the point is that Bush and co. and his Chickenstan enablers play the “troop concern” card over and over and yet never lift a pinkie to fix these problems until they get critical media attention. Bush is the boss – and he has done NOTHING proactive. They just don’t care. Not caring is bad too.
caustics
Thank you. I had the same problem.
Yeah, I heard that on NPR walking home today. Think Progress has more:
And so on.
RSA
Hey, something both moderately coherent and sensible from JWW. Subtract the bile, and it’s a good thought.
CaseyL
Here’s a little trip down memory lane, about a similar Catch 22 that operated under Reagan0-Bush I: remember the old Agent Orange controversy in the 1980s?
Agent Orange was one of the biocides we used in Vietnam. Our own soldiers were exposed it to, and developed an assortment of mental and physical illnesses.
The VA, under Reagan-Bush, kept denying that Agent Orange was responsible for any long-term health effects. They also refused to authorize studies that would prove the issue one way or the other.
So the sick veterans wound up ‘self-medicating’ – meaning, they started drinking heavily and using street drugs.
Then guess what happened?
The vets who’d tried to get coverage got letters denying their request and terminating whatever coverage they already had… on the grounds that they had ‘abused’ the benefits by becoming alcoholics and drug addicts.
The GOP really has a long history of shitting all over veterans, doesn’t it?
jake
Let’s play a game in which we substitute PTSD for something else.
So to a soldier you could also say:
And to a miner you could also say:
And to a man in Iraq who has been drinking filthy water you could say:
And to a child who has been in a serious auto accident … well, you get the idea.
Compassionate Conservatism at its best, baybee. And think of the billions in health care costs we’ll save. No one is ever really sick or hurt. Their “situation” (what the rest of the fucking world calls symptoms) is normal for whatever they’ve been through and you can’t expect doctors to fix situations.
Chuck Butcher
I’m familiar with the association between this Administration and anger, and even tears…but now I want to hurt somebody. It is probably a good thing I don’t have a definable target. It’s a very, very long time since I felt this way – I don’t like it, at all.
I’ve said I’m a lefty, I never said a damn thing about pacifist.
Pb
Define “spelled out”–and see also, the “Try One” program, and the failed challenge to it…
I suppose you can guess how that one worked out…
Chris Johnson
I just think it must be so confusing for the Right, figuring out whether to support the troops or not. It depends on what the definition of ‘support’ supports ;)
I understand there was a time in distant history when “support our killing anybody who gets in our way, giving all the money to our rich cronies and screwing any troops that aren’t still busily killing anybody who gets in our way” was an UNPOPULAR position…
demimondian
Yes, caustics, that was the transcript I was thinking about. I couldn’t find it.
RSA
My suspicion is that PTSD is regarded as a weakness, even by some who suffer from it. Our society is not kind in general to those who have disabilities that aren’t physical.
JWW
RSA,
My thought was only too speak, when we speak in numbers, we usually win. When you speak only to mock, you get retort.
Gather your voices, write, call and let the situation be known. Don’t state or voice your opinion, just speak the truth, let those who hear you decide. In this certain instance, a truthful voice will make the difference.
jake
I’d say it’s pretty crappy to those with physical disabilities too but, yes. Anyone with a mental illness (no matter what kind) is “crazy” and it is perfectly acceptable to ignore crazy people. If they try to insist that you listen to them they’re just exhibiting signs of their craziness so it’s perfectly acceptable to tell them calm down and/or run away.
I think it’s a vestige of the days when mental illness was mistaken for demonic posession.
But at least the fRight Wing has proven too much crank yanking doesn’t make you … Oh. Hmm…
Xanthippas
Oh, that’s a fair suspicion. Don’t you know that among the right, it’s fashionable to regard the increase of PTSD as a sign of the weakening of our proud warrior culture? Back in the old days, soldiers who were traumatized by war at least had the decency to drink themselves to death or kill their wives, children and themselves in the privacy of their own homes, without making a big fuss about it or anything.
Bubblegum Tate
One such soldier is my downstairs neighbor. He’s pretty pissed about being exposed to it in the first place and also for the way the government treated him afterward (“shabbily” is the best possible description). I don’t blame him in the slightest.
TenguPhule
Shit, we knew about this at Daily Kos over a year ago, Tim.
You guys only learned about it now?
incontrolados
My favorite wingnut loves the military, but she can’t handle them after they come back damaged.
It has always been this way. One of the first cases I worked on as a paralegal (back in the day) was agent orange cases. The law firm I worked for had a bunch of very screwed up people for clients. I talked to then often. While my boss was just looking for the money (later disbarred), I thought what I was doing was important.
Sadly, it’s always been this way. The “support the troops” thing only works for the troops that survive unscathed. Very old news. That John argues about something so routine . . . oh well. It’s gone to the top, to the executive for years.
We must then wait for someone to prove a known knowable as regards Bush before John decides to make a decision.
k
incontrolados
A book has been published about it — circa October, 2004.
duh
Fledermaus
John, who’s been prancing around in a bunch of spiffy uniforms that say “commander in chief” It’s not a slogan. If it’s known in the chain of command, Bush is also expected to know it, and fix the problem. President isn’t some fun ceremonial position. It carries large responsibilities. Part of that is managing the lavithian that is the US Govt.
In the end, no one told me is not a defense to someone who starts a war on false pretenses. If Bush wants to be spoiled and not have any responsibilities? Let him run for King of Switzerland. Until then he is ultimately responsible for treatment of the troops we treats so callously.
bago
Assassin’s Creed. Play it.
Rudi
Cleek says:
Try Firefox or Seamonkey and add NoScript and AddBlocker. One problem though, both web browsers don’t like old MS OS.
Tom Shipley
“PTSD is not an illness. It is a normal condition for people who have been through what you have been through.”
Yep, just as losing your legs is not a disability, it’s a normal result of being blown up by an IED.
Punchy
Why would they need all that money, anyways, when they’ve now got only half a leg to spend it on? They’re only buying half the shoes, and maybe if they’re lucky, half the mittens and batting gloves that most of us are forced to buy 2 of. Are monocles really more expensive than glasses? I think not.
jcricket
We could add “War is not an aberration. It is the normal result of being run by megomaniacal theocrats.
Aaron
Well Tim if your suffering from BSD rather then bds its becouse your clearly suffering from the french version known as “Bush Syndrome DeDerangement” and that explains it all.
demimondian
Actually, I suffer (terribly) from BSD, because it’s dying. Netcraft proves it.
John Rohan
Wow.
Not a single one of you (that I can find) even bother to point out that the same day the report on Jordan Fox aired, the Pentagon already announced that he would not have to pay the bonus back. I don’t know if it was an honest mistake or a policy change, but it might be a good idea to listen to Mr. Cole (in this case only) and get all the facts before jumping on the Bush-bashing wagon.
More here.
Michael Gass
There is an article that summarizes the enlistment contracts well. I’ll post the important parts:
A) While termed “quick ship,” it is not quick pay. The enlistee will received $10,000 upon completing basic training and advanced individual training, with the remaining $10,000 paid out in even annual sums over the course of their initial active duty enlistment, based on the formula of one year=12 months. (Note: the term of service is extendable solely at the discretion of the army as it deems necessary.)
B) The remaining portion is reducible if the enlistee does not complete service. If said enlistee is killed in action, the remainder of the bonus is reduced by the number of months unserved, as the enlistee did not complete the contracted portion of service, as a result of death.
C) If enlistee is injured: the 10k is reduced per a formula based on “body part lost” (hereafter designated “BPL”) and terms of service (hereafter designated “TOS.”) The BPL formula breaks down as follows: the enlistee is designated as essentially a human body comprised of five major working parts: two arms, two legs, and one head. If an arm or leg is lost, diminishing enlistee by 1/5, enlistee will forfeit 20% of the outstanding bonus, collecting only 80%, further reduced by the amount of TOS unserved, based on the aforementioned BPL. Two BPL: 60%, three BPL 40%, etc… However, in the eventuality of BPL, the army will provide the appropriate prosthesis (prostheses), thus returning the enlistee in essentially the identical working condition as received.
D) Fingers and toes will be considered minor body parts (MBP), and designated as 1/10th of the abovementioned 1/5th BP, however their loss would not necessarily render the enlistee incapable of resuming service. It would be at enlistee’s discretion to continue service, therefore collecting the remaining portion of the bonus (less the per-digit percentage MBPL). If, however, enlistee decides not to continue service, the remaining portion will be reduced by the aforementioned formula.
E) Further MBP designations include loss of eye (½ of a major working part; see also “ear,” “nostril,” and “testicle”), therefore the enlistee will only forfeit 10% of the outstanding bonus. However, if both eyes are lost (hereafter designated as “blindness”), or both ears are lost (hereafter designated as “deafness”) the entire remaining portion will be forfeited as that will render the enlistee incapable of completing the contracted service. Should both testicles be lost, the remaining portion will be passed on to enlistee’s children.
F) If, however, the head is lost, the entire remaining portion of the bonus will be forfeited, as the enlistee will no longer be fit to complete the contracted portion of service.
G) The money is taxable.
Michael Gass
In response to John Rohan:
I can tell you for a fact it is not a mistake in accounting. I am a veteran and tried to get back into the National Guard. I reviewed the contract terms and saw in it as I have said in previous posts.
What the Pentagon has done is be caught in the MSM as appearing as they don’t give a damn about our troops, which they don’t, and they are now scrambling for cover because of it. The Pentagon’s statement that this was a mistake is a bald-faced lie. The Pentagon is fully aware of contractual obligations as they are set by DoD directive.
incontrolados
Blogwhoring John Rohan also fails to understand that this sort of thing has gone on for YEARS.
incontrolados
But putting a photo taken by Michael Yon on my blog covers me for this, right? Oh, and mouthing “I love our Warriors” makes me a patriot, no?