Countdown to Bush's Last Day

Grim Statistics

Tuesday, March 6, 2007

Troop Loyalty...Revisited

It's just amazing to me how much the administration water carriers, always so quick to label anyone who criticizes the war or any portion thereof "traitors" and "disloyal to the troops," have worked to minimize the ugly Walter Reed scandal, which is far more telling about society's commitment to care for our wounded troops than twenty million of those sickening magnetic ribbons ever will be. Fox News has run about 10 times more footage of Anna Nicole than Building 18, and it seems Brit Hume's only concern was that it "looked bad" for the administration. Jonah Goldberg, that preening blowhard at The National Review, is "suspicious" of Dana Priest's motives (?)and won't believe any of it unless Fox assigns an investigation to Geraldo Rivera (man, how the mighty have fallen...Geraldo Rivera?) A blogger who goes by Jon Swift seems to feel that any soldier's complaint of the deplorable conditions at the hospital is disloyal to all the others, remarking, "Even if a small minority of soldiers are suffering, they would much prefer to suffer in silence rather than hurt the war effort, which is what many conservatives believe is the real agenda behind this story." Apparently Mr. Swift not only feels qualified to speak for all the injured soldiers, he thinks they should just shut up and suffer in silence (after all, isn't service in the name of your country it's own reward? How disgustingly condescending). The brilliant duo of Hannity & Colmes didn't mention it all week, although this week they couldn't wait to give Ann Coulter more air time after her latest bigoted remark (digression, but I love what Rachel Maddow said about the ugly bitch on "Countdown" last night: "She needs publicity in the same way that a tapeworm needs a large intestine.")
The list of those right-wingers either suspiciously silent or up in arms about this (the fact that the story was reported, not the fact that the soldiers are being neglected) is endless. What would be amusing if it weren't so ugly would be that they all question the "motives" but few can credibly question the veracity of the reporting. But they're so busy worrying that somebody might be writing about something that makes the administration look bad (and in all truth, this is a nightmare systemic issue issue of both military and healthcare red tape that reaches 'way beyond the Bush White House) that they're willing to throw the troops under the bus to undermine any effort to improve their lot. It's as if the troops are being told, you got the privilege of losing a leg for an illegal war!! What more do you want??

I'm going to leave you with a 4/05 a speech from Ron Paul, a Libertarian from Texas who is elected to his Texas House seat as a Republican. I don't agree with him on a whole lot of issues, but I have to say he has often been spot on about his assessment of the war. This speech in particular is eerily prophetic, considering what we now know about the mess at Walter Reed.

"Many military veterans were shocked to see that the federal budget for 2006 makes several cuts in veterans benefits and services. Under the proposed budget, the Veterans Administration will increase once again the co-pay cost of prescription drugs, while adding a new annual fee for medical benefits. The budget also calls for the reduction of veterans home funding and limits the number of VA nursing home beds. Some members of Congress have even suggested rewriting the definition of "veteran" in a way that could deny VA health benefits for millions of retired servicemen.

Unfortunately, the trust that members of our armed forces put in their government has been breached time and time again, and the recent budget vote represents anther blow to veterans. Even as we send hundreds of thousands of soldiers into Iraq, Congress can’t get its priorities straight.

Our invasion of Iraq will swell the ranks of our combat veterans, many of whom will need medical care as they grow older. Sadly, health issues arising from the first war with Iraq still have not been addressed. Congress should immediately end the silence and formally address Gulf War Syndrome, which has had a devastating impact on veterans who served in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. As a medical doctor, I believe the syndrome is very real, and likely represents several different maladies caused by exposure to conditions specific to the Gulf region at the time. Congress and the VA should stop insulting Gulf War veterans and recognize that the syndrome is a serious illness that needs treatment. We can only hope and pray that our soldiers in Iraq today do not suffer from similar illnesses in the future.

It’s easy to talk about honoring veterans and their sacrifices, even while the federal government treats veterans badly. Congress wastes billions of dollars funding countless unconstitutional programs, but fails to provide adequately for the men and women who carry out the most important constitutional function: national defense.

We can best honor both our veterans and our current armed forces by pursuing a coherent foreign policy. No veteran should ever have to look back and ask himself, "Why were we over there in the first place?" Too often history demonstrates that wars are fought for political and economic reasons, rather than legitimate national security reasons. Supporting the troops means never putting them in harm’s way unless America is truly threatened.

Today’s American soldiers are the veterans of the future, and they should never be sent to war without clear objectives that serve definite American national security interests. They should never fight at the behest of the United Nations or any other international agency. They should never serve under a UN flag, nor answer to a UN commander. They deserve to know that they fight for the American people and the Constitution, and that the decision to send them into battle was made by their own Congress via an express declaration of war—NOT by UN bureaucrats who don’t care about them.

Only by using American troops judiciously and in service of the Constitution can we avoid the kind of endless military entanglements we witnessed in Korea and Vietnam. We honor our veterans by ensuring that their service to the nation is never in vain."


Lori said...

My sister is so fucking smart. So this is what id means to Support the Troops. Somehow I pictured something so much more...supportive. I guess.

Mainecatwoman said...

You mean saying "sit down and shut up" is not supportive?