Comments (76)

M M wrote on November 20, 2007 4:50 PM:

Bush better fix this one and fix it fast. This will go down right with Walter Reed, traumatic brain injury care, Katrina, and other administration embarassments.

P.L. wrote on November 20, 2007 5:09 PM:

I've heard this story all day long on XM Radio. This is vey disturning that ANY government would do this to the people that fight and risk their lives for their country and become disable in action.

The government appears to have stumbled to a new low when I thought it was not possible.

jon wrote on November 20, 2007 5:12 PM:

This is SOP. Support the troops they say, fund the war. Then they turn around and mistreat the very people who have selflessly risked their lives. And this is far from the first time:

No pay increases and rollbacks of benefits;

Lying about terms of enlistment;

Extend tours of duty and reduce time between tours;

Make injured troops pay for equipment lost or destroyed when they are wounded;

Send troops into combat with insufficient and inadequate equipment;

Stigmatize PTSD troops trying to get treatment;

Downgrade disability claims related to injury and combat service.

A partial and far from comprehensive list.

Maybe the government should get it's signing bonus back when Fox gets his eye back.

Supporting the troops means not recklessly squandering their lives, health and future in unnecessary, illegal wars of aggression.

Joe Bonham wrote on November 20, 2007 5:15 PM:

Demanding money from wounded soldiers?

Screwing enlisted men?

Sounds like S.O.P to me... who's surprised?

Nobody wearing the uniform, I'm sure. Join up yourself, you'll figure it out before leaving Basic.

dm wrote on November 20, 2007 5:17 PM:

Dear Disabled Veteran,

Unfortunately, due to the fact that you obeyed orders from the U.S. Government to go to the foreign war zone in which you were severely wounded, you are in material breach of your contract to obey the U.S. Government. We, the U.S. Government, therefore demand restitution on behalf of the hard-working taxpayers whom you have so heartlessly defrauded.

Sincerely,
The US Army

dgunthert wrote on November 20, 2007 5:19 PM:

jon,

You forgot:
Intentionally write orders 1 day short so education benefits don't kick in.

SteinL wrote on November 20, 2007 5:19 PM:

Hey, get real. These guys are not REAL soldiers, carrying the FOX NEWS & BILL Oh?Really? stamp of approval. They got themselves injured, probably shot themselves in the foot to impede Glorious Ruler's Imperial Effort to save ourselves from ourselves.

E B wrote on November 20, 2007 5:28 PM:

Hey, how about the '25 percent of the homeless in America are veterans' support of the troops example?

- - - - -
Americans need to take back their government.

Harry wrote on November 20, 2007 5:33 PM:

"O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play"

From "Tommy" by R. Kipling

Things haven't changed much, have they?

Anonymous wrote on November 20, 2007 5:34 PM:

This literally makes me sick to my stomach. I feel like vomiting.

P J Evans wrote on November 20, 2007 5:41 PM:

I feel like whoever set up this policy (and all those other wonderful ones listed above) needs to spend a couple of years in a military hospital, carrying bedpans.

When they come back, their old job won't be there, either.

tina wrote on November 20, 2007 5:44 PM:

Holy sh*t, that's so messed up!

Great job Republicans and you "smaller" government promises. Hypocrites.

Dr. Wu wrote on November 20, 2007 5:47 PM:

"Perversely, President Bush phoned Fox's mother to ask after Fox in May. Now his administration is taking money out of the pockets of wounded veterans like him."

Bush was just calling to make sure they had the right address before they sent the bill.

Alguien wrote on November 20, 2007 5:54 PM:

These must be the "phony soldiers" Rush Limbaugh was talking about!
They just sign up to get the bonus and then they get deliberately maimed so they can get out!

Support our troops!

Matt wrote on November 20, 2007 5:55 PM:

Yeah. Me and the guys in my National Guard unit love it when we have a 30 day duty assignment (a school or such) and to avoid the 30-day benefits the army cuts us two separate orders, for 15 days each. SOP indeed.

jeffgee wrote on November 20, 2007 5:59 PM:

If you're foolish enough to stop a bullet or shrapnel with your body, tough luck, soldier.
Bush got his photo op. You get the shaft.
This must be what Bush called "spending the people's money responsibly".
Tax cuts for the well-off, budget cuts for the troops he and his party claim to revere.
When Congress threatens to hold funding for the war until an exit date is set, the Pentagon threatens to lay off civilian employees, not cancel pet weapons projects like the Missile Defense Shield. On 9/10/01, Rumsfeld was saying that the MDS was crucial to our defense.
This was only one of the insults to the troops. Minnesota National Guard troops were discharged one day short of the qualifying time of service to collect GI Bill educational benefits. Was that accidental?
Those ads we see at movie theaters selling the Nat Guard for the education benefits must be especially galling to the screwed-over veterans.
Cue the French Horns.

linda wrote on November 20, 2007 6:02 PM:

and keep in mind, these stories of pentagon beneficence. there are many others:

Army to pay nearly all of Iraq contract
Military auditors dispute Halliburton unit's costs
By James Glanz
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

February 27, 2006

The Army has decided to reimburse a Halliburton subsidiary for nearly all of its costs on a disputed $2.41 billion no-bid contract to deliver fuel and repair oil equipment in Iraq, even though the Pentagon's own auditors had identified more than $250 million in charges as potentially excessive or unjustified.

The Army said in response to questions Friday that questionable business practices by the subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root, had in some cases driven up the company's costs. But in the haste and peril of war, it had largely done as well as could be expected, the Army said, and aside from a few penalties the government was compelled to reimburse the company for its costs.

linda wrote on November 20, 2007 6:11 PM:

oh, and also keep in mind the iowa and minnesota national guard units who amazingly fell one day short of the 730-day active duty requirement in order to receive educational benefits. welcome back from iraq, boys and girls.

we all know the gratuitously evil bush is capable of; what disgusts me beyond all measure is that active duty military are complicit in these decisions.

my god, this country has a profound and startling lack of humanity in those in positions of power across the board -- government; military; business.

Sully18 wrote on November 20, 2007 6:16 PM:

My first reaction was anger;then disgust;then extreme sadness.It`s sad that these guys get treated so poorly after the sacrifices they have made.It`s sad that the criminals who run the country have so little honor as to deny a wounded warrior his rightful due.
Another testament to the worst president ever.

DA wrote on November 20, 2007 6:18 PM:

There is a special place in hell for these bastards. This story makes me ashamed to be an American. When is enough, enough?

jon wrote on November 20, 2007 6:19 PM:

dgunthert,

"You forgot:
Intentionally write orders 1 day short so education benefits don't kick in."

Didn't say I had the complete list, or even the most important. Just what first came to mind. I'm sure others can expand greatly upon this.

The country owes far more to those who have served selflessly and with great risk. It sickens me that hypocrites who cheerlead and profit from this war flee from the possibility of having any skin in the game themselves.

That the US infantry has historically fared worst in the aftermath of war does not make this situation right. If the budget must be balanced, it shouldn't be on their backs.

Sully18 wrote on November 20, 2007 6:28 PM:

"That the US infantry has historically fared worst in the aftermath of war does not make this situation right. If the budget must be balanced, it shouldn't be on their backs."
Bush hasn`t even considered balancing a budget should he when he has a rubber stamp, spineless Congress that worries only about how it can make shit look like shinola.
When I was counseling adolescents at a drug rehab,one of the gang members said Congress was just a "white gang."That statement is looking oh so truethe last seven years.

Alguien wrote on November 20, 2007 6:44 PM:

If after all this, anyone still enlists in the Armed Forces, that will indicate that the Pentagon has decided to drop all the drug tests and the mental sanity examination for future recruits.

Freedomboy wrote on November 20, 2007 6:56 PM:

This is a silver platter the size of America DEMS, just ask every one of the other party to defend this, answer if they would contnue this, would expect anyone with a heart to support this, to speak against this.

= victory

Cinderella Ferret wrote on November 20, 2007 6:58 PM:

Dear Injured (Soldier, Sailor, Airmen, Marine),

Please be advised that you will be required to return (fill in appropriate percentage) of your enlistment/re-enlistment bonus because you were not able to fulfill your end of the bargain. What kind of sissy are you anyway? Jesus you must be one of those treacherous liberals we all hate so much.

Enclosed is an envelope for your convenience.

Sincerely,

Your fearless government

P.S. We issued you those boxers with the holes in the front in the back so we could fuck you without taking your shorts down. See how well it works!

Doug Stamate wrote on November 20, 2007 7:01 PM:

As a Navy veteran I am familiar with the requirement that any bonus paid is contingent upon the member successfully completing whatever it is one gets the bonus for; usually for schooling, a particular duty station, etc.
It sounds to me as if some bonehead in the Pentagon is simply going by peacetime rules - if the servicemember doesn't completely fulfill his/her agreed commitment, then a percentage of the bonus is to be remitted (or won't be paid if it is being paid in installments). And, if I am not mistaken, there is a procedure (or at least there was in the Navy) in which the servicemember can request not to have to repay the bonus (or whatever part is being asked for). Each request is handled separately and has to be approved by the chain of command. Usually the requests went through with no problems and the reason usually was the hardship that repayment would cause. But all the cases I can remember (only one or two in 20 years) were for causes other than be invalided out because of wounds suffered in battle.
What is really appalling is that this has apparently happened before wounded veterans or otherwise that congressman wouldn't have brought that bill up in October.

alex wrote on November 20, 2007 7:19 PM:

"We are going to give our wounded warriors and their families what they need to recover and return to duty or private life."

I think this quote from the Pentagon is very indicative of the way the whole system has been running - vague statements of patriotism wrapped up in a "we know what's best" attitude to get the press off, backed up with completely despicable acts months later.

SeeDee wrote on November 20, 2007 7:24 PM:

jon: your "if the budget must be balanced, it shouldn't be done on their backs.:

It is not a matter of budget..it is a matter of priorities which, since 'W' and his cohorts assumed control in 2001,
have been slanted to 'screw the powerless and the poor'...just make sure the 'powerful and rich' are well taken care of.

It is not only this utterly disgusting example of betrayal of those who served and suffered..it is just another example of the Bush administration's depriving the VA and all vets of their just due by large budget cuts (compared to the added tasks for newly injured servicemen/women that have resulted from Bush's insane war policies).

And to think that the Pentagon can't be too worried about the reported $20-BILLIONS in un-traceable payments to war 'profiteers' (Bush/Cheney buddies) which we are hearing about (again) today.

I say again...when it comes to deciding on 'Base re-alignment and closure', the Pentagon, the entire sorry-assed bunch of crooks should be run out of town...and any 'contractor' depending on DOD business who hires a 'retired' Chief of Staff should be charged with bribery.

TheraP wrote on November 20, 2007 7:24 PM:

The PR people at the White House must have resigned... along with everybody else.

This is outrageous.

But it's also such a wrong-footed backfiring policy... that I draw comfort in the thought ... this ship is really, really operating without a pilot and ....going down fast.

Mafalda Hopkirk wrote on November 20, 2007 7:26 PM:

I've never seen bush in shorts before. But maybe they wanted to show, in the picture, that the guy really has legs.

Sheesh! The guy's happiness when with suffering people is unbelievable!

buckheaddad wrote on November 20, 2007 7:30 PM:

THE QUESTION IS:

Why won't one single member of the great American Press Corps ask PODUS a direct question about this policy?????????

THAT'S WHEN WE FIND OUT ABOUT TESTICLES!

Thrackazog wrote on November 20, 2007 7:31 PM:

This is only the beginning. Next up: Wounded soldiers will be presented with full-price medical bills for their treatment, including prosthetics.

Can somebody fetch the endoscope used for Reagan's infamous videotaped colonoscopy and shove the business end down Dubya's and Cheney's throats?

johnnydoughey wrote on November 20, 2007 7:32 PM:

Don't forget that since the troops are now volunteers, the ones who have been diagnosed with mental illnesses are now being sent back into the war zones. The pentagon says it is ethical to do so and it is a good way to check how well medications work.

In the past, it was unethical because the troops were drafted.

The United States of America now believes it is perfectly okay to send mentally ill folks off to war...

Are you as proud to be an American as I am?

jimijazz wrote on November 20, 2007 8:21 PM:

To beat a dead horse, Bush doesn't care about soldiers peiod. They are just little pawns in his twisted game of perceived world dominance.

fred wrote on November 20, 2007 8:25 PM:

A relative who is a Civil Service employee who volunteered for posting to Iraq with the promise of a pay grade promotion found the promotion revoked when he was med-evacuated back to the U.S before the end of his tour. Then the government demanded repayment of the family separation compensation.

dogeatdogi wrote on November 20, 2007 8:47 PM:

The ultimate re-gifting, or some sort of sick joke?

EH wrote on November 20, 2007 9:25 PM:

Of course these guys are phony soldiers! A real soldier wouldn't allow himself to get injured. Coincidentally, this is exactly why Cheney, Limbaugh, Hannity, DeLay, etc. are real soldiers.

Maggie wrote on November 20, 2007 9:48 PM:

Has this been reported in the MSM yet? I've been asked by Bush and war supporters on a teachers' blog to prove this is happening. I can find only one story and I'm not certain what the source is. Are there others stories floating around that can support this? Do we have more evidence?

paul wrote on November 20, 2007 10:04 PM:

So much for the vaunted Pottery Barn principle. They broke it, we bought it.

TheraP wrote on November 20, 2007 10:05 PM:

Maggie, I read it first on Think Progress.

Click my name for a link to the story they linked to (local news in Pittsburgh). Hope this helps.

Goldspinner wrote on November 20, 2007 10:17 PM:

Thrackazog and Jon,

A few years ago, the VA started requiring vets to pay for their own medical care...after they'd been promised free medical services for the rest of their lives. Of course, this policy kicked in around the time that some VA hospitals started to privatize operations. To induce enlistments, the Army actively shorts vets by not giving them full credit for actual years served. I know individuals who served for twenty years and were eligible for retirement but the Army only gave them credit for seventeen years when they mustered out. The situation continues to worsen.

PA wrote on November 20, 2007 10:38 PM:

FWIW, the published Army reenlistment bonus rules DO NOT exclude these people. They're legally entitled to keep this money.

Bill Peterson wrote on November 20, 2007 11:13 PM:

Bush and the Conservatives hate any organized entity that is not profit driven. Trying to get the government to pay for large numbers of people to have insurance, or have their medical bills paid, well, that is socialism!

Even if the people are our vets.

Bush has no concern at all about the men and women of the Armed Forces; he can joke about finding the "missing" WMD that never existed. The military and war are more like a food trough for Bush and his cronies. Funnel the public's money into Halliburton and Blackwater, and make the stupid soldiers pay for their own wounds. It is all too clear.

BP

Nancy Irving wrote on November 20, 2007 11:34 PM:

What about the ones who're killed? Do they demand a refund from the widow and orphans?

ghostboy wrote on November 21, 2007 12:19 AM:

The injured soldiers should just go get a job for god's sake. take personal responsibility for their predicament, and get on with it... isn't that what real Americans do? now that would be typical GOP SOP... WTF?

warren terra wrote on November 21, 2007 12:24 AM:

Photo caption:
You guys are walking on prostheses 'cause I sent you over there to get your legs blown off.

jimbo92107 wrote on November 21, 2007 12:26 AM:

'Rubbing salt in their wounds' hardly covers this one. The bureaucratic cruelty is a perfect example of compassionate conservatism.

parrot wrote on November 21, 2007 12:32 AM:

"Support the troops" til they're injured and can't work--then, forget that you asked them to give their all. SOP for the GOP. Soak the poor, maim them, kill them, so the GOP puppet-masters can control the world's oil and then forget the people, the idealists some of them, who went to give liberty and democracy to Iraq--at least, that's what we were told-- and then throw veterans, wounded veterans, out on the street. Oh, and BTW, we left a message with your mother.

Mr. Unite Us wrote on November 21, 2007 3:33 AM:

Bush and Co. cares more about contractors than about our troops.

Disgusting.

FYI,
After Bush declared major combat operations are over, Republicans moved to cut troop combat pay. Democrats and few Republicans blocked.

Meanwhile private security contractors are making 4 times more than our troops in Iraq.

alex wrote on November 21, 2007 5:04 AM:

Don't they get a big lump sum payment for severe injury or loss of limb? I remember signing an insurance paper for an employer that put a $10,000 price tag on one of my toes, doesn't the military have some sort of similar insurance plan for its employees?

I'm sorry if they don't, I understand combat is different from normal work, but the economics behind your potential future earnings is just actuarial and the military union (or whoever should be looking after the military) should demand such a payment - a large one.

Again, the cost of war would go up but I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.

Anonymous wrote on November 21, 2007 9:20 AM:

This story is really amazing.

The Pentagon and Bush Administration has not asked contractors to return the money they received in outright fraud, shoddy construction (Baghdad Police College, etc.), etc. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars at the very least.

But they are asking these soldiers who got wounded in battle to return what, $10,000 or $20,000 AT MOST?

This is appalling and disgusting. Maybe once and for all that myth about Republicans supporting the troops can be put to sleep. There's been plenty of evidence of that but maybe this is the final blow. They only care about them as cannon fodder.

Martin Young wrote on November 21, 2007 9:38 AM:

"When you're out on Afganistan's plane,
And the women come to carve your remains,
Go to your rifle and blow out your brains,
And go to your God like a soldier.:

Rudyard Kipling

CL wrote on November 21, 2007 9:54 AM:

This is likely the result of someone not following the current regulations and over reacting.

Army Regulation 601-280 contains a chapter on bonuses. In this chapter it specifically states:

b. A soldier may not forfeit any portion of the bonus when the soldier is no longer classified in the bonus specialty
for any of the following reasons:
(1) When reassignment to other duties is directed by DA for compassionate reasons.

...

(4) When injury, illness, or other impairment occurs and is not caused by misconduct.

...

--------------------------------------

Basically if a Soldier causes the problem that causes them to not be able to continue they are required to pay back the money. Example: Shooting themselves in the foot.

If it is not a result of the Soldier's misconduct or willful act they are not required to pay back the money.

The key deal with this is probably what the Army calls the "unearned portion" of the bonus. Bonuses are usually paid in one sum up-front, but they are earned one day at a time. If a bonus is paid for a 3-year term and the Soldier only serves 1-year, then the finance people will want the portion of the bonus back for the remaining 2 years.

There are provisions under Army Regulation 600-4 (REMISSION OR CANCELLATION OF INDEBTEDNESS FOR ENLISTED MEMBERS) that Soldiers can use to stop the collection.

On active duty or in the Reserve Components the Soldiers should see their Career Counselor. If a Soldier has already been discharged they could seek help from their local VFW or American Legion.

------------------------------------

Point of reference: I retired with over 20 years as an Army Career Counselor and assisted many Soldiers in similar circumstances keep the money to which they are entitled.

grapes wrote on November 21, 2007 10:09 AM:

Confirmation of pervasiveness of problem can be found in this document:

http://www.pccww.gov/docs/0618esi-2.doc

It's a Word Document with testimony to the Dole/Shalala commission on veterans' treatment.

Search it and you will find the following exchange:

"I have to mention there’s only been one incident that truly has outraged us: the military’s failure to pay Jason the second half of his enlistment bonus. They’re citing that because Jason was retired, even though it was a 100 percent service connected, he’s not entitled to the remainder of his enlistment bonus.

SEN. DOLE: He’s not entitled to what?

MS. ESTES: The remainder of his enlistment bonus. He got half when he finished basic training and so they owe him the other half right now. At no time did the recruiter mention that if a soldier is injured in the line of duty, he or she is not entitled to that promise. That’s just wrong.

SEN. DOLE: Yeah, that’s really incorrect. That’s happened to a lot of them."

Seems to me that Bob Dole oughta know.

Joe wrote on November 21, 2007 10:22 AM:

Apparently Jordan Fox is the only soldier to have received such a letter:

http://kdka.com/local/Iraq.veteran.bonuses.2.592432.html

The Pentagon has said sending the letter was a "mistake", and that Fox doesn't have to repay anything. However, they could not confirm that other soldiers wouldn't receive similar letters.

This still doesn't excuse the reprehensibility and frankly the god damn idiocy and heartlessness behind the intent of sending a soldier a letter demanding partial repayment of enlistment bonuses, even if it was a "mistake". The only way I can see this whole debacle as being excusable is that if Fox's name somehow was mistakenly added into an address list of soldiers who jumped ship and thus should repay their enlistment bonuses.

Marty Griffin's reporting here is also questionable.

Anonymous wrote on November 21, 2007 11:11 AM:

Amen!! Mr. Bush shall go down as the worst president ever. I have family in Iraq, who were extended and have been there for two Thanksgivings and two Christmas' now and still have not recieved a dime of their war time pay. Yeah, way to go. Also, they are being put back into combat within months (maybe 2 or 3) from the time they get back to the US. Mental well-being? Not even an issue. Not even back yet, and being re-deployed. How can this be? Right on Bush Administration, you idiots.
If this is still going on, then how can you say we have reached our desired level of enlistees?

grapes wrote on November 21, 2007 11:31 AM:

Joe,

Who you gonna believe?

1. A Pentagon PR flack? or

2. The Republican co-chair of the President's special commission to investigate treatment of veterans?

This practice has been going on for years. Google: "enlistment bonus" +wounded +iraq
and you'll find press reports going back to at least 2004 concerning these letters.

G T Baker wrote on November 21, 2007 11:33 AM:

With the characteristic disdain liberals routinely display for our military I can't help but believe this was hatched by some liberal in the Pentagon. The liberal blogs have already jumped all over this one trying to lay it at the feet of the current administration. HOGWASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

G T Baker
Major, USAF, 1960-67

CusHist wrote on November 21, 2007 11:34 AM:

If this goes on much longer the Bush Administration may find a Military Coup in USA and full elections for President; Congress, and Senate immediatly afterwards!
Followed by Due process applied in teh Courts of Law towards certain individuals!

Yossarian wrote on November 21, 2007 12:25 PM:

I really think Bush should throw-in his hat to run for president of Pakistan. He will make a wonderful little dictator over there. And who knows he might even bring them democracy, NOT.

Yossarian wrote on November 21, 2007 12:30 PM:

GT Baker you are absolutely correct, this was something hatched by liberals just like Walter Reed and Katrina. Liberals figured out how to wreck Walter Reed without the Repukes finding out and then they called the storm gods to send us Katrina. I think you must have inhaled too much agent orange in Vietnam, assuming you were brave enough to go and didn't hide like Bush. Oh by the way agent orange was also a liberal ploy that Nixon just fell for. You are a joke dude!

SeeDee wrote on November 21, 2007 1:12 PM:

Yossarian, Thanks for attempting to straighten out the brain-washed...er..brain-dead little Major Baker. I doubt your sarcasm will register with one whose logic is obviously as limited as that of the Major, though.

I would only add the obligatory little ':-)' to confuse him even further.

mbbsdphil wrote on November 21, 2007 2:05 PM:

I just know that Shrub yanked Gates to the phone in a Midland minute to make crystal clear that he's informed by his faith and his Harvard MBA training to do the right thing, and tell him that he doesn't make war on the cheap while Haliburton makes billions. I just know he did that and that Gates said "Yes, sir! We'll fix that glitch yesterday."

Snark. It would seem fair to the military and the taxpayer to withhold future bonuses and recoup a pro rata portion of paid bonuses where someone goes AWOL or resigns.

Where an enlistment is curtailed because of injury or death or the convenience of the service, the taxpayer and our armed services got what they paid for, and our neighbor paid a heavy price for it. Stop pardoning other turnkeys and pay the bonus, Trust Fund George.

mbbsdphil wrote on November 21, 2007 2:13 PM:

I just know that Shrub yanked Gates to the phone in a Midland minute to make crystal clear that he's informed by his faith and his Harvard MBA training to do the right thing, and tell him that he doesn't make war on the cheap while Haliburton makes billions. I just know he did that and that Gates said "Yes, sir! We'll fix that glitch yesterday."

Snark. It would seem fair to the military and the taxpayer to withhold future bonuses and recoup a pro rata portion of paid bonuses where someone goes AWOL or resigns.

Where an enlistment is curtailed because of injury or death or the convenience of the service, the taxpayer and our armed services got what they paid for, and our neighbor paid a heavy price for it. Stop pardoning other turnkeys and pay the bonus, Trust Fund George.

bunnerabb wrote on November 21, 2007 2:39 PM:

ATTENTION: Your country has undergone a military coup and is being sold off, piecemeal, to foreign interests and the people out there in uniform, ostensibly defending it, are seen as meat puppets - and are disposed of, as such - and the ONLY thing that the people who stole YOUR government care about is money.

Period.

And they want every last nickel. Your country is being gutted like a fish.

Now go watch American Idol and don't foget to vote for your favourite!

John Mouser wrote on November 22, 2007 8:47 AM:

Why in the name of God aren't any of the Democratic candidates talking about this? We should be beating the Republicans over the head for their hypocritical “support the troops” bs. Can’t at least one of the Democrats running around Iowa and New Hampshire point out that the current government fails to support the troops when they’re most in need of support?

Susan wrote on November 22, 2007 9:29 AM:

Please write to your local congressman/woman with a short letter, asking them to support "THE VETERANS GUARANTEED BONUS ACT, H.R.

BITCHING HERE ABOUT THE BUSH ADM..WON'T DO MUCH BUT TAKE UP CYBER SPACE...:)
3793.
As for the validity of this problem,
one soldier facing this issue, would be too many, however, at last round-up According to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service,

EACH MONTH: from October 2005 through October of 2006, at least 600 members of the military and as many as 1,100 have owed bonus debts totaling anywhere from $2.5 million dollars each month to $4 million.

THERE are MANY PROBLEMS WITH THE DOD AND WITH THE VA...BUT COMPLAINING ABOUT IT WILL DO LITTLE...TODAY ON THIS THANKSGIVING CONSIDER CALLING YOUR CONGRESS, OR CONSIDER VOLUNTEERING YOUR TIME, VISIT A VET, LEND A HAND, WRITE A LETTER AND BE THANKFUL YOU ARE NOT BEING SHOT AT!!!!!

Representative Susan Davis
Chair, Subcommittee on Military Personnel
U.S. House of Representatives
1526 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

john wrote on November 22, 2007 10:29 AM:

If you find this incredible, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE take the time to talk to a Viet Nam Vet about what they did to us. They used to charge the wounded, and the families of the wounded and the KIA’s, for the clothing and equipment that were taken off them at the aid stations/evacuation hospitals.

There were 2 ways they did it. If the soldier was still in the military, the cost of the clothing and equipment was taken out of their pay by a “Statement of Charges” and the money was automatically deducted from their pay. If the soldier was out of the military and getting VA Compensation or a Disability Retirement, it was taken out of the pension.

It was not uncommon for a family of a KIA to get a bill for the clothing and equipment.

I know what I stated above is factual because I was appointed as a board member on an UCMJ Article 32 board that was assigned to find cause if an active duty soldier should be courts martialed who refused to pay his statement of charges. He was being charged with Disobeying a Lawful Order.

raptor wrote on November 22, 2007 1:32 PM:

Typical Bush. Say one thing, do the opposite.

Brian B wrote on November 22, 2007 7:56 PM:

This makes me sick to my stomach!! I'll say the Commander in Chief needs to put his foot on the back of the necks of all of those OFFICERS and CSM's at the Pentagon right down to that soldiers' unit. But he won't and Officers looking for that next rank will continue making these types of policy. I've seen it many times before. These Kids need leaders who aren't looking out for themselves!!!

Mary Ann wrote on November 26, 2007 12:58 AM:

Ask Paskistan to return the 10,000 billing dollars which was sent to them, and ignored the negotiations, instead of punsishing our soldiers who followed admisistrative orders.

Mary Ann wrote on November 26, 2007 1:03 AM:

Get Pakistan to return the 10 billion dollars, instead of punishing our soldierd for following orders and being punidhed for being wonded in following the administrative orders.

SHEILA wrote on November 26, 2007 9:07 AM:

THIS IS REALLY VERY STUPID TO REQUEST THAT MONEY BACK, I MEAN THESE SOLDIERS WERE INJURIED DOING WHAT SERVING OUR COUNTRY, THEY DID NOT ASK TO BE INJURIED.. THIS IS THE MOST REDICILOUS THING I HAVE EVER HEARD......

NORTH CAROLINA
SHEILA

R Holbein wrote on November 28, 2007 1:44 AM:

Its amazing what you people will blame the President for.
You Liberals pride yourselves on your so called tolerance for diversity and equality
for all, but when someone disagrees with your views you belittle and berate him or her.
A retired Airforce Major you ass#$%! accuse of being a coward and inhaling agent orange.
I would bet that 99% percent of you people writing this crap have never served.

SGT Snuffy wrote on January 10, 2008 11:24 AM:

For those of you who made the comments about these soldiers not being real soldiers, or that they just joined for the sign on bonus. I don't give a rats ass if they signed up to get camoflauge to wear when they go deer hunting. They still did more than your cowardly spineless rat bastard ass did. Sitting at home typing your worthless little opinion on a forum like you know whats going on. You just hear something on the news that supports what you feel, which should be guilt and start repeating it like the gospel. I know you don't feel ashamed of what you do, because low life scum can't get any lower. You are probably just upset about that time the soldier was home on leave and was waxing your girl while you were at work. So why don't you do us all a favor and go suck start a colt .45? YOU ARE A COWARD

Spc lane, shannon wrote on January 20, 2008 8:20 AM:

I believe in my country and ourway of life. this is why i spent the last 5 years fighting along the other soldiers that belive the same. We do this so you can keep these blogs and believe what you want, say what you want, and elect as you want. these soldiers in question get investigated on their injuries to make sure they weren't self inflicted to get out of anything. I am not saying we do not have these type of soldiers, (the CAB casers as we call them) but the soldiers in question for the most part deserve everyones respect, because of them are you even able to post your sorry opinions. I have met lots of soldiers who have been deployed multiple times and injured, and have still deployed. I myself am on my second deployment and was put in the wounded worrier program at the end of my last deployment. I am still back to iraq today fighting here so my country does not have to see the fighting on their front porches. I hope someday that you will realize the sacrifice we make to keep you safe watching opra.