Pentagon Bends (But Doesn’t Reverse) Policy That Withholds Bonuses From Wounded Vets
Pentagon Bends (But Doesn’t Reverse) Policy That Withholds Bonuses From Wounded Vets
Yesterday, the blogosphere erupted in anger over the report that Pfc. Jordan Fox was being asked by the Pentagon to return some of his enlistment signing bonus because he was injured by a roadside bomb while in Iraq and did not have the opportunity to complete his full tour.
Appearing on Fox News this morning, Pentagon spokesman Michael Tucker announced that the Pentagon was reversing course and would not force Jordan to repay the bonus. “It doesn’t pass the common-sense test,” he said.
Jordan appeared on the same show an hour later to respond to the Pentagon’s decision. “That’s impressive,” he said, “but my next question is how many other mistakes have been made?” Last night, appearing on a series of cable news shows, Jordan said he’s heard of many other soldiers who have faced similar circumstances. He told MSNBC’s Dan Abrams:
I do have to say — this isn’t the end. This is just the beginning because it’s still a continuing problem amongst other men that maybe are too afraid to speak up. Well they need to speak up and we need to end this now.
Watch it:
Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA), who has introduced the Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act to prevent the Defense Department from penalizing wounded soldiers, put out this statement this morning:
I am heartened by Brigadier General Michael S. Tucker’s announcement of the Army’s policy that it will not ask for repayment of bonuses paid to those soldiers who are injured in the line of duty. However, I am disappointed that the policy does not go further by stating that wounded soldiers will also receive the remaining balance of future bonus payments. It is preposterous for our government to have a policy that says that a soldier who has sustained serious injuries in the field of battle has not fulfilled his or her service obligation.
While serving in Iraq, a roadside bomb knocked Jordan unconscious and blinded him in his right eye. He is now recovering a portion of his eyesight, but continues to have back pain. Jordan had received $10,000 as a signing bonus for enlisting. The Army originally demanded that he return $5,000, but reduced the amount to $3,000 after transferring his unused leave pay.
Jordan’s parents started Operation Pittsburgh Pride, a nonprofit organization that sends care packages to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. In May, Jordan’s mother personally met President Bush. “I asked him to look in on the First Cavalry,” she said. “My son was injured on Sunday in Iraq. He has a concussion, and some issues with his sight in his right eye. I asked him to check on the Calvary, to make sure we had enough equipment.” Here’s Jordan’s mother shaking hands with Bush:
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
99 Responses to “Pentagon Bends (But Doesn’t Reverse) Policy That Withholds Bonuses From Wounded Vets”
Topic Cloud
Archives
This just might be the thing which catches the attention of the last 24%r’s. Even the kool-aid crowd can’t sit by and watch our government (well, bush’s government) insult and demean our brave soldiers.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:24 pmI guess being eligible for the Purple Heart doesn’t mean that much any more in today’s military.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:25 pmErm, Faiz. In the second reference, it should be Cavalry, not Calvary. Horses/tanks, not crucifixion.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:28 pm“It doesn’t pass the common-sense test,â€
It doesn’t pass the humanity test OR the patriotic test either.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:29 pmThese idiots just can’t be human.
It’s amazing how many PR disasters the 24%ers can look at and not see that incompetence is a top-to-bottom feature of this misAdministration. Here it is again, trolls: a continous, unbroken string of F-ups = poor leadership.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:30 pmOh no!!!!
November 21st, 2007 at 1:31 pmShe shook his hand! Can the curse be reversed?
This just might be the thing which catches the attention of the last 24%r’s. Even the kool-aid crowd can’t sit by and watch our government (well, bush’s government) insult and demean our brave soldiers.
Comment by StratRat — November 21, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
I listen/read everything from TP and Air America to Fox and Savage, and I did not hear one single person from any outlet say/do anything but rip the Guv on this one. It was purely wrong, I am glad it is getting fixed.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:32 pmIn May, Jordan’s mother personally met President Bush. “I asked him to eat sh!t and die,†she said.
That’s better!
November 21st, 2007 at 1:35 pmHow did they only Bend? It looks like a full reversal to me which is a very good thing.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:39 pmThis first had to be exposed before any correction was made. Any soldier injured on the battlefield deserves the full support and the highest respect from all citizens. That should be reflected in the manner in which the military handles injured vets.
They only corrected this because they were caught. More blood on Bush’s hands.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:44 pmThis policy is tantamount to shooting the arrow and then drawing the bullseye around it.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:45 pmCripes, I just cannot for the life of me believe how badly they treat these poor guys, THEY WERE WOUNDED IN YOUR ILLEGAL WAR, they deserve what they were promised.
Hope she washed that hand thoroughly. More than like the taint of Satan stays forever with you though.
Bush/Cheney
Hague Trials ‘09
Buck Fush
November 21st, 2007 at 1:48 pmHow did they only Bend? It looks like a full reversal to me which is a very good thing.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 21, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
You have real trouble with that bold thingie, and reading comprehension, don’t you little boy?
However, I am disappointed that the policy does not go further by stating that wounded soldiers will also receive the remaining balance of future bonus payments.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:49 pmI listen/read everything from TP and Air America to Fox and Savage, and I did not hear one single person from any outlet say/do anything but rip the Guv on this one. It was purely wrong, I am glad it is getting fixed.
Comment by Keltoi — November 21, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
Yet, if you weren’t mentally ‘tarded, you’d see it wasn’t being FIXED, only partially so! You really are a complete moron!
November 21st, 2007 at 1:50 pmBut it appears Jordan is still out $2,000 (which was taken from his unused leave pay).
“Jordan had received $10,000 as a signing bonus for enlisting. The Army originally demanded that he return $5,000, but reduced the amount to $3,000 after transferring his unused leave pay.”
November 21st, 2007 at 1:58 pm.
WHY DOES THE MILITARY HATE THE TROOPS?
.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:01 pmI listen/read everything from TP and Air America to Fox and Savage, and I did not hear one single person from any outlet say/do anything but rip the Guv on this one. It was purely wrong, I am glad it is getting fixed.
Comment by Keltoi — November 21, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
Every so often, something comes along that is so incredibly outrageous that nobody can support it. This is obviously one of those things.
This should never have happened in the first place — terms of the bonuses should have been clearly set to “fulfilling your tour of duty OR being prevented from doing so due to battle injury.” You would think that something like this would have been set straight by the Pentagon immediately as soon as they became aware this was happening. It shouldn’t take an act of Congress to fix it.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:01 pmThe Army originally demanded that he return $5,000, but reduced the amount to $3,000 after transferring his unused leave pay.
They wanted him to repay more, but they reduced it by taking other money they already owed him. That’s one way to support the troops, i guess.
BTW, how many seconds in Iraq is this much money?
November 21st, 2007 at 2:01 pmThis just didn’t happen in a vacuum - remember that these policies were put in place by Rumsfeld and the rest of the Pentagon neocons. This is part of a pattern; they tried to cut the hazardous duty pay for deployed military early in the Aghan war–Congress stopped that. They were looking for any way to cut funds, and often took it out of hide of the troops. Remember ow the Pentagon was so slow in getting adeqate numbers of up-armored HMMVs and body armor to the field. People died and were maimed basead on those decisions. And now the Administration is fighting against a 3.5% pay raise for the military–Bush and friends want only 3%. Neocon support for the troops is limited to wearing a flag in one’s lapel and a decal on one’s car.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:03 pmThis is the most egregious gang rape of our troops by the Bushies to date.
This makes me so bloody angry…oh God. I feel sick.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:09 pmSoldiers can’t get the money Bush has to give it to the hired Killer contractors and propaganda. The American people want Bush to spend the money as he wants and as much as he wants until the US is broke. Soldiers will not get anything and Gate/Petraeus will make sure that Bush/Cheney’s orders are followed. Right now Americans are busy traveling for the holiday and watching TV to worry about the soldiers problems. Maybe next year after New Years the American people might have a little time to listen for a few minutes. Right now the White House Crime Family can do what they want.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:20 pmPlease write your congress critters and senate critters.
I let mine know that i am 100% against the war and 100% appalled by the Pentagon. In fact, if they truly support the troops they’d pass emergency legislation to fix this shameful situation.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:37 pmNeocon support for the troops is limited to wearing a flag in one’s lapel and a decal on one’s car.
Comment by oofda — November 21, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Both, no doubt, made in China by workers making nine cents an hour.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:42 pmLook at this from an economic point of view. Soldiers who know they risk losing their signing bonuses will be less likely to risk themselves in war. Does the military want to have that hanging over the heads of their soldiers?
If it’s a paperwork thing, they should work out an automatic forgiveness of indebtedness due to this circumstance. Soldiers who leave limbs and sanity on the battlefield have honored all commitments to their enlistment
November 21st, 2007 at 2:51 pm23 - Joseph …that should go without saying.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:53 pmComment by republicans hate facts — November 21, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
I know I’m just asking for trouble here, but do you think you could drop all the gratuitous insults directed at Keltoi? Please? Just for the sake of civility?
November 21st, 2007 at 3:05 pmAnd why is anyone surprised at this policy? They signed up to serve a term in Iraq and didn’t do as they promised. Don’t be blaming Bush just because these guys didn’t read the fine print, he’s a bidness man after all.
Bush is the kind of person who would dig the gold fillings out of the dead soldiers’ teeth and melt them into Medals of Honor to give to his incubi.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:20 pmNan - you got *that* right.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:40 pmSounds to me like the only bending going on is the troops bending over and, well, you get it….
November 21st, 2007 at 3:43 pmOur entire military is riddled with mismanagement.
“The Army originally demanded that he return $5,000, but reduced the amount to $3,000 after transferring his unused leave pay.”
So, they didn’t bend at all. They simply used some leave pay to settle the debt.
And there are soldiers being deployed to Iraq without pay.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:45 pmBartlebee: Next to the neofascist’s DARVO technique, this is the newest one - when they have absolutely nothing they can say in defense, they pretend that they’re acknowledging the problem and quickly stating that it’s getting “fixed” and “I’m so glad” - as though the “fixing” somehow negates the fact that the problem was quite heinous.
It’s simply another Reptard distraction technique to end the criticisms and hijack the discussion. Same ole’/same ole’ with these sicko trolls, isn’t it?
They have nothing to contribute and certainly are unable to defend the behavior of this capriciously deceitful and corrupt administration so they pretend to be oh-so concerned. hah! Moronic reptard in action, that’s what this troll is.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:07 pmTP, would it be possible to get a thread on this story:
“I have six soldiers who are not only stop-lossed but they are not being paid. That’s right–they will be deploying with no pay. The Army has made sure that their orders for stop-loss were issued but somehow forgot to inform the finance department. Now they are fighting to pay bills, put food on their family’s tables and buy the items they need for this deployment. I can’t help but wonder what it’s all about when one of these soldiers has to borrow money to buy diapers. Should all the NCOs’ have to pool their money to pay an electric bill for a soldier?”
November 21st, 2007 at 4:12 pmThis is how the Bush administration and GOP “care about the troops”?? This is just the tip of a disgusting iceberg of veterans returning and getting screwed by Bush. There’s going to be a ton of anger out there towards every member of the Bush Cabal when these soldiers arrive home permanently.
WHY DOES THIS WHITE HOUSE HATE THE TROOPS?
November 21st, 2007 at 4:15 pmBartlebee: You and I are “veterans” here at TP and know the worms and how they operate. Thanks for the acknowledgment and right back to ya!
November 21st, 2007 at 4:16 pmBush Administration: The most mean-spirited, corrupt, lying, incompetent administration ever.
And who was that said that the Bush administration wasn’t superior at anything they do?
November 21st, 2007 at 4:16 pmIt was fascinating to watch our old worn-out, piss-soaked troll, Jake D, trying to finesse his way intellectually with the coeds on the UF/Gonzales thread. By the end of the thread, Jake D was doing his usual: talking to himself. What a hoot!
November 21st, 2007 at 4:17 pmWilly: Is that you? Ne’er a truer statement was typed on these threads!
This administration is certainly “superior” in every aspect and methodology of corruption.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:18 pmWhen Bush leaves office and the investigations unearth all of the horrors he’s responsible for, there will be a new “standard of corruption” which he will have set. When the people really learn the horrific truth(s), they absolutely won’t want to believe it all.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:20 pmJust thinking here - maybe his so-important “legacy” will be not only “The worst president ever….” but will be accompanied by another: “The most corrupt president ever….”.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:21 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — November 21, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
#
True. This is a problem with the mass stop-loss issue. Soldiers who are about to ETS from service get put on stop-loss, and are not allowed to leave. However, their individual finance department does not always get the memo, and think that the soldier is out, so they stop paying them. To make matters worse, soldiers are often attached to other units once deployed, and that finance group is responsible. Often, especially in Iraq, civilian contractors are working in the finance departments as well. So, now your hometown finance department (much of which may be deployed) has to straighten out your paperwork, and get it to whoever is handling the finance for your battalion in Iraq. In the meantime, the soldiers are stop-lossed, deployed to Iraq, and not getting paid.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:23 pmOff topic I know but where is the MSM on McClellangate?? They should be all over this - holiday fare or not! Let’s get on with what Huffpo is stating in their cover story. I guess Huckabee opened the can and now all of the worms are crawling out. This story should eclipse the media and all of the debates from here on. This is precisely what was the mandate of the people in the midterms: Rid us of the filth and corruption in the White House - no, not just in Washington, but, specifically and directly, in THIS white house.
McClellan-gate will swamp this administration and the GOP totally. And it should! After all, when the highest paid officials in this country particpate in treasonous activities, they need to be swiftly removed from office.
Anyone recall Bush’s infamous press op where he stood there with a serious tone and said, unequivocally - “if anyone in my administration is involved in this serious crime, they will be quickly brought to justice”??
Hah! Here he was in full sociopathic view for the world to see - suggesting that not only would he punish anyone found to be involved but with the air that HE, himself, was definitely not involved.
There’s no liar like a pathological liar and Bush is turning out to be the Poster Boy for Pathological Lying. He gets the award - hands down.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:26 pmI suggest that instead of demanding repayment of bonuses because a soldier has been injured, that instead Congress put a freeze on any and all bonuses for executive political appointees and senior civil-service managers.
They should also consider eliminating DoD civilian-status positions and replace them with honorably discharged veterans who had similar positions and/or experience in the military.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:26 pmSadly, this government of ours cannot be trusted AT ALL! They’re proving to be a gang of thugs, liars, and thieves. It’s time to heave them all from office beginning with the top two. Let’s go, Congress and put the impeachment back on the table now. If not, the People will go over your heads on this one.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:28 pmHelen: Your commend makes sense and is a good idea - which means that it makes too much sense for this administration to even consider it. Sad, but true.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:29 pmBartlebee: No Republican, troll or not, is going to be able to change my mind about this administration. Period. End of story.
I look at it as a shot at bringing them into the light.
After all, most of the truly hard-core Repukes don’t even address anything you say to them. They - like Rogerx2 - simply pull their “Chatty Republican” string and trot out another of the 12 Completely Different Talking Points.
At least Keltoi is taking *some* of it in and - hopefully - it’s reaching the CPU, ya know?
November 21st, 2007 at 4:30 pmAnd asking people to “back off†show’s he’s playing you like a cheap banjo.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 21, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
I actually didn’t ask anyone to “back off”, I asked RHT to drop the gratuitous insults. There is a difference.
I am certainly not being played like a banjo, cheap, plastic or otherwise. Frankly, when it comes to delivering sharp kicks to trolls, I bow to no man. Where you and I differ is that I believe I see a change of attitude in his comments, while you see it as a ploy. I’ll grant you this, I’ve been in your shoes previously, watching regulars cut a “reformed” troll entirely too much slack. And I was proven right.
This time, I think you’re wrong. Time will tell.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:36 pmShameful,
Any soldier hurt like this should have full pay for life with a cost of living increase each year.
In my book this is like china asking a family to pay for the bullet when they execute a person there.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:43 pmReally?
Then ask him why he thinks the war in Iraq was justified.
Ask him about that, and then talk to me about his how “reformed†he is.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 21, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
I think it’s possible to be wrong, or hold a differing opinion, without being a stupid, lying filthy piece of sh!t, or however RHF was characterizing him. That’s all I’m trying to say.
At any rate, now it’s time for me to give performance evaluations. I’m trying to stay cool, calm and collected, because this is one of my least favorite parts of my job. Take care of yourself and try not to eat too much tomorrow.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:48 pmIn my book this is like china asking a family to pay for the bullet when they execute a person there.
Comment by iaquai — November 21, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
#
Don’t give Bush any ideas.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:49 pmJust my two cents worth.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 21, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
#
Thank you for your work with the VA! I am consistently amazed at how slow the process is for everything. It took over a year for my disability claims to be processed, and you have probably heard me rant before about the 9 months it took to get into the liver clinic. It’s gotten to the point that now I’m actually surprised when they do something right.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:52 pmWill Jordan Fox’s parents acknowledge that Bush simply does not care, that their son is not fighting for his country but, like I did when I was in Vietnam, he is there in order to justify the lies that he has been told by his government? It is always simply amazing that these military families are not outraged when their sons and daughters return to this country in worse shape than when they left and seem to meekly accept what this government has unjustly done to their families, all for the most disingenuous reason of them all- patriotism.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:59 pmThen ask him why he thinks the war in Iraq was justified.
Ask him about that, and then talk to me about his how “reformed†he is.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 21, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Okay…you keep bringing this up. You asked me a series of about 7 complex questions on complex issues. I seem to recall you were trying to prove I was a liar and a troll, etc etc.
In 2003, I DID think the war was justified. Saddam was a proven threat to his neighbors; we had troops in Kuwait and SA guarding against him attacking again, which was being used as AQ propaganda. UN Sanctions were starving the people of Iraq of medicine and other basics, which was also part of AQ propaganda. These same sanctions were being violated by members of the very UN that had passed them as a condition of the ceasefire for Gulf War I. He had used WMD in the past; it did not seem unreasonable he still had them. He had attempted to assassinate a former U.S. President. He had murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people. Removing him from power seemed like a geo-political decision that held some validity and justification.
I could go on, but everyone already knows the case for and against the invasion. It has be hashed, sifted, dissected and debated for over 4 years. I don’t expect you to agree with me ever, that it was ever possible to see a good reason why getting rid of Saddam was justified.
If this point of disagreement makes it impossible for us to ever agree on anything else, or even to discuss anything else….well, I guess that is just the way it is.
November 21st, 2007 at 5:07 pmWhere is the MSM on this story?????
November 21st, 2007 at 5:16 pmcnn.com has Breaking:http://www.cnn.com/ 2007/ WORLD/ americas/ 11/ 21/ holloway.arrest.ap/ index.html 3 re-arrested in Aruba disappearance of U.S. teen.
Robbing the Vets of their promised bonus, Scott’s recent statement concerning the Bush administration’s TREASONOUS ACTIONS outing Valerie, … not making MSM as compared to Clinton’s private affair, better be a wake up call to ALL stupid Americans.
If this point of disagreement makes it impossible for us to ever agree on anything else, or even to discuss anything else….well, I guess that is just the way it is.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 21, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
well, I’m not going to weigh in on the troll designation, but it seems that many of the reasons you cite were wrong, blown out of proportion or excuses. Removing Saddam from power as a geo-political act is still not reasonable, especially given the costs to the populace, which were known in advance and listed as “collateral damage”. All your other points have beend debated thoroughly, and debunked pretty completely. Saddam was completely contained, and all of his killing was well over and done with, some 20 years before. Violating UN sanctions was another big lie from Bushco, that’s the one that angers me the most, as it’s complete tripe, and just another excuse. So, you were wrong, and only because of your willfull blindness and cleaving to an immoral idiological stance do you still believe you were right. You have much to learn.
November 21st, 2007 at 5:19 pm>>But the truth is no offical “dissection†has happened yet.
If you mean no 911 commission style dissection, fine. But are you seriously suggesting the lead up to the war hasn’t been dissected? How many books, blogs, talk show segments etc etc have been devoted to this topic?
>>And thats what Keltroll doesn’t want. Because Keltroll STILL believes the war in Iraq was justified.
I did then, and it seems lame to go “oh well, I was wrong” or deny what I thought 4 years ago. The last word on Iraq has not been spoken. We will see what the final outcome is.
>>He believes that the best way to help people, is to drop bombs on their heads.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 21, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
Right, that is what I think. You say it, it must be so. So I guess you think feeding people into plastic shredders is the way to help them? Or using their 14 year old daughters as sex toys is good? I know you don’t think that, why don’t you cut the crap and quit telling me what I think when I doubt you even believe it yourself.
November 21st, 2007 at 5:20 pmI remember that during the Impeachment of Pres. Clinton, Boortz, Rush, Hannity and other toadies on the right, were blaming a rise in oral sex use among young kids to Clinton! Saying that the younger kids were just following the Prez’s lead, cause oral sex isn’t sex!
November 21st, 2007 at 5:21 pmNow the kids can claim, lying is the thing right thing to do, cause Bush does it, on a grander scale, never reached before, by any President!
murdered blah blah blah blah blah his own people blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah a geo-political decision blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
I could go on, but everyone already knows the blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 21, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
You are a piece of work. You goad me into this pointless argument with over a week of sniping, and when I finally ignore my better judgement and go down this road again this is your response. Totally, totally predictable and the best possible illustration of why I wasn’t interested in the first place.
November 21st, 2007 at 5:32 pmJust wondering guys: Isn’t a “reformed troll” a contradiction in terminology? Is it even a plausible concept?
November 21st, 2007 at 5:32 pmLooks like this thread has the Keltoi blahs! Ditch it before becoming contaminated with the Keltoi blahs - it’s toxic!
November 21st, 2007 at 5:33 pmIn 2003, I DID think the war was justified. Saddam was a proven threat to his neighbors; Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 21, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
A threat that had almost entirely been neutralized.
we had troops in Kuwait and SA guarding against him attacking again, which was being used as AQ propaganda. Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 21, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
Then perhaps poppa bush shouldn’t have given him the green light to invade Kuwait, or send him off to fight Iran and lose so many lives? We obviously cheered him when he attacked Iran, but not Kuwait - wow, what’s hypocritical about that?
UN Sanctions were starving the people of Iraq of medicine and other basics, which was also part of AQ propaganda. Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 21, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
People starving wasn’t propaganda (propaganda implies lies), unfortunately those were facts. The other fact is that we allowed him to keep sufficient equipment and weaponry after the first gulf war to ensure he could retain power and starve his own people. Also our fault - as we initially supplied him with much of those weapons!
These same sanctions were being violated by members of the very UN that had passed them as a condition of the ceasefire for Gulf War I. Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 21, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
Including Halliburton and Texas Oil people - more hypocrisy.
He had used WMD in the past; Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 21, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
He had, and we turned a blind eye when he used them against the Iranians! In fact we treated him as a hero! More hypocrisy!
it did not seem unreasonable he still had them. Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 21, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
Maybe to a fool!
He had attempted to assassinate a former U.S. President. Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 21, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
What, like the US hasn’t assassinated former heads of state? More hypocrisy!
He had murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people. Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 21, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
As opposed to us, who’ve murdered hundreds of thousands of his people? Now, you realize that he labeled those people (rebels), what you would now call terrorists - so by your REPUBLICAN values - wouldn’t that make him justified?
Removing him from power seemed like a geo-political decision that held some validity and justification. Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 21, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
Only because you REPUBLICANS CLAIMED YOU KNEW he had WMDs and was planning to USE THEM IMMEDIATELY!
I could go on, but everyone already knows the case for and against the invasion. It has be hashed, sifted, dissected and debated for over 4 years. I don’t expect you to agree with me ever, that it was ever possible to see a good reason why getting rid of Saddam was justified. Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 21, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
Based on the reality of the situation, as those inside the administration knew - no it was NOT justified to have a full scale invasion without UN leadership and approval. Why? Because they were a sovereign nation - and according to international law not a serious enough of a threat to overthrow! No matter how many Colin Powells were willing to lie about their danger to the world!
The US has no problem torturing, illegally invading and murdering and we have WMDs - so if that’s your foundation for why sadam was dangerous, then why wouldn’t the US fit your criteria? The problem is that you, and your fellow wingnuts are hysterical and irrational little twits. There are most certainly dangers in dealing with any foreign power - but lets save the saber rattling for the REAL threats, shall we son? At this point, the GOP is the boy that cried wolf, and you’ve now lost all credibility and authority to even discuss matters of national security! You’re just not competent or capable enough to discuss, let alone implement those policies!
If this point of disagreement makes it impossible for us to ever agree on anything else, or even to discuss anything else….well, I guess that is just the way it is.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 21, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
You will never agree with a rational idea - because you’re not a rational person. What’s new about that?
You are a piece of work. You goad me into this pointless argument with over a week of sniping, and when I finally ignore my better judgement and go down this road again this is your response. Totally, totally predictable and the best possible illustration of why I wasn’t interested in the first place.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 21, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
Ah, the irony of you calling someone else a piece of work! Look in the mirror!
November 21st, 2007 at 5:43 pmLooks like this thread has the Keltoi blahs! Ditch it before becoming contaminated with the Keltoi blahs - it’s toxic!
Comment by Veritas — November 21, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
Keltoi blahs…y’know, despite what B. thinks, I hate it when the topic turns away from the thread and onto me or my troll factor.
And honestly, would you be happy if every single person who came here had the same view? What would be the point? I really really do listen and think about what you guys say. I changed my view on waterboarding thanks to an extended discussion here. Why does ideological homogeneity have to be the ticket in to Think Progress? That is your idea of a good blog?
November 21st, 2007 at 5:46 pmwell that destroys the Military covenant
November 21st, 2007 at 5:52 pmAll those “justifications†didn’t seem to carry much weight when it comes to North Korea, or deposing Kim Jong Il, who is a billion times more evil and threatening than Saddam Hussein ever was.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 21, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
Once you pass a certain threshold, comparing evilness is redundant. I am giving them equal Evil-o-meters.
As far as N. Korea goes, since Bush isn’t attacking them you use that as an example of his hypocrisy. If Bush did attack them, you would back that, right? Right.
As far as why we don’t attack NK, well, there is this biiiggg country right north of them that is their ally and protector. We lost 50,000 men fighting a war with them over NK. I am sure you are up for a repeat of that.
November 21st, 2007 at 5:53 pmWhen you say little things like the VA issue in the thread is “being fixed†when the very TITLE of the thread says it’s NOT then you’d better be ready to be exposed in the light.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 21, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
“BEING” - future progressive. Continuing action. I did not say “fixed” for a reason. It seems like things are better for this vet than they were 24 hours ago. Hopefully they continue to improve. I was impressed and heartened at the universal outrage that came from every corner of the political spectrum yesterday - you don’t see that real often.
November 21st, 2007 at 5:58 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — November 21, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
As a matter of fact, all the
reasonsexcuses that Bush used to invade Iraq, are very valid (and applicable to) Pakistan.Pakistan has ties to terrorist groups: They helped arm, train, and finance the Taliban then, and the separatist groups in India’s Kashmir region now.
Pakistan has WMD, no question about that. No maybes, or perhaps. They possess WMD and have detonated them.
Pakistan is a threat to its neighbors. At least it is to India, against which they’ve launched invasions at least two times for control over the Kashmir region.
Pakistan is ruled by a tyrant; ripe ground for a “democratising” military action, just like it was argued Iraq was.
But nooo, Pakistan is a stalwart “ally in the War on Terror”.
So, not only there is no democratic awakening in the ME, terrorism is well and alive, and the WMD are proliferating. All under Pres Bush’s diligent watch.
Heckuva job, George!
(Think that there are halfwits out there arguing for the invasion of Iran. War is cheap when you don’t even pay bonuses to those who actually do the fighting)
November 21st, 2007 at 6:04 pma dictator possess WMD requires invading them, but KNOWING a dictator has them, does not.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 21, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
Well actually, knowing a dictator has nukes DOES require you don’t invade them.
Find that big country yet? Hint: A dictator who can call upon a nation of over 1 billion people to defend him is also pretty invasion proof.
Or are you really advocating military action against NK?
November 21st, 2007 at 6:07 pmGeorge Bush’s minions would love to establish war, invasion, and occupation as matters of foreign policy.
Remember, Bush cultists: No empire has lasted forever. The cost of keeping colonies and territories is simply too steep.
That the Bush administration is cutting corners at the veterans’ expenses (or at least trying to) only highlights that fact.
November 21st, 2007 at 6:09 pmSucks when they can defend themselves,…. huh mr brave patriot republican?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 21, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
Who is the “themselves” in this sentence? Are you seriously suggesting Kim Jong Il is defending North Korea? All he is defending is his own scrawny hide.
November 21st, 2007 at 6:12 pmJust so the troll can’t muddy my response like he was trying to do, by pretending he didn’t see it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 21, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
I wish I were so cool that I never ever posted an emai and have it cross with a response that wasn’t posted when I started it. Must be nice to be perfect.
November 21st, 2007 at 6:17 pmSettle down their skippy. While I’m sure I must appear that way to you…..
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 21, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Well, you did for a second, but then you encountered the need to use “there” properly…
November 21st, 2007 at 6:28 pmAnyone besides me remember the soldier who was charged for his gear that was destroyed by an IED? They said that he “didn’t take proper care of his gear” so they were charging him for it. He, too, was severely injured before they tried to deduct the cost of the equipment from his paycheck. I thought that one took the cake, but I was wrong. This one is even worse. Add it to the military reneging on educational benefits, rating soldiers 29% disabled because 30% would give them lifetime health benefits, on and on. This is certainly the administration that “supports the troops”. Anyone who buys that canard these days is more than a fool.
November 21st, 2007 at 6:30 pmLooks like the resident troll roger2 did his usual “hit and run”. That’s all he does anymore, he drops an insulting post and then runs away. What a coward. We need a better quality of trolls!
November 21st, 2007 at 6:32 pmOr are you really advocating military action against NK?
Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 21, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
Now, now, Keltoi, don’t be playing dumb, that’s true troll behavior. You know damn well that we’re calling Bush an opportunistic coward, and we’re right. We are advocating allowing the citizens of Iraq to have their country back, and to stop slaughtering them wholesale, either directly or by proxy. You’re really not that cute any more.
November 21st, 2007 at 6:34 pmTry a 2 million man Army sh$t head, with artillery pointed right at our “mine-shield†on the DMZ.
And our 38,400 troops sitting there with their asses hanging out.
Not to mention all his tanks, planes, missles, and now freaking low yeild nuclear weapons.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 21, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
My point was not that Kim didn’t have an army, but since he is a billion times more evil than Saddam, can you really believe he is protecting NK? He is protecting his Regime. His military and secret police are complicit in the hideous oppression of their countrymen because then they don’t get imprisoned/starved/murdered. But to suggest “NK is protecting itself” is absurd. NK needs protecting from its billion-times-more-evil-than-Saddam government.
You never said - would you support an attack on Kim’s regime?
November 21st, 2007 at 6:34 pmAhh and there it is. The tell tale mark of the true Troll.
Nothing left to say. No response to anything I said.
So he goes on a Typo hunt.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 21, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
This after you bag on me because our e-mails crossed and my post no longer pertained. Your back to piece of work status.
November 21st, 2007 at 6:40 pmYour back to piece of work status.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 21, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
I MISPELLED “YOUR”!!
Please, God, please, let this post cross with some nasty gotcha from Bartlebee…..
November 21st, 2007 at 6:44 pm>>So lets see if I can summarize our “reformed†troll, Mr Keltoi’s “logical points†tonight.
With intellectual honesty? Unlikely
>>1. Invading Iraq was justified.
Beat that dead horse some more. We disagree.
>>2. We only invade countries who don’t have nukes. Once they’ve got them, we stay the hell out.
Since nukes were invented, no country with nukes has been invaded. Yes, it does seem logical nukes make it hard to invade a country.
>>3. We only pick fights with countries that can’t defend themselves.
And you would prefer we take on countries that can nuke us or kick our butts? Pre-emptive aggression as a theory is discredited, I will give you that. At least, it is currently, things could change. And if, by chance, Iraq in 10-15 years is a functioning democracy and an ally, maybe the decision to oust Saddam will look better.
Wow Gummitch. He sure sounds logical.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 21, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
Y’know, Gummitch, I think doing those performance reviews was actually better than hanging around for this exercise in futility.
November 21st, 2007 at 7:01 pmWe are advocating allowing the citizens of Iraq to have their country back, and to stop slaughtering them wholesale, either directly or by proxy.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 21, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
They didn’t have “their country” when Saddam was in power, Saddam did.
I want us out of Iraq too. It is how we get out that is the issue. No one with any chance of being President is publicly advocating the most recent attempt by Congress to link funding to a declared time table.
November 21st, 2007 at 7:07 pmYou omit the fact that a democratic government and society, one that actually “likes†us, might have evolved naturally if we had just continued our work with the Iranian people (who loved the US prior to the invasion, at least according to the CIA), and continued to squeeze saddam until we either killed him or deposed him, the latter being the more preferable and more likely.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 21, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
Well, the current strategy we employ with Iran will be the test case for your theory. 5, 10, 15 years from now, I seriously wonder which government in which country - Iran or Iraq - will be more stable, more progressive, more democratic, more of a US ally. This assumes we don’t strike Iran, which I think we won’t. If we don’t, Iran will get the bomb, and then we’ll never invade as per NK. Only time will tell.
November 21st, 2007 at 7:45 pmSo if they’re killed in action does their widow (or widower) have to repay the bonus?
Sometimes American companies offer a sign on bonus. Can you imagine them trying to collect a refund if you were killed or too injured to work while doing your job?
Lean and mean, emphasis on the mean. Like when Reagan ordered social security to crack down on disability payments and started denying benefits to really deserving folks. Like the one who had one arm with some nerve disorder was not qualified because in order to qualify both arms needed to be affected. But she only had one arm… nevertheless they denied her claim.
November 21st, 2007 at 7:51 pmBut I will once more congratulate you on your ability to post a comment, without really saying, advocating or disavowing, anything.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 21, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
Sez the inventor of the tactic.
Place your bets B., is Iran or Iraq looking at a brighter future for their citizens and vis-a-vis a stable Middle East and good relations with us 10 years from now, assuming no US strike on Iran?
November 21st, 2007 at 8:02 pm@ 133 “Place your bets B.”
That has got to be the lamest response I have ever seen on the site. I’ll check back in ten years to see who won.
November 21st, 2007 at 8:11 pm“Place your bets B., is Iran or Iraq looking at a brighter future for their citizens and vis-a-vis a stable Middle East and good relations with us 10 years from now, assuming no US strike on Iran?”
Comment by Keltoi at Night
No, but a new generation (who also hates our collective guts) is just over the horizon. You think they’ll forget our killing and torturing their citizens in ten years? Didn’t happen in Iran after the fall of the Shah, so why do you think this will be any different?
November 21st, 2007 at 8:12 pmOh, Damn, two new contestants. Dunno how deep you read Trollbuster, my question did not arise out of a vaccum. Ditto you in 136, Barfly, not sure if I get the point of your question.
But I have to go, 70 posts on the topic is enough, my wife is home, time to leave the field. With luck, some other dissenter will show up to keep your discussion going.
November 21st, 2007 at 8:20 pmOnly in America where CEOs can still get million-dollar windfalls after being ousted from their companies for overseeing billion dollar losses, while soldiers who put their lives on the line and were injured in the process can’t even get a few measly thousands of dollars promised to them.
November 21st, 2007 at 8:34 pmand likely Iraq, assuming we either killed or deposed Saddam and pumped in humanitarian aid.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 21, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
Christ wept, we DID kill and depose him! And that is what you have spent the last three hours saying WE SHOULDN’T HAVE DONE!!! And now you want MORE money being spent on nation building in Iraq?
You MUST have been namejacked.
November 21st, 2007 at 8:46 pmBartlebee, you’re waisting your time. This troll is long on opinion and really devoid of substance or facts. I’ve skimmed through his posts on several dozen posts and not once has this narcissist ever given ground on a single issue.
November 21st, 2007 at 8:56 pm@147
November 21st, 2007 at 9:20 pmThe troll spent four days hiding in the closet, so he had lots of BS to spread today. He likes to pi$$ off people, then run away when he finally gets cornered. I agree with you, but believe you’re wasting your time trying to get him to answer anything in a straight forward way. All you’re going to get from him are questions or his long winded pompous say nothing crap.
Christ wept, we DID kill and depose him! And that is what you have spent the last three hours saying WE SHOULDN’T HAVE DONE!!! And now you want MORE money being spent on nation building in Iraq?
Comment by Keltoi at Night
How silly. Bartlebee was referring to removing Saddam by allowing Unscom’s work to being carried to its end; which would have left Saddam vulnerable, because his enemise wouldn’t have feared his non-existant WMD’s. And with the help of the Saudis, he would have been overthrown - at a cost considerably less than a billion dollars a week. His point about humanitarian aid (I think) is that we screwed the pooch badly by mixing blitzkreig with seeming altruism. We could not credibly make the case that we were there to help, after being revealed as sex-obsessed Sadists and as pathological liars.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:20 pmBartlebee, trust me, he isn’t going to get away with pulling off his moderate act much longer. The easiest way to bring the concern troll down is to use his own postings against him. I have dug up a few and when the file becomes large enough, it will be time to engage him head on. I will certainly make sure you and RHF are there to enjoy the battle.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:35 pmThe Arab League said Saddam agreed in March 2003 to leave Iraq with $1 billion and guarantee of safety.
Regarding the way this administration treats the military, I think this quote from Henry Kissinger reveals the true feelings of Republican neocons:
“Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.â€
November 21st, 2007 at 9:37 pmBartlebee, when he admitted that we only invaded counties we could beat, that post went into the file immediately. What I am planning is a file of outrageous statements on a wide variety of issues. You’re not going to win a one punch knock-out with this character, you’ve got to keep jabbing, throw in a few body shots and slowly wear him down.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:55 pmWhat I’m afraid of is that he will just run away and hide, then come back and play the victim. But I’m sure that could be used against him, because eventually he is going to be seen for what he is, a hypocrite and a coward.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
It really isn’t that tedious finding his posting on old threads, you do an advanced google search for comments by keltoi (at night). If you use the cached version, his comments are highlighted in color, so a thread can be mined for gems in only a minute or two.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:14 pmI am another one fo the soldiers that this has happened to. I was discharged in October of 2005 after I had been diagnosed with chronic PTSD since I had been back from the war. I had fought in Al Fallujah for 373 days before I came home, but it seemed as though the war had followed me. Constant nightmares, day terrors, high blood pressure and insomnia had all caused me to get discharged for a “personality disorder” so my six year contract had been cut short to only four years, so my enlistment bonus was prorated so I only owed them 1/3 of my $20,000 bonus that they “paid” me. I had been forced out, put into debt and had my final paycheck rescinded and had no way to get home from Kansas. …and justice for all.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:32 pm…and I received the Purple Heart for wounds received in combat, and was recommended for the Bronze Star Medal for bravery. But that’s okay. Who chould care? Even my politicans in my state don’t care about me. I emailed them and received no response from any one of them until I went to a local newspaper and somebody got some bad press. Even then, only two of them responded out of the 6 people I wrote. But i didn’t do it for medals. I did it because it was the right thing to do.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:36 pmWho is the “themselves†in this sentence? Are you seriously suggesting Kim Jong Il is defending North Korea? All he is defending is his own scrawny hide.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 21, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
You obviously don’t know what Kim Jong Il looks like; he is chubby. It’s the majority of his people–the non-elites, whom he keeps in perpetual state of near starvation, who have scrawny hides.
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:57 amRep Waxman is “guest blogging” on ThinkProgress.org
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2007/ 11/ 19/ thinksgiving-waxman/ #comments
the moderator is scrubbing comments requesting him to let Sibel speak to Rep Waxman on their site; it’s a conspiracy to them.
how frustrating this must be for Sibel — AND ME!! no one wants to touch this story … hmmmmm….
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5260#more-5260
November 22nd, 2007 at 6:01 amDear former soldier,
Thank you for your service. I am so sorry that that happened to you. Keep speaking out. The “Marlboro Marine” has PTSD and there were several articles and interviews with him over the past few days, I think in the LA Times and also printed in the UK’s Guardian.
Illona of Daily Kos and Epluribus Media has many articles on the shabby way veterans esp. those with PTSD are being treated. She wrote a book on it MOVING A NATION TO CARE and there are resources listed on the Epluribus site and other articles about PTSD of our soldiers by former officer Jeremy Huber on Epluribus Media.
Good luck to you. Oh, and The Military Times Messageboards have had several veterans talking about possibly losing their homes because of the benefits that are being denied them. I wrote to my Congressperson quoting the posts. Keep letting everyone know about it so that continuous pressure can be placed on the media and Congress.
God Bless.
November 22nd, 2007 at 6:07 amBush is the kind of person who would dig the gold fillings out of the dead soldiers’ teeth and melt them into Medals of Honor to give to his incubi.
Comment by nanlichi — November 21, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
—————–
Brilliant!
November 22nd, 2007 at 7:09 am