This Is Called Supporting Our Troops?

[snizz]

Soldiers' Kin Pay A High Price
Michael Daly
September 15, 2004

As politicians make grand speeches supporting our troops, families of our wounded soldiers are being told they soon will no longer receive the modest government stipend that helps them leave job and home to stay at their loved one's hospital bedside.

The majority of the 3,974 seriously wounded soldiers are young, and few earn more than $1,600 a month, tops. Their families are often of limited means and have a hard enough time keeping up with their bills. Family members forfeit wages and risk losing their jobs altogether as they help their soldier recover.

"None of these kids left a Park Ave. townhouse to go fight," observed one Army combat officer.

With exactly that in mind, the stipend was established in April 2003, just as the war in Iraq commenced. It lapses Sept. 30.

"I think nobody expected the war to last that long," an Army medical official said.

Surprise, surprise. A provision making the stipend permanent, Section 632 of HR4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, is languishing in Congress as if it were not a crime to compound the anxieties of wounded heroes.

A House Armed Services Committee spokesman said HR4200 was "in conference" and suggested any current benefits to wounded soldiers would only "technically" expire and "go on as has been." Those who disagree include the Department of Defense, which allowed, "it appears there will be a gap in payment of per diem."

Meanwhile, a nation in a multibillion-dollar war will be saving the $51 a day plus lodging expenses now accorded the mother of 23-year-old Spec. Ken Comstock of the 2nd Battalion, 108th Light Infantry, New York Army National Guard. He is at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, recovering from a head wound he suffered in Iraq. His most recent surgery involved an ear-to-ear incision and shifting tissue to stop drainage from his skull.

"He's now in a seven- to 10-day waiting period to make sure nothing else is leaking," said his mother, Bonnie Comstock of upstate New York.

The mother has been able to remain at his side thanks to a patient employer and the stipend. She has observed his reaction whenever she prepares to leave the room.

"He gives this bewildered look: 'What? Where are you going?'" the mother said.

Her son would then point to the wall clock above the sink on the other side of the room. She would have no trouble understanding the message.

"When are you coming back? How long are you going to be?"

He would hold up one finger then another.

"One hour? Two Hours?"

She would step out only long enough to get something to eat or send an E-mail. Each time she returned, she would see anew what her presence means to him.

"He's my firstborn," she said yesterday. "It's that bond."

She was notified Aug. 23 that her son had been wounded. She flew to the hospital in Germany where he was first treated and accompanied him on the flight to Andrews Air Force base on Labor Day weekend. She has now been away from her job as a restaurant manager for three weeks.

"I don't want to lose my job, and I don't want to leave my son here alone," Comstock said.

She certainly could not afford to commute, and she had used the single trip the Army provides each parent of a wounded soldier.

"They said, 'One trip. That's it,'" the mother said.

And as if all that were not enough, the hospital's family assistance office informed her she would soon be losing her stipend.

"I'm like, 'What do you mean?'" Comstock recalled.

The family assistance people, who seem as kind as anybody, suggested she call her congressman.

"I said, 'My son was seriously wounded in Iraq and now you're telling me I have to call somebody to ask for food and lodging?'" she recalled.

While the mother spent another day with her wounded firstborn, a columnist called the office of Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), the House Armed Services Committee's ranking minority member. A spokeswoman was unable to predict when the bill reinstating the stipend would become law.

"They've just started," she said. "Hopefully, before they adjourn in October, but your guess is as good as mine."

[Travelinman]

Well let's all hope that nothing delays Congress from taking some time off. They work so hard................................................................@#$%&!#@*

[Roland]

Travelinman said:

Well let's all hope that nothing delays Congress from taking some time off. They work so hard................................................................@#$%&!#@*

They do! ;D I just read they're giving themselves another raise. Yes, yes, I know, they have to-- according to law and we wouldn't want them to go breaking any laws would we?

On the Iraq point alone, I find it amazing with the way this administration has abused and disrespected our troops and vets, how a single one of them can support this inept, cockamamie commander-in-chief. Even the crew of the Bounty had enough sense to set Bligh adrift when they could no longer tolerate his abuse.

[Roughneck]

Reservists refuse convoy mission in Iraq
Soldiers considered fuel resupply too dangerous, kin say

NBC News and news services
Updated: 3:06 p.m. ET Oct. 15, 2004


WASHINGTON - The Army is investigating reports that several members of a reservist supply unit in Iraq refused to go on a convoy mission, the military said Friday. Relatives of the soldiers said the troops considered the mission too dangerous.

The reservists are from the 343rd Quartermaster Company, which is based in Rock Hill, S.C. The unit delivers food and water in combat zones.

According to The Clarion-Ledger newspaper in Jackson, Miss., a platoon of 17 soldiers refused to go on a fuel supply mission Wednesday because their vehicles were in poor shape and they did not have a capable armed escort. The paper cited interviews with family members of some of the soldiers, who said the soldiers had been confined after their refusals.

Pentagon officials denied that, telling NBC News that "no soldiers have been arrested, detained or restricted" while the investigation into the incident is continuing.

Frequent ambushes, bombings
Convoys in Iraq are frequently subject to ambushes and roadside bombings.

A whole unit refusing to go on a mission in a war zone would be a significant breach of military discipline. A statement from the military’s press center in Baghdad called the incident “isolated," and said the mission was later carried out by other soldiers from the 343rd, which has at least 120 soldiers.

“The investigating team is currently in Tallil taking statements and interviewing those involved. This is an isolated incident and it is far too early in the investigation to speculate as to what happened, why it happened or any action that might be taken,” the coalition press information center said in the statement, sent to the Associated Press in Washington.

In the statement, U.S. military officials said the commanding general of the 13th Corps Support Command had appointed his deputy commander to investigate the incident.

The statement did not confirm several aspects of the relatives’ stories, including the number of soldiers involved and the reason they refused the mission.

Vehicles unsafe, relative says
The soldiers refused an order on Wednesday to go to Taji, Iraq — north of Baghdad — because their vehicles were considered extremely unsafe, Patricia McCook of Jackson, Miss., told the Clarion-Ledger newspaper. Her husband, Sgt. Larry O. McCook, was among those detained, she said, saying her husband had telephoned her from Iraq.

The platoon being held has troops from Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Mississippi and South Carolina, said Teresa Hill of Dothan, Ala., who told the newspaper her daughter Amber McClenny is among those being detained.

Patricia McCook said her husband told her he did not feel comfortable taking his soldiers on another trip.

“He told me that three of the vehicles they were to use were ’deadlines’ ... not safe to go in a hotbed like that,” she said, according to the newspaper.

NBC News producer Scott Foster and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
URL: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6255918/

[snizz]

Roughneck said:

Reservists refuse convoy mission in Iraq
Soldiers considered fuel resupply too dangerous, kin say

I just finished reading that one one the ABC site a little while ago. Right after that one, I ran into this one.

"Injured Soldiers Returning from Iraq Struggle for Medical Benefits, Financial Survival
Tyson Johnson III of Mobile, Ala., lost a kidney in a mortar attack last year in Iraq."
By Brian Ross, David Scott, and Maddy Sauer
ABC News, October 14, 2004

Following inquiries by ABC News, the Pentagon has dropped plans to force a severely wounded U.S. soldier to repay his enlistment bonus after injuries had forced him out of the service.

Army Spc. Tyson Johnson III of Mobile, Ala., who lost a kidney in a mortar attack last year in Iraq, was still recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center when he received notice from the Pentagon's own collection agency that he owed more than $2,700 because he could not fulfill his full 36-month tour of duty.

Johnson said the Pentagon listed the bonus on his credit report as an unpaid government loan, making it impossible for him to rent an apartment or obtain credit cards.

"Oh man, I felt betrayed," Johnson said. "I felt, like, oh, my heart dropped."

Pentagon officials said they were unaware of the case until it was brought to their attention by ABC News. "Some faceless bureaucrat" was responsible for Johnson's predicament, said Gen. Franklin "Buster" Hagenbeck, a three-star general and the Army's deputy chief of staff for personnel.

"It's absolutely unacceptable. It's intolerable," said Hagenbeck. "I mean, I'm incredulous when I hear those kinds of things. I just can't believe that we allow that to happen. And we're not going to let it happen."
The Department of Defense and the Army intervened to have the collection action against Johnson stopped, said Hagenbeck.

"I was told today he's not going to have a nickel taken from him," he said. "And I will tell you that we'll keep a microscope on this one to see the outcome."

'Not So Good'

Hagenbeck also pledged to look into the cases of the other soldiers ABC News brought to the military's attention, including men who lost limbs and their former livelihoods after serving in Iraq.

"When you're in the military, they take good care of you," said the 23-year-old Johnson. "But now that I'm a vet, and, you know, I'm out of the military — not so good. Not so good."

Johnson had been flying high last September, after being promoted from Army private first class to specialist in a field ceremony in Iraq. Inspired by his father's naval background to join the military after high school, Tyson planned a career in the military and the promotion was just the first step. But only a week after the ceremony took place, a mortar round exploding outside his tent brought him quickly back to Earth.

"It was like warm water running down my arms," he said. "But it was warm blood."

In addition to the lost kidney, shrapnel damaged Johnson's lung and heart, and entered the back of his head. Field medical reports said he was not expected to live more than 72 hours.

[Travelinman]

Roland said:

They do! ;D I just read they're giving themselves another raise. Yes, yes, I know, they have to-- according to law and we wouldn't want them to go breaking any laws would we?

On the Iraq point alone, I find it amazing with the way this administration has abused and disrespected our troops and vets, how a single one of them can support this inept, cockamamie commander-in-chief. Even the crew of the Bounty had enough sense to set Bligh adrift when they could no longer tolerate his abuse.

It is amazing how humans (the most intelligent life form on this planet )need labels for the things we do and support. It has always fasinated me, if they're a registered Democrat or Republican that's all there is to it. They vote the party line.....no need for thought. I believe that even if they saw they're candidate murder someone one TV, they would still vote for that person.

I don't know if that is loyalty to the party or just plain I-G-N-O-R-A-N-C-E!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe stupidity.

[Travelinman]

Roughneck said:

Reservists refuse convoy mission in Iraq
Soldiers considered fuel resupply too dangerous, kin say

Personally I think this is going to become more common the longer this goes on. None of these soldiers that are over there have any idea when they might get out. Their hitches are up time to get out...........NO IT'S NOT, YOU CAN'T LEAVE. There is no relief in site. The bombings are getting worse and more frequent. Recruiters are having big trouble making their quotas. My heart goes out to every person in uniform over in Iraq.

Poor planing and execution by the administration, with no idea of what was going to happen after Shock and Awe.

[LS]

Travelinman said:

It is amazing how humans (the most intelligent life form on this planet )need labels for the things we do and support. It has always fasinated me, if they're a registered Democrat or Republican that's all there is to it. They vote the party line.....no need for thought. I believe that even if they saw they're candidate murder someone one TV, they would still vote for that person.

I don't know if that is loyalty to the party or just plain I-G-N-O-R-A-N-C-E!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe stupidity.

Yeesh...funny you should bring that up TM. Seen a lot of that in the letters to the ed- like this one the other day-

Union City, N.J.: I don't care if George W. Bush beats his wife. I don't care if George W. Bush kicks his mother. I'm voting for George W. Bush on Nov. 2. - Natalie Alvarez

Pretty sad <and scary> stuff...

[Roughneck]

LS said:

Union City, N.J.: I don't care if George W. Bush beats his wife. I don't care if George W. Bush kicks his mother. I'm voting for George W. Bush on Nov. 2. - Natalie Alvarez

Pretty sad <and scary> stuff...

And I'll bet she was one of the loudest calling for Clinton's head for cheating on his wife. Hell, I remember one person on another board said that we should lay off Shrub out of respect for the office of the Presidency. She dodged my reply as to whether she had been saying the same thing about Clinton (and I'll admit I was calling for his head back then too, albiet for lying, not for the sex).

[Mr._Shooter]

Roughneck said:

And I'll bet she was one of the loudest calling for Clinton's head for cheating on his wife. Hell, I remember one person on another board said that we should lay off Shrub out of respect for the office of the Presidency. She dodged my reply as to whether she had been saying the same thing about Clinton (and I'll admit I was calling for his head back then too, albiet for lying, not for the sex).

I always accord people - politicians, colleagues, acquaintances, friends, family members, etc. - the respect they deserve . If a person - any person - doesn't deserve my respect, I believe there's nothing morally wrong in withholding that respect. Both Clinton and Bush lost my respect over time, as both men lied (Clinton's adultery - which is really just another form of lying - also cost him in my eyes, since I cannot in good faith admire anyone who cheats). These two lost my respect as political leaders and as men.

Respecting the "office of the presidency" is a horse of a different color. No matter who's sitting in the Oval Office, some measure of deference must be paid to ensure that the president can do his all-important job (or at least try to do his job). For example, the president needs a certain degree of insulation from having to testify under oath about classified national security matters (as the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, with a few exceptions). "Respecting the office" also means that any old Tom, Dick or Harry can't waltz into the White House and demand a face-to-face meeting with the president - we must respect the time and security demands of the so-called leader of the free world. But the notion that, "out of respect for the office of the presidency," you cannot criticize or work to boot out a sitting president in an election year, is dubious at best. Again, I go back to Bush (and Clinton before him) being a liar. In my world, liars do not deserve much if any respect. When these liars are elected officials, the stakes are even higher. And when these elected liars hold the highest office in the land , the level of egregiousness is off the proverbial charts. Respecting the office? Well, Bush certainly didn't. Why should I respect him ?

[snizz]

LS said:

Yeesh...funny you should bring that up TM. Seen a lot of that in the letters to the ed- like this one the other day-

Union City, N.J.: I don't care if George W. Bush beats his wife. I don't care if George W. Bush kicks his mother. I'm voting for George W. Bush on Nov. 2. - Natalie Alvarez

Pretty sad <and scary> stuff...

It's about as intelligent as the ones from boneheaded fans of a certain baseball team saying they were voting for Bush because Kerry is a fan of a certain other team. The ones pissing and moaning because the last debate conflicted with a playoff game cracked me up too. Some people really have their priorities straight.

[snizz]

Travelinman said:

Personally I think this is going to become more common the longer this goes on. None of these soldiers that are over there have any idea when they might get out. Their hitches are up time to get out...........NO IT'S NOT, YOU CAN'T LEAVE. There is no relief in site. The bombings are getting worse and more frequent. Recruiters are having big trouble making their quotas. My heart goes out to every person in uniform over in Iraq.

Poor planing and execution by the administration, with no idea of what was going to happen after Shock and Awe.

I think you're probably right. Since the government refuses to be truthful about the situation, I say good for them. It's about time the truth came out and from who better than the people whose lives are being put on the line every day over there?

[snizz]

Roughneck said:

And I'll bet she was one of the loudest calling for Clinton's head for cheating on his wife. Hell, I remember one person on another board said that we should lay off Shrub out of respect for the office of the Presidency. She dodged my reply as to whether she had been saying the same thing about Clinton (and I'll admit I was calling for his head back then too, albiet for lying, not for the sex).

There's a big difference between "respecting the office" and not respecting the person sitting in the office who has shown no respect for the office or the people he's supposed to be serving.

[LS]

UNINSURED VETS

(AP)- Nearly 1.7 million military veterans have no health insurance or access to government hospitals and clinics for veterans, according to a report yesterday from a doctors' group that favors federally financed health care. The Bush administration disputed the numbers. The number of uninsured veterans jumped by 235,000 since 2000, meaning they are losing health insurance at a faster rate than the general population, said Physicians for a National Health Program.

[Roughneck]

Defense secretary gets his own “talking to”<br>from disgruntled GIs
The Associated Press
Updated: 4:19 p.m. ET Dec. 8, 2004
CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait - After delivering a pep talk designed to energize troops preparing to head for Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld got a little “talking to” himself from disgruntled soldiers. But a Pentagon spokesman characterized the exchange, about a shortage of armed vehicles, as "upbeat."

In his prepared remarks, Rumsfeld urged the troops — mostly National Guard and Reserve soldiers — to discount critics of the war in Iraq and to help “win the test of wills” with the insurgents.

Some of soldiers, however, had criticisms of their own — not of the war itself but of how it is being fought.

Army Spc. Thomas Wilson, for example, of the 278th Regimental Combat Team that is comprised mainly of citizen soldiers of the Tennessee Army National Guard, asked Rumsfeld in a question-and-answer session why vehicle armor is still in short supply, nearly two years after the beginning of the war in Iraq.

“Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?” Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense.

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

“We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north,” Wilson said after asking again. Wilson's unit is about to drive into Iraq for a one-year tour of duty.

Rumsfeld replied that, “You go to war with the Army you have,” not the one you might want, and that any rate the Army was pushing manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly possible.

And, the defense chief added, armor is not always a savior in the kind of combat U.S. troops face in Iraq, where the insurgents’ weapon of choice is the roadside bomb, or improvised explosive device that has killed and maimed hundreds, if not thousands, of American troops since the summer of 2003.

“You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up,” Rumsfeld said.

New Humvees under production
Later, Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita said Pentagon policy is that no soldier goes into the battlefield in a vehicle without armor.

DiRita said Rumsfeld’s remarks shouldn’t be interpreted as dismissive. The tone of the meeting was “upbeat,” he said, and Wilson will “certainly not” face reprisals.

The deputy commanding general of U.S. forces in Kuwait, Maj. Gen. Gary Speer, said in an interview that as far as he knows, every vehicle that is deploying to Iraq from Camp Buehring in Kuwait has at least “Level 3” armor. That means it at least has locally fabricated armor for its side panels, but not necessarily bulletproof windows or protection against explosions that penetrate floorboards.

When asked about Wilson’s complaint, Speer said he was not aware that soldiers were searching landfills for scrap metal and used bulletproof glass.

Priority for best equipment
During the question-and-answer session, another soldier complained that active-duty Army units sometimes get priority over the National Guard and Reserve units for the best equipment in Iraq.

“There’s no way I can prove it, but I am told the Army is breaking its neck to see that there is not” discrimination against the National Guard and Reserve in terms of providing equipment, Rumsfeld said.

Yet another soldier asked, without putting it to Rumsfeld as a direct criticism, how much longer the Army will continue using its “stop loss” power to prevent soldiers from leaving the service who are otherwise eligible to retire or quit.

Rumsfeld said that this condition was simply a fact of life for soldiers at time of war.

“It’s basically a sound principle, it’s nothing new, it’s been well understood” by soldiers, he said. “My guess is it will continue to be used as little as possible, but that it will continue to be used.”<br>
In his opening remarks, Rumsfeld stressed that soldiers who are heading to Iraq should not believe those who say the insurgents cannot be defeated or who otherwise doubt the will of the military to win.

“They say we can’t prevail. I see that violence and say we must win,” Rumsfeld said.