We Support Screwing Veterans Real Good

[mburbank]

See if you can guess my favorite quote in this article.




GOP yanks Smith as head of House veterans panel

BY ROBERT COHEN
STAR-LEDGER WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- House Republican leaders last night voted to oust Rep. Christopher Smith as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, a move prompted by the New Jersey lawmaker's failure to follow the party line and his insistence on increasing spending for veterans.

The decision to replace Smith (R-4th Dist.) with Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.), a Persian Gulf War veteran, was made behind closed doors by the House Republican Steering Committee under the direction of Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

The change, which was quickly denounced by leaders of several veterans' groups, is expected to be ratified today by the entire Republican caucus as part of a package of committee assignments. Smith also is expected to lose his seat on the veterans panel, which he has held for 24 years.

"It all came down to the fact I wanted to spend too much on veterans," Smith said following a 90-minute meeting in which he detailed the 22 laws he authored to help veterans in his four years as chairman.

"For me, it's about principles, about doing right regardless of the consequences," said Smith. "You help your team by helping the country, and the most worthy individuals on the planet, in my view, are the veterans because they have made the sacrifice."

"I am not a yes man," he said. "I am a loyal Republican who believes in fighting for good public policy and that is the best way to show loyalty."

Republican Whip Roy Blunt (R- Mo.), talking to reporters after the vote, cited what he called Smith's unwillingness to accept even those budgets backed by the Veterans Affairs Department. Blunt said Buyer, who is a colonel in the Army Reserve, had presented a more forward-looking vision.

Hastert, in a prepared statement, said Buyer is "someone who has real-world veterans experience" and "understands the issues confronting today's veterans when they return home from fighting the war on terror."

"I'm confident under Steve's leadership, those who faithfully fought to defend our freedoms will continue to have access to quality health care," Hastert said.

Buyer had lobbied the leadership for the post and has opposed Smith and veterans' groups on a number of issues in the past several years.

A Republican leadership aide, who asked not to be identified, said veterans spending has been "going up and up well beyond the rest of the budget." He said the GOP leaders wanted someone like Buyer who could "tell the veterans groups, 'Enough is enough.'"

"Smith has not been much of a team player," said the House aide. Rather than work with the leaders, he said, Smith has publicly opposed them and put members in difficult political situations.

Earlier this week, leaders of eight veterans groups including the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans and Vietnam Veterans of America wrote to Hastert urging him to retain Smith.

Last night, leaders of veterans groups said the move does not bode well for improving veterans' health care at a time when so many soldiers are coming home wounded from the war in Iraq.

"This is not only a slap at Chris Smith, but a shot over the bow at veterans organizations," said Richard Fuller of the Paralyzed Veterans of America. "The Republican leadership has made a statement that the country is making too much of a commitment to the men and women who have served in uniform."

Smith is the third New Jersey Republican to be slighted by the conservative GOP leadership in recent years.

Rep. Jim Saxton (R-3rd Dist.) was denied the chairmanship of the Committee on Resources two years ago despite his seniority because he was considered too liberal on environmental issues.

Four years ago, now-retired GOP Rep. Marge Roukema was bypassed for the chairmanship of the Committee on Financial Services because she had repeatedly irritated the party's conservative wing.

Smith, now starting his 13th House term, has been a strong advocate for improving veterans' programs, authoring bills to improve health care, increase college aid, help homeless veterans and raise life insurance benefits for surviving spouses. He had two more years left before term limits would have required him to step down as chairman.

[ziggytrix]

"Smith has not been much of a team player," said the House aide.

[mburbank]

Nope, that's cute, but by the right wing's lights, that statement is quite true. Think more outrageous.

[sspadowsky]

Originally Posted by some asshole

He said the GOP leaders wanted someone like Buyer who could "tell the veterans groups, 'Enough is enough.'"

Can I yell "Bingo!" now?

[mburbank]

You sure can!

"Enough is enough!"

OMG, has this son of a bitch ever seen the inside of a VA hospital? Has he seen the pictures of kids coming home from Iraq with more replacement parts than a 70's Volvo? How many vets died while the govt claimed agent orange didn't cause cancer, how many have died in THIS war because we didn't send them with body armor.

I guess we're just sick of all the crybaby whining from the wheelchair crowd.

[kellychaos]

The way the current war is going, I'm wondering how many future veterans we'll have to worry about. Suffer the long-standing veterans and eliminate the new ones, eh?

[Anonymous]

It's all part of the GOP's plan to wipe out all veterans so that we can abolish Veteran's Day.

[mburbank]

Sort of like their plan for arbor day.

[executioneer]

lol

[kellychaos]

I didn't see how we were going to pay for all those trees once they retired anyway.

[Stabby]

Boy, it's always something with them veterans. If they could have just afforded to go to college like the rest of us upper middle calss white people then I wouldn't have to shell out a small portion of my paycheck. Isn't the bumper sticker on my H2 enough?

[GAsux]

Veterans issues always have and always will be underfunded. Unfortunately, it's not a Bush Admin thing, its a government thing in general.

The mistreatment of veterans isn't nearly as disgusting as the mistreatment of people still in uniform, particularly Guards and Reservists. It's not offensive that so many have been called up to fight. It's the unfortunate nature of the business.

However, it's horrible that virtually every member of the administration has the audacity to stand in front of every camera they can find and say gold bless the troops, we support you 100%, etc, then choose not to sign legislation granting those same Guards and Reservists life insurance offered to their active duty counterparts.

I'm not a Guard or Reservist but I would be pissed if the people who "support me 100%" felt it fair to call me up for 24+ months at a time on active duty, send me to a combat zone, and at the same time refuse to offer me the same life insurance the active duty guys I was fighting with are afforded.

[kellychaos]

I can't speak for reservists but Guardmens (encompassing females also, of course) are funded from a different source than active duty and, while I was on active duty, I'd seen guardsmen with better benefits, signing bonuses, ect. than those serving actively. I don't think you can really generalize in that case. It all depends on what state you're from. As for how the active army/federal government treats you, that's a different story.

[kellychaos]

To understand all this from a common active soldier's frame of mind, I offer the following:

From the very beginning of training, the instructors always instilled a pride in active duty soldiers and somewhat of a disdain for guardmen and reservists ... even in instructing those same people and to the point where some actually changed their minds while in training and went active. This did not stop in our permanent duty stations. Surely, when we trained with the active guard or reserves they had their equipment but it seemed often to be second-hand. In their attitude and/or training, they often appeared unprofessional. When I was training in Hawaii, some of the guardsmen came in concert t-shirts under their camouflage shirts instead of the regulation t-shirt. This may seem like petty stuff but, to those serving on active duty who have to "toe the line" all the time, these are things that a soldier just did not do. They were always the outsiders attached to this unit or that. Is it their fault that they did not have the proper training or equipment? Not necessarily but it is someone in their unit's fault. I'm not saying the way the guardsmen/reservists are treated is correct, I'm just detailing what may be an active duty soldier's mindset. Perhaps with working together, their will be (or is) more solidarity and cohesion but I can guarantee that most active duty soldiers felt the way I described initially.

[Rez]

i thought it'd be this quote..

Hastert, in a prepared statement, said Buyer is "someone who has real-world veterans experience" and "understands the issues confronting today's veterans when they return home from fighting the war on terror."

because he's from the persian gulf, which is lol-sunday all by itself.

[kellychaos]

How can one see someone like this:

Hastert, in a prepared statement, said Buyer is "someone who has real-world veterans experience" and "understands the issues confronting today's veterans when they return home from fighting the war on terror."

as being more effective than someone like this:

Smith also is expected to lose his seat on the veterans panel, which he has held for 24 years.

I don't care how much more combat experience you've had, it doesn't make you more effective than someone who knows the administration, the channels, the connections, ect. So why, after 24 years, is this man let to even though he's been effective ahd has been moving up the promotion trail for years. Maybe it's precisely the knowledge, experience and position of authority to actually call Bush on the dumb shit he does and/or says with the full confidence that his voice will be heard by a wide audience. Didn't the Bush administration let some senior intelligence secretary (who worked through several administrations) go months ago after which he immediately wrote a book about national security. Seems that we have a trend here.

[GAsux]

I'm aware of where funding comes from. I'm also aware that the reason Guard troops are funded by the state is because their primary function historically is to serve the state. When they are called up to active duty and deployed overseas, they are serving the nation.

Do you think Reservists who are called up to serve extended period of active duty time, often times at a pay cut from their civilian jobs should not be entitled to the same life insurance as their active duty counterparts?

Additionaly, to some degree I would agree with you with regards to the Guard/Reserve stereotype. But it's really no different than the interservice stereotypes. And when it comes to fighting the war, all that shit goes away. When you're serving side by side with a Reservist and getting shot at, I'm pretty sure you're not worried about whether he's got his Van Halen shirt on under his uniform instead of his reg shirt.

But again that's completely off track of the whole point to begin with. The point is, its asinine for the administration to stand in front of the country and say "we support the troops" and "we are giving them everything they need to do the job" only to turn around and deny them those very same things.

[Preechr]

2+2=4

Tons of money are wasted on bullshit programs the government should have no part in each year. This is money that could go to valid and necessary expenses such as treating those who would fight and die for their country well.

It's amazing to me that people will argue themselves blue protecting the supposed right of goverment to whatever it can squeeze out of my wallet for whatever random crap it wants to spend it on this week when it consistently fails to find funds for what I and most of those I know would consider to be the basics.

By blaming Republicans for this just because you guys don't like them you are simply part of the problem. Government does not now nor has it ever been good at actually getting anything done efficiently. That's why we were meant to limit what it does to as few things as possible.

Instead, we have made our government into one of the most powerful charities on Earth. America is a giant, ineffectual Salvation Army with actual guns and itchy trigger fingers. People still donate an incredible percentage of their incomes to this charity, despite the fact that only about 5-9% of the donations goes toward the intended purposes of their donations. I guess they believe these donations to be mandatory.

Government, because of it's nature, was only meant to be responsible for those few necessary things that no one else would do for lack of any means of making a profit. It's exceedingly simple. Because We the People are retarded and can't seem to remember simple things, choosing instead to vote for idiots, I live next door to a WWII/ Korea vet that is dying from neglect. I do what I can, but he's proud and believes Uncle Sam is providing for him so he refuses whatever he feels looks too much like charity.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by GAsux

Do you think Reservists who are called up to serve extended period of active duty time, often times at a pay cut from their civilian jobs should not be entitled to the same life insurance as their active duty counterparts?

Although I agree that they are being short-changed in many areas, I can't really empathize on this particular point. It is a volunteer army and all this is explained. Actually, it's one of the few things that they do bother to explain properly. When you get deployed, your job is safe but you will be receiving a government salary. that is all. Sour grapes when deployment actually happens doesn't cut it. Nobody put a gun to their head. It's all part of the deal they gambled on.

Originally Posted by GAsux

Additionaly, to some degree I would agree with you with regards to the Guard/Reserve stereotype. But it's really no different than the interservice stereotypes. And when it comes to fighting the war, all that shit goes away. When you're serving side by side with a Reservist and getting shot at, I'm pretty sure you're not worried about whether he's got his Van Halen shirt on under his uniform instead of his reg shirt.

I was just using the shirt as reference because I thought that it brought clarity to the point of an active duty soldier's mindset. Yes, I believe that a lot of this attitude will fade in combat but, at the same time, I think that basic feeling of disdain will not completely go away. Trust me, I've met some guardsmen/reservists that are great at their job and are quite enthusiastic, patriotic, ect. The majority of them probably were active duty at some point in their lives. I'm not talking about specific cases. I'm talking about an attitude that is, more or less, institutionalized.

Originally Posted by GAsux

But again that's completely off track of the whole point to begin with. The point is, its asinine for the administration to stand in front of the country and say "we support the troops" and "we are giving them everything they need to do the job" only to turn around and deny them those very same things.

Absolutely, and the reason that the guardsmen/reservists feel the brunt of this is because of the "outsider" attitude I discussed earlier. I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that it IS.

[GAsux]

And MY point is that you cannot continue to treat them as second class citizens if you intend to continue to use them as more than temporary augmentees to the war effort.

For the short term, reserve/guard calls up are super and serve as a great force multiplier. But if you continue to stretch them (for example, the Army is looking to drop the madatory deployment caps for Guardsmen to extend them in Iraq) and at the same time deny them things they need, you cannot expect them to continue to be willing to fight.

What happens when people decide they don't want to join the Guard or Reserve anymore because it's not worth it? Then who augments the active duty force? It can't go on like this forever.