The whole point of slapping yellow ribbons on your SUV is that it only costs a dollar ninety three. It is very important to the whole philosophy behind this war that no one of any wealth or influence be asked to pay anything but nominal sums and lip service.
If you don't go out to dinner tonight, the terrorists will have one.
But seriously, a goddam buck fifty from everyone with one of those ribbons, as well as the rest of, should take care of this sort of thing, shouldn't it?
I'd been thinking about posting on this, but it was off the depresso-meter. I had the same thought: why? what's the problem? Paying for care is no-lose politically and, like you say, a moral imperative. Is it really hostility to any government provided service?
One dinner, obviously. You must enjoy the filet mignon, so the terrorists cannot.
"What I'm hearing which is sort of scary is that they all want to stay at Walter Reed. Everybody is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the military here, you know, were underprivileged anyway so this (chuckle) - this is working very well for them."
No really, a phonetic substitution is a kind of typo, and not evidence that you don't know how to spell.
If I were going to guess (it's funny, there are things I'll say freely in comments, but am shy about in posts) it's a combination of normal fucking up, and insane resistance to criticism. The initial fuckups happen because they just do -- then when someone points out that injured soldiers are being maltreated (which people have been doing since 2003), it's treated as a political attack, and responding to it in any way that would concede its truth (like, by fixing the problem) is a sign of weakness.
what, concretely, do we plan to do for people who have placed themselves and their families at risk by working for us
Nothing. And I remain uncertain as to what the proper policy is, to be honest. While immigration to the US would seem to be a good answer for Iraqi nationals, I suspect we're both unwilling and unable to provide that option for anything but a small number of such people. I have no idea how we're going to sort out the "deserving"; I feel certain that it's unlikely to be decided along lines of which I approve.
The problems at Walter Reed are awful to read about, especially because the whole situation is so bizarre. Like you say, it can't possibly be that hard for an institution with a $400+ billion budget to adequately staff and maintain a hospital. I guess it's just part of not wanting to acknowledge the costs (monetary, yes, but especially human) of the war.
This, from the commander at the hospital, was particularly troubling:
a major reason outpatients stay so long, a change from the days when injured soldiers were discharged as quickly as possible, is that the Army wants to be able to hang on to as many soldiers as it can, "because this is the first time this country has fought a war for so long with an all-volunteer force since the Revolution."
7: Or a clever pun, if you can think of why you meant to do it on purpose. William Safire had a story about dictating a column about Jimmy Carter's pacificism (yes, Safire's a tool) over the phone, and having it printed as referring to Carter's passive-ism. He was very pleased with the serendipitous insult.
How much power does Congress have to direct funding? Specifically, how much can they micro-manage? Honest question here. I ask because I'm feeling like there is, at the very least, a moral obligation to attach a rider to any further war funding which specifies that Amount X will be spent directly on the improvement of conditions and treatments for war veterans. I've seen a building that looked as bad as Walter Reed's Building 18 on the inside; it's currently empty, living in it is forbidden by the property owner and it is awaiting renovation. It's part of a fucking frat house. A soldier whose legs got blown off shouldn't have to live like that.
13: I'm pretty sure they can do that, and certainly should.
Good context for this story can be found in the photo "Wounded Marine Comes Home To Wed" which Lindsay is covering here.
The fact is, the administration, at nearly every level, simply doesn't want the wounded soldiers to exist at all. Pretending like uncomfortable truths simply don't exist is one of their major political strategies. Of course they are going to ignore the wounded soldiers. They don't want us taking pictures of returning coffins. They don't want casualties reported. They want to make the costs of war go away by ignoring them.
This is another example of how the political discourse has been frozen into anti-realistic forms by constant reiteration. Republicans are by definition fiscal conservatives who support the troops, so they don't have to be fiscally conservative and they don't have to support the troops.
And when Democrats say something about problems at Walter Reed, it's a big joke and a fraud because we all know that Democrats hate the troops.
It's massive fraud, heavily abetted by most of the media, often including the token liberals in media. It's so pervasive that even anti-Republican anti-conservatives start using the twisted vocabulary.
The Republican domination, which is just now being broken, was based on a hard fanatical right-wing core (30-35%) to which was added 16% "low information voters" (with passive help from 40% non-voters). That worked completely for 6 years and pretty well for 26 years. Bush's actual active support was no more than 15-20% of the whole population (a third of the voters), but they capitalized it well. that's why I still say Rove was a genius.
It's things like this (multiplied by a hundred) that make me think of Nazi Germany ca. 1936 (Mayer, "They thought they were free"). The public dialogue has been so debased that Bush has been able to get away with almost anything he wanted to.
8: That's it. There's a really pathological resistance to recognizing and then fixing goofs. It's probably the human norm given all those "leadership" biz-books about the uncommon hero who actually fixes bad stuff before there's a full-blown crisis. Near as I can tell, no one likes Cassandra.
I keep seeing those TV adverts for the army directed at parents, exhorting them to listen to their kid when he or she discusses enlisting. Perhaps some of the $ spent on those would pay for better care after that kid is injured.
#14 gets it right, with the added bonus that Republicans nowadays give themselves a particular luxury: not only do they have total faith in the government's omnipotence to perform impossible feats of foreign policy through force of sheer will, but they also have the "LOL what do you expect from the government?" card that they can pull out in cases where they have ruined a government agency that was working fine before they took over.
8: LB, you have to add to that compulsive symbolic budget-cutting. Bush runs up enormous deficits and then reduces them by perhaps 10% by cutting discretionary spending. An enormous fraud, but the press won't call him on it.
it's treated as a political attack
Well of course it's a political attack. It may be justified or it may not, but let's be real, this is of interest because it is consistent with your criticims of the war and the President, not because of a long-abiding interest and study of the military health-care system.
I am much less appalled than many on this thread appear to be because while I would find it unsatisfactory, given the sorts of places soldiers have to live, what the article described did not sound so over the top terrible.
Let's not be real, Idealist. Everyone will be happier that way.
It may be justified or it may not, but let's be real, this is of interest because it is consistent with your criticims of the war and the President, not because of a long-abiding interest and study of the military health-care system.
And fuck you too. You may not be able to conceive of why someone should care about brain-injured patients sitting uncared for because they no longer have the capacity to track their own appointments and no one's helping them other than for political advantage, but your condition isn't universal.
not because of a long-abiding interest and study of the military health-care system.
It's only recently become so relevant because of the strain of all the wounded troops. It wasn't a huge issue before Iraq.
seriously, Idealist, it was bad enough to bother Mrs. Rumsfeld and a Republican Congressman, but as soon as Democrats pitch in, let's be real, every moron Republican hack in the world says "Let's be real, it's a Democratic partisan attack".
And if we didn't say anything, let'c be real, it would be because we're coastal elitists who hate the troops.
Sorry for being real.
And the Republican Congressman was ignored, and so was Republican Mrs. Rumsfeld, and they both loyally kept their mouths shut after that.
Because, guess what, partisanship is one of the ways things get done in a two-party system. The Republican hacks either keep their mouths shut or else slime Democrats, so it's a good thing we have partisan Democrats to talk about this.
And fuck you too.
Wow. Impressive retort.
It wasn't a huge issue before Iraq.
This is an issue of long standing. The military health care system is very expensive and there is a constant balancing act between maintaining a wartime capability (which is expensive) and providing peacetime care. And, more generally, there is the longstanding issue of money for military and family housing. I agree that the war put more strains on the system and that it is a bigger issue now, but no one wants to build and maintain a system with a first-class full wartime capability when it will sit unused in peacetime. I imagine that someplace there is a manual for Medical Service Corps offices that says tha tin this situation, you put people in tents, and the military often does.
Depressingly, over at Fistful, we've got the opposite kind of troll. Some damn fool in France who reckons the Iraqi interpreters ought to be slaughtered by "teh resistance" because they are traitors.
Fucking fascists. Fucking nationalists. Fucking commies. Fuck everybody.
19: given the sorts of places soldiers have to live
Living in mud and dust while hale and hearty is fine, doing so is what recruits volunteer for, sign on the dotted line for, and get paid for. They also expect not to be left behind, and I don't see why that doesn't apply in the hospital as well as the battlefield.
I agree with #25, but this seems to me like yet another example where we can say "What was the long-term plan? Why was there no effort to provide enough psychiatrists to treat all these guys? How could they think the strain from 2003 to 2007 wouldn't degrade the hospital's condition in a noticeable way? How could the long-term plan be so wrong?" and then realize "Oh yeah, there was no long-term plan, because the Bush administration has a nihilist attitude to what the government can accomplish and it decided not to bother."
Walter Reed is the one in DC, right? The one where all the politicians go on their PR visits? So it's not a field hospital. Not a regional ongoing-care hospital. Not an in-theater hospital, or Rammstein, or deployed or anything. This is the flagship, which should be providing the most publicised standard of care. I'll bet that if Walter Reed is bad, then the other hospitals are worse.
Except for the ones in West Germany. I can't imagine anything being dirty or broken in Germany, even if it's run 100% by American bureaucracies.
I first became aware of the problems with the military medical service through the movie Born on the Fourth of July. Not a highbrow or reliable source, but the one I happened on. I have been concerned about the issue, along with the issue of military pay and the exposure of soldiers to toxins, including depleted uranium. for a long time, but never have made it the focus of activism. Bitch Ph.D. has also posted on military pay.
So no, idealist, we are not just now becoming angry about this issue.
In fact, the whole "you never cared about military medical care before" line is just an extension of "you hate the troops." You know that's not true. The troops are my neighbors, coworkers, and of late, my fellow anti-war activists.
25: We're not just talking about crumbling buildings here -- did you read the article? We're talking about people who aren't getting the medical care they need:
...many soldiers with impaired memory from brain injuries sat for weeks with no appointments and no help from the staff to arrange them.
And even on the "Back when I was a young soldier, I walked miles through the snow to fight, uphill, both ways" front, I just don't believe that rooms where you can see through holes in the ceiling to the bathrooms above are standard or acceptable housing for wounded soldiers.
Impressive retort.
It wasn't intended substantively. If you don't like that kind of thing, try being less insulting next time.
Wow. 15 offers a far-fetched theory on how our political discourse becomes debased, which 19 proves correct in all respects.
It wasn't intended substantively.
Pity.
In fact, the whole "you never cared about military medical care before" line is just an extension of "you hate the troops."
If you say so. I didn't say that, don't think that, and do not think it is reasonably inferrable from what I wrote.
But whatever makes you all happy.
Idealist did exactly what I said. He just knows that Democrats don't care about the troops. It's carved in stone, and his mind won't be changed.
This really puts the lie to the whole "support the troops thing". Troops are expendable, period. They follow orders and collect their pay. The "support the troops" schtick is to give the lying CinC cover.
"You can't support the troops if you don't support the war"., they say.
Yes, you can. But the war isn't for the troops, to make the troops happy, anyway. The troops are for the war, to win it. The war is for the American people. The American people have a right to oppose the war regardless of what the troops think. And they have the right to support the troops and oppose the CinC. (Note: Bush is ONLY CinC of the military. Not the whole natione.)
Well of course it's a political attack.
Damn straight. Whenever one party attacks the policies of another, it's a political attack. That's how the system works.
It may be justified or it may not,
And now you've lost me. You seem to be implying that the truth of the issue is less important than who's raising it. This is ridiculous. Also, absent the noble Mr. Emerson, who brought up party politics?
I said 'shouldn't be political' in the post, if that counts. The thing is, 'Whenever one party attacks the policies of another, it's a political attack' is right -- a policy disagreement such as one on the subject of whether wounded soldiers should be getting decent medical care or not is a political disagreement. But to claim that because it's a political disagreement it's motivated purely by maneuvering for partisan advantage, as Ideal did in 19, rather than by a belief in the policy advocated, is a nasty and unfounded smear.
Wow. 15 offers a far-fetched theory on how our political discourse becomes debased, which 19 proves correct in all respects.
You know, I'm not sure that's true. Far be it from me to defend Ideal (on, admittedly, grounds he hasn't advanced), but, to the best of my knowledge, the military vote remains heavily Republican. I think that's a bad mistake by military personnel, I think Dems are much better, in the long run, for military personnel. But I also don't think that military personnel are morons who have been tricked into voting Republican. It does seem like a basic plank of Republican culture is reverence for the military. I think that reverence has negative effects on military personnel and leads to a lot of mistaken policy, but given the fact of that reverence, it's comprehensible that military personnel would skew Republican. And given that skewing, it's comprehensible that the media would treat Republicans as better on military matters. (Still wrong, but not bizarre.)
Idealist is on record as a Republican.
Party politics is what makes our system work. When you say "that's just politics" or "that's just partisanship", you are incoherently or ignorantly wishing that you lived in a one-party state or something of that kind. Or else you're a party hack, throwing the only thing you can think of at the other side. You rally have to respond on the merits.
It would seem that a country going into a war would make provisions to deal with casualties, and not just try to shoehorn the new people into the old facility and old budget.
But that reverence doesn't mean anything. It's meaningless lip service, and self-serving cant.
It would seem that a country going into a war
Or, you know, one that had been at war for four years.
And now you've lost me.
All I am saying is that even if the motivation for the attack is political, if you are right, you are right. So whatever the motivation fro bringing something up, what matters is begin right on the merits. As I not, I am not sure that people are as right as they think they are.
But to claim that because it's a political disagreement it's motivated purely by maneuvering for partisan advantage, as Ideal did in 19, rather than by a belief in the policy advocated, is a nasty and unfounded smear.
Reading, it has been said, is a lost art. Go back and read what I wrote. You simply did not read it, or if you did, you let partisan anger rather than reason, guide your interpretation.
40 also applies to the Republicans' being the party of religion.
this is of interest because it is consistent with your criticims of the war and the President
That's the nasty petty little jibe I was talking about -- a claim that I'm uninterested in the subtantive suffering of the people being maltreated except as it serves my partisan ends. You can talk to your friends like that if it suits you, but don't be surprised when they take it badly.
Come on, Idealist. You wrote,
this is of interest because it is consistent with your criticims of the war and the President, not because of a long-abiding interest and study of the military health-care system
The obvious implication is that concern for soldiers is not the reason for LB's post.
There is no evidence either for or against's Idealist's belief that we wouldn't be pointing this out if there was a Democratic president. I like to think not only that we would be pointing it out, but that this problem wouldn't arise in a Democratic administration because the military wouldn't be overstretched by an unnecessary war prosecuted in a half-assed yet chaotic fashion. But again, he may be right in his suspicions; we can't be sure.
But that reverence doesn't mean anything. It's meaningless lip service, and self-serving cant.
I disagree. It means, in part, that some of the things that Republican military personnel care about and think are important are treated that way by the Republicans. For example, it seems to me likely that Republicans (or people from geographic areas dominated by Republicans) are more likely than Democrats to see military service as something significant--as giving a special meaning to one's life--rather than a job choice. That military personnel might trade better healthcare (let's assume) for that might seem strange, but it's not crazy or delusional.
47: That military personnel might trade...
They might. They'll trade lots of things taken for granted by civilians for honor, respect, and other things often laughed at. That shouldn't let the country off the hook when it comes to providing what they need rather than what they'll settle for.
The obvious implication is that concern for soldiers is not the reason for LB's post.
Not, I think, a fair reading, ogged. Notwithstanding her predeliction for reading me unfairly and saying some pretty nasty shit, I have a great deal of regard for LizardBreath, and I have no doubt that she cares about the soldiers who she feels are being treated improperly. But that is quite different from saying that she or Hilzoy or the other people who blog now about things like military pay or healthcare or anything else do so principally out of an interest in those subjects rather than for the partisan/anti-war purpose of showing that this in one more thing that is screwed up. So what my comment reacted to was the claim that it was unreasonable for the administration to take criticism of military healthcare as a political attack. Of course it is. As I acknowledge above, that does not make them wrong on the merits. But it is bullshit, quite frankly, to pretend that the motivation for raising it is pure saintly concerned for the wounded.
Ah. So what you really meant was "Gosh, LB, while I know that you are genuinely concerned about the terrible conditions at Walter Reed, it's not unreasonable of the Administration to perceive commentary on them as an attack"? If you'd put it that way to begin with, then I doubt I would have sworn at you.
re: 47
I tend to think of 'valuing X' as involving actions as well as words. It's easy to say that X is special or important but if all of your actions (other than speech) say otherwise, then it is mostly meaningless.
I'm notorious for representing myself as a saint.
I think that I am correct that a specific problem here is the Republican mania for budget-cutting. Can't fix problems by throwing money at them, you know.
I agree that the war put more strains on the system and that it is a bigger issue now, but no one wants to build and maintain a system with a first-class full wartime capability when it will sit unused in peacetime.
Dude. While I realize that the broader subject here is a little touchy and is rapidly becoming personal, the US military does this all the time. You were a tanker; unless I grossly misunderstand what went on, your M-1 sat around most of the time and occasionally got fired up so you all could practice driving it around and shooting stuff, and your commanders could practice running an armor company or brigade or whatever, so that if a war came you'd be ready to kick some ass.
48: I agree. I'm not arguing otherwise. I just think it's a mistake to think that the seemingly reflexive belief that Republicans are more "pro-military" than Democrats is simply a result of a perverted and purposely injured discourse.
You were a tanker;
Actually, artillery. Andrew Olmsted, who's here occasionally, is the tank guy.
I tend to think of 'valuing X' as involving actions as well as words.
This seems like a cheat. There are actions, including but not limited to use of words. I suspect that military personnel feel they are treated differently--the treatment being the series of relevant acts--by Republicans (by which I mean party members, not simply politicians) than by Dems.
51: The symbols are very important too. Take a look at the efforts people make to expose people falsely claiming military service, medals, etc., and also the efforts made to get the proper decorations bestowed.
Now that I think about it, perhaps the symbols are more important. People are a whole lot more willing to kill or die for symbols than they are for stuff.
re: 56
By 'treatment' you mean face to face? That Democrats denigrate them or disrespect them in some way?
Or do you just mean that they (Democrats) don't say the kind of aggrandising things that Republicans say? In which case we are back to square one again.
Damn. Well, reduce the emphasis on driving around, add a bit more emphasis on shooting stuff, and also throw in "give infantrymen practice in requesting your help", and the point still stands.
There's also probably some way to work in the Adam Smith quote about generosity of bakers; up to a point, whether the opposition wants to embarass you or they want things to work, them making it hard for you to cover up your mistakes is a good thing for the people you are serving.
I suspect that military personnel feel they are treated differently--the treatment being the series of relevant acts--by Republicans (by which I mean party members, not simply politicians) than by Dems.
I think that's the case. Unfortunately, if you look at my last post, it seems to be the case even when they're using the same words.
I want to make two small points. First, the front line medics are doing such an outstanding job that injuries that would have resulted in death previously are now producing severely wounded. That the VA and the military were unprepared for this should come as no surprise, because they had no previous history for it, especially the brain trauma. The second point is that it takes a very long time to ramp up programs for these patients. Part of this problem is because of the giant bureacracy that is the military. Some of the overflow can be handled by contracting out to the private sector, but that implies that the family knows who to contact. It seems that what te VA needs more than anything is some volunteer caseworkers for one on one advocacy for the wounded vets. Oh, it is definately a partisan attack, but one that is deserved.
So what my comment reacted to was the claim that it was unreasonable for the administration to take criticism of military healthcare as a political attack. Of course it is. . . But it is bullshit, quite frankly, to pretend that the motivation for raising it is pure saintly concerned for the wounded.
Obviously, you feel the need to point this out in pure, saintly concern for the wounded, right?
the front line medics
Along with advances in body armor, as I understand it.
Swapping to the "Iraqi refugees" point - check out the special treatment accorded to Iraqi translators - a specific class of persons who have put their lives on the line for the US & its effort in Iraq:
if you are one of the first fifty translators per fiscal year to meet the service requirement and round up the necessary documentation, you and your family (luckily, dependents don't count toward the annual quota) can pony up the $190 filing fee and mail your petition and supporting documentation to Rome (if you're still in Iraq) or Lincoln, Nebraska (if you've somehow made it to the U.S.). I'm sure it won't be a problem for you to round up a letter of recommendation from a general or flag officer, right? Especially since those folks are the ones most likely to be out in the field, working directly at your side?
Of course it's a partisan attack; that's how politics works. Of course the administration perceives it as an attack; it makes them look bad. That still doesn't make it an unjustified attack; no matter how much they don't like it.
61 has it right. Most of these guys, ten, twenty years ago, wouldn't be coming home at all outside of a coffin, and I get the sense that it's just an area there hasn't been the publicity for to get fixed.
If it's a partisan attack, fine, it's a partisan attack. Can we fix the problem now? Is this something where, like, anybody who cares and has the time can show up at a VA hospital and volunteer to help?
I want to follow up on my earlier post. The wounded troops are still technically part of their unit, so the guys that would normaly look out for them, their LT, or 1stSgt are still with the unit. Their eighteen year old wife with two kids is overwhelmed, and wouldn't know how to negotiate the system in the best of times, and certainly not in her emotional state now. There are advocacy volunteers out there, such as Soldier's Angels that could use your support. Go to most milblogs and hit the paypal.
I don't think that the feelings or perceptions of the troops are driving this at all, or should be. If the troops have negative feelings about Democrats, they can vote, and they do. We shouldn't be running to them to ask them to tell us what to think about the war.
Based on what my niece told me about her Guard time, the military is not a place where there is a free and open forum for political debate.
As I understand, the majority of Army personnel spend 2-6 years in the service when pretty young and then leave. Their opinions might not be terribly well-informed, and are very likely to have been influenced by their military training. The most Republican part of the military is probably the officers (tell me if I'm wrong), and there are a lot of reasons for that. I don't think that the political opinions of the officers as a group should have any special standing.
61: Unprepared in 2004, sure. That's reasonable. But here we are three years later doing the same shit in Iraq, and it's hard to claim that no one could have forseen it.
(Not that you are personally trying to completely absolve them...)
And while people can personally give direct assistance, if one has a Republican representative or Senator, it might help to give their office a ring and explain how you are contemplating at this very instant writing a check to your preferred Democratic presidential candidate for $100 because at some point, the mismanagement has to stop.
The wounded troops are still technically part of their unit, so the guys that would normaly look out for them, their LT, or 1stSgt are still with the unit.
This is a problem. If you remember the friend of a friend whose baby shower I was baking a cake for last fall, the guy in the couple was home from Iraq with some psychiatric trauma which had him separated from his old unit. My friend (who works with veterans) was clustering around to try and provide a supportive social group, because all the guy's natural social connections were off with his old unit.
63: Some of that armor might be contributing to the brain damage, tho'. Having one's head between something reasonably heavy and unyielding and a shockwave from buried IED isn't good for it.
69: Yeah. It took three years to come up with two versions of the A-bomb from sketchy theory to bang. The current situation is more like "We go to war with the band-aids we have".
"Walter Reed medical center chief is relieved
General's dismissal follows reports on poor treatment of wounded soldiers "
72.1: Not much avoiding that, though. The body armor (plus advances in battlefield medicine) is protecting the internal organs enough that many soldiers are surviving formerly fatal injuries, so that we're getting proportionately more folks with brain injuries and missing limbs coming back home.
re: 72
There are lots of precedents of truly enormous changes being made if people think something is important enough. In the same period you are talking about, Britain transformed itself into a single-minded war-fighting machine -- with pretty much every facet of society and the economy dedicated to nothing else -- in a fraction of the time.
The reason nothing has happened this time is because those in charge don't really think it's important. This is a war of choice and God forbid that anyone have to pay more taxes or anyone other than the soldiers on the ground and their families back home make any kind of sacrifice.
I don't have time to read the whole thread, but I want to say that I was always against this war and I have always, always supported better healthcare and benefits for our troops. I remember shrieking with delight--even remember where I was standing in Berkeley----in 2000 when someone told me that Al Gore's proposed budget actually spent more money on soldier salaries and health care, and then crowing about this to anyone who would listen, despite the fact that in those days nobody cared on either side. I've given a small but for me significant chunk of change to the Armed Forces Relief Trust. If someone told me that the only reason I cared about wounded soldiers is because it's political I would tell them "fuck you" too.
I suspect a large part of the problem was that they are shutting Walter Reed down anyway so they didnt want to spend any money on it.
"... but even on a cynical level, isn't the US better off if people believe we're trustworthy and will stand by our committments?"
This sort of thing is vastly overrated. Most people believe with good reason that nations have no honor or morals and will betray their allies whenever it is convenient. Trying to convince them otherwise is mostly wasted effort.
Well of course it's a political attack. It may be justified or it may not, but let's be real, this is of interest because it is consistent with your criticims of the war and the President, not because of a long-abiding interest and study of the military health-care system.
I think there are at least two responses to this. One is that the issue is of interest simply because the war is of interest: once you've started to pay attention to something, you tend to continue to pay it attention. The other is just the observation that many of those who advocated this war seem to attach greater importance to motive than many of those who opposed it. In my experience, many arguments about Iraq have taken a sharp swerve towards considering the integrity of the war opponent: I think that's odd.
Also, what's wrong with political attack per se? You see something you don't like, you say so. It's the ad hominems etc. in a political cause that are problematic.
78- I had read that also. It just takes a lot longer to get things done than planned, and well, that substandard building is just sitting empty, and this is just a temporary fix, etc.
Related- remember this when you advocate for a national health care scheme. With the best of intentions, this will be the end result.
#6 is a fantastic, fantastic bit.
3: But seriously, a goddam buck fifty from everyone with one of those ribbons, as well as the rest of, should take care of this sort of thing, shouldn't it?
I don't think so. Taking some numbers from thin air: 30,000 wounded, wild guess of a half million apiece average medical costs (burns are very expensive) ... that's $15 Billion. That may be high - maybe $10 Billion? Someone with googliferous skills could figure it out.
How many SUVs? Maybe 20 million? Divide ... that's in the ballpark of five hundred dollars per SUV.
I think it really is about the money. Given a choice between scaling back the tax cuts for the rich, or increasing the deficit, the choice was to underfund medical care for the soldiers.
SECOMD UPDATE
Musical chairs. The guy who was replaced was replaced by someone just as bad.