9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 08:15 am
xingu wrote:
Failed states for 2007

Rank Country
1 Sudan
2 Iraq-courtesy U.S.A.
3 Somalia
4 Zimbabwe
5 Chad
6 Cote d'Ivoire
7 Democratic Republic of Congo
8 Afghanistan
9 Guinea
10 Central African Republic
11 Haiti
12 Pakistan -This baby has nukes and missiles not to mention the Al Qaeda leadership and Teliban
13 North Korea
14 Burma/Myanmar
15 Uganda
16 Bangladesh
17 Nigeria
18 Ethiopia
19 Burundi
20 Timor-Leste
http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=229&Itemid=366


And Iraq was going to be so great after the great evil doer Saddam Hussien was eliminated.

Quote:
Cheney is rightly being held to account today for the utter mendacity of this statement. However, equally worthy of attention would seem to be his rather self-regarding assessment about the reception that awaited U.S. invading forces in Iraq. Cheney said: "Another argument holds that opposing Saddam Hussein would cause even greater troubles in that part of the world, and interfere with the larger war against terror. Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region. When the gravest of threats are (sic.) eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace. As for the reaction of the Arab `street', the Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra and Baghdad are `sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans'. Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jehad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced, just as it was following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991."


source
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 08:18 am
xingu wrote:
Failed states for 2007

Rank Country
1 Sudan
2 Iraq-courtesy U.S.A.
3 Somalia
4 Zimbabwe
5 Chad
6 Cote d'Ivoire
7 Democratic Republic of Congo
8 Afghanistan
9 Guinea
10 Central African Republic
11 Haiti
12 Pakistan -This baby has nukes and missiles not to mention the Al Qaeda leadership and Teliban
13 North Korea
14 Burma/Myanmar
15 Uganda
16 Bangladesh
17 Nigeria
18 Ethiopia
19 Burundi
20 Timor-Leste
http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=229&Itemid=366


Xingu - pls count how many of the 20 are majority inhabited / governed by persons of sub-Saharan African origin (that includes Haiti as you know) or by indigenous peoples (making it easy for you that's Timor) and after you do that pls explain how the $$$$ the U.S. has sent their way (that includes Iraq!) over the years were wasted / pocketed.

Picking one out of 20 to allocate blame is hypocrisy at best.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 08:22 am
Failed states

http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/images/stories/fsi/ffp_fsi_map_2007.gif
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 08:26 am
Tks, Xingu, we can look up links, and even read maps, you know; now how about answering the question?!
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 08:31 am
High Seas wrote:
xingu wrote:
Failed states for 2007

Rank Country
1 Sudan
2 Iraq-courtesy U.S.A.
3 Somalia
4 Zimbabwe
5 Chad
6 Cote d'Ivoire
7 Democratic Republic of Congo
8 Afghanistan
9 Guinea
10 Central African Republic
11 Haiti
12 Pakistan -This baby has nukes and missiles not to mention the Al Qaeda leadership and Teliban
13 North Korea
14 Burma/Myanmar
15 Uganda
16 Bangladesh
17 Nigeria
18 Ethiopia
19 Burundi
20 Timor-Leste
http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=229&Itemid=366


Xingu - pls count how many of the 20 are majority inhabited / governed by persons of sub-Saharan African origin (that includes Haiti as you know) or by indigenous peoples (making it easy for you that's Timor) and after you do that pls explain how the $$$$ the U.S. has sent their way (that includes Iraq!) over the years were wasted / pocketed.

Picking one out of 20 to allocate blame is hypocrisy at best.


No, not hypocrisy. We are directly responsible for what has happened in Iraq and to a degree what is happening in Pakistan. Our sending $$$$$ to failed states in no way is the same as our behavior in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I agree we have wasted a lot of money trying to prop up failed states but that is not the same as using our military to implement foreign policy.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 08:36 am
Widely Ignored By Press: Surge in Iraqi Displaced Citizens
Widely Ignored By Press: A 'Surge' in Iraqi Displaced Citizens
By E&P Staff
Published: June 18, 2007

The plight -- and massive number -- of refugees and displaced citizens in Iraq has been one of the great under-reported aspects of the war. Perhaps that will change in the wake of a report by the Iraqi Red Crescent today.

The leading humanitarian group in Iraq says the number of internally displaced people (IDP's) in Iraq has quadrupled since January and is up eight times from a year ago.

It had found in May 2006 that there were 125,169. For May 2007 it counts 1,024,430, with 37% of them children. Health care is limited.

"Rape, armed gangs, theft, drug addiction was a common place among IDP, " the report states. "The overall picture is that of a human tragedy unprecedented in Iraq's history."

A summary on the IraqSlogger.com site observes, "Many IDP's take refuge in the house of extended family or a friend, while others squat illegally in abandoned houses. Many live on the streets or in makeshift mud huts and tin shacks, and tens of thousands of others live in tent cities." The report reveals that the province with the greatest number of IDP's is Ninevah (Mosul area), with 239,547, followed by Baghdad, with 196,227.

In addition, more than two million Iraqis are estimated to have fled Iraq for Syria, Jordan and other countries.

More from the report:

"Displacement resulted in major changes in the population demography. The education sector was negatively affected by the flow of the displaced people into the different governorates. Schools witnessed significant increase in the number of students in each classroom. Many schools are operating in two shifts to accommodate the growing number of students. There is also shortage in educational materials and stationary. These factors contributed to decreased quality of education in the host communities.

"Shelter is a major problem. While some families dwelled with relatives, other families sheltered in government buildings. Those who got sheltered in government buildings are being exposed to mortar attacks and suffer from lack of essential services, food, water and electricity. In addition, there is the risk of unexploded ordinance or bombs in these buildings. It is important to mention these IDP could be evicted at any time.

"The IDP have limited access to health care. The lack of health care coupled with the increasing needs is having serious effects on the life of women and children. Pregnant women, infants and children are unable to get the required medical care and criminal abortion became the norms."

"The psychological wellbeing of the IDP is another major concern. The horrors of daily killings and explosions have a serious impact on the children and the women. Some IDP families took refuge with armed groups as they represented the true authority of the land for them. Some teenagers who lost loved ones joined the armed groups and started taking revenge from innocent people from different ethnic groups."
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 08:36 am
Quick test - how many times has the USMC been dispatched to sort out problems in Haiti? Count all centuries since establishment of the Marine Corps, pls....
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 08:55 am
Iraq on Verge of Genocidal War, Warns Ex-US Official
Iraq on Verge of Genocidal War, Warns Ex-US Official
By Patrick Wintour
The Guardian UK
Monday 18 June 2007

The man who led the initial American effort to reconstruct Iraq after the war believes the country is on the brink of a genocidal civil war and its government will fall apart unless the US changes course and allows a three-way federal structure. He has also urged talks with Iran and other regional players.

Jay Garner, the former US general appointed two months before the invasion to head reconstruction in Iraq, admitted that before the 2003 war coordination between the various US departments and military had been disjointed.

He also disclosed that the US state department official in charge of postwar planning, Thomas Warrick, was prevented from joining his team by Donald Rumsfeld, who was defence secretary. He said he was shocked by the Pentagon's decision to reduce troop levels and disband the Iraqi army.

"The problem from my standpoint within the United States was that there had been a lot of planning done by each element ... by the CIA, the state department, the treasury department, defence department," Mr Garner told the Future of Iraq Commission chaired by Lord Ashdown, Lady Jay and Lord King.

"But the problem with that planning is that it had been done in the vertical stovepipe of that agency and the horizontal connection of those plans did not occur".

The Guardian disclosed, in an interview on Saturday, that Andrew Bearpark, the British director of operations for the body that took over from Mr Garner, the Coalition Provisional Authority, discovered the plan to boost Iraq's postwar electricity production ran to one page. He said those who failed to plan for the postwar period were guilty of "criminal irresponsibility".

In a Channel 4 documentary to be screened this week, Tony Blair's foreign policy adviser, David Manning, admits he does not know why more was not done to plan for the war's aftermath. He said: "Well it's hard to know exactly what happened over the postwar planning. I can only say that I remember the PM raising this many months before the war began. He was very exercised about it.... But it isn't a question I find easy to answer "

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, a former British ambassador to the UN, tells the programme Mr Blair was tearing his hair out asking "What are the Americans up to?"

Mr Garner revealed he spent two frantic days in February 2003 trying to discover what postwar plans existed, and how they related to one another.

He said: "I asked Tom Warrick ... to join our organisation which he did the following Monday, and then about Thursday of that week I was told to remove him from the organisation. So I argued with that. I told Secretary Rumsfeld I didn't want to do that.

"I went to see Stephen Hadley, the number two at the National Security Council and said I don't want to do that but I was told I had to."

Mr Garner also admitted he did not see several of the plans prepared by the Bush administration and does not know why. He also revealed that he rang Mr Rumsfeld to tell him to stop reducing the US troop deployment and warned him that the consequent power vacuums were filling up with " fundamentalists". He also admits he was stunned by the decision in mid-May 2003 to disband the Iraqi army, saying at one stroke, it created a 200,000- strong armed opposition.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 12:40 pm
Why the surge was bound to fail before they even considered such an ill-conceived idea: too little, too late.


78 killed by bombing at Baghdad mosque

By LAUREN FRAYER, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 15 minutes ago



BAGHDAD - A truck bomb struck a Shiite mosque Tuesday in central Baghdad, killing 78 people and wounding more than 200, even as about 10,000 U.S. soldiers northeast of the capital used heavily armored Stryker and Bradley fighting vehicles to battle their way into an al-Qaida sanctuary.


The troops, under cover of attack helicopters, killed at least 22 insurgents in the offensive, the U.S. military said.

The thunderous explosion at the Khulani mosque in the capital's busy commercial area of Sinak sent smoke billowing over concrete buildings, nearly a week after a bombing brought down the twin minarets of a revered Shiite shrine in the northern city of Samarra and two days after officials lifted a curfew aimed at preventing retaliatory violence from that attack.

Gunfire erupted after the blast, which police said occurred in a parking lot near the mosque, causing the outer wall and a building just inside it to crumble.

Police and hospital officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they feared retribution, said at least 78 people were killed and 218 were wounded, adding that the toll could rise as bodies were pulled from the debris.

One officer said the explosives-packed truck was loaded with fans and air coolers to avoid arousing the suspicions of security forces guarding the surrounding area, which is full of shops selling electrical appliances.

Six of those killed lived in a house behind the mosque that also collapsed, the officer said, adding that 20 cars were burned and 25 shops were damaged.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 01:47 pm
A war on rewind

Quote:
BAGHDAD - In Iraq, after four years and three months of war, the echoes have begun to echo themselves.

American troops are taking Baghdad's streets back from insurgents. The prime minister has a plan for national reconciliation. To the south, in the "triangle of death," two U.S. soldiers are missing, captives in enemy hands.

Those were the headlines a year ago. Now they're being heard again in the newscasts of today, like some grim rewinding of a movie tragedy, of a story that never ends.

At the White House last June, back from a secretive trip to Baghdad, an upbeat President Bush told reporters assembled in the Rose Garden, "I sense something different happening in Iraq."

It's June again and those roses are once more in bloom. But in Baghdad the scene looks only bleaker.

To a visitor returning after a year, the something different is the spread of concrete blast barriers across ever more of the city, the accumulation of still more rubble, the sectarian "cleansing" of neighborhoods, the ruin of still more lives ?- of friends whose loved ones have fled, been kidnapped, been killed. And for those left behind, life is worse.

Old Baghdad's constants remain: The sun, boiling orange, still slips below the western desert each evening; the river Tigris snakes, shallow and sluggish, through the city's heart; the muezzins' call to prayer still blares from countless mosques.

The constants of war also remain: the thud of sunrise explosions, somewhere; the zigzagging of convoys down the dangerous roads; the roar of Black Hawk helicopters skimming the tops of Baghdad's minarets.

But the war also has taken new and different turns in the past year.

Insurgent bombers have targeted the bridges over the Tigris and over Baghdad's critical highways. More than ever they're hitting the fortress-like Green Zone, home of the U.S. Embassy and Iraqi government; they've hammered the enclave with rockets and mortar fire more than 80 times since March, reportedly killing at least 26 people, U.N. figures show. On Tuesday, another mortar barrage hit the area.

The U.S. forces in the latest "take back the streets" campaign are suffering more as well ?- 126 killed in Iraq overall this May, compared with 69 in May 2006.

Young soldiers' attitudes are suffering, too, after repeat tours in Iraq. Almost half in a Pentagon survey released last month said their unit's morale is low or very low. Morale took a fresh blow when the Army announced that 12-month tours would be extended to 15.

For Iraq's army and police, the losses were even heavier. And after easing earlier this year, the toll on civilians appears to be rising again in the unending cycle of sectarian killings by Sunni Muslim bombers and Shiite Muslim death squads. Last month was one of the bloodiest on record ?- by Associated Press count, at least 2,155 civilians and Iraqi security forces were killed.

This war has survived countless "turning points," including last June's killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, a U.S. success some in Washington touted as a prelude to a "sea change" in U.S. fortunes.

It wasn't. Now U.S. hopes rest on "Imposing the Law," the four-month-old security crackdown, a "surge" of U.S. reinforcements billed as a promising change of strategy. But this, too, is another echo ?- of "Together Forward," launched in June last year, and "Lightning" of a year before that.

This 2007 operation already shows the weakness that undercut the others, lackluster support from an Iraqi army plagued with desertions and reluctant troops.

"Units that deployed came into Baghdad at only about 60 to 65 percent of their authorized strength," Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, outgoing chief U.S. trainer for Iraqi forces, told an interviewer.

The U.S. command points to progress in the western province of Anbar, where Sunni tribal chiefs have turned against al-Qaida. But some of Anbar's long-running violence seems simply to have moved to Diyala, a province north of Baghdad. On Tuesday, more than 10,000 U.S. soldiers poured into Diyala's capital, Baqouba, on Tuesday as part of major offensives against insurgents outside of Baghdad.

Sunni fighters remain defiant, meanwhile, in such strongholds as the "triangle of death" towns south of Baghdad, where they captured and killed two U.S. soldiers in June last year, and seized two others, still missing, this May.

In Baghdad, death squads the past year have rearranged the sectarian checkerboard of neighborhoods. The mixed west Baghdad districts of Hurriyah and Jihad have turned solidly Shiite, and Sunnis have driven Shiites from the southern district of Dora.

More and more, this centuries-old city is a maze of debris-blocked streets, abandoned houses and long gray walls of 13-foot-high concrete barriers, erected by the Americans to guard against car bombings.

"In two months over 3,200 of these temporary protective barriers were put into Rusafa" ?- the part of Baghdad east of the Tigris River ?- said command spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell last month.

Along with the everyday threats of death, Baghdadis have had to grapple, even more than they did a year ago, with the slow collapse of everyday life.

Electricity, available a few hours a day, grows scarcer. Four years after the U.S. vowed to restore power, the supply in early June was 8 percent below the 2006 level. Oil production, vital to Iraq's economy, remains crippled ?- at levels even lower than last June's production. The queues at gasoline stations sap hours of people's days.

Many Iraqis couldn't cope. An estimated 650,000 ?- more than 2 percent of the prewar population of about 27 million ?- have left the country since 2005, adding to more than 1 million already existing refugees. Some 2 million more have been driven from their homes but remain within Iraq, the U.N. refugee agency says.

Taking over in May 2006, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pledged to push legislation to unify Iraq's Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions. "We've got a prime minister who is very much hands-on," said the U.S. ambassador at the time, Zalmay Khalilzad.

Al-Maliki's efforts have foundered, however, and a new ambassador, Ryan Crocker, takes a less positive view.

"Whether it is ultimately within his power to bring Iraq to a successful state, I mean, again, I can't tell you that it is," Crocker said last month.

Amid more of the same, Iraqis wait.

Behind heavy security earlier this month, hundreds of Shiite and Sunni scholars gathered to promote Muslim and Iraqi unity, but in the end could offer little but the echo of a question from last year and years before.

"How long," one asked, "will Iraqi blood be shed?"

___

Associated Press special correspondent Charles J. Hanley, who first reported from Baghdad in 2002, has returned after a 14-month absence.

(This version CORRECTS that the 2,155 Iraqis who were killed last month, according to an AP count, also included Iraqi security forces and not just civilians)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 02:12 pm
There was never "progress" in Iraq; only the meanderings of Bushco and his fellow war lords. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see the people leaving Iraq by the thousands/millions simply because their home country is not secure and safe. Those left behind are getting killed, and just adding to the total fatalities. Bush doesn't give a shite about lives, although he said "each life is precious!" Each life may be precious, but not tens of thousands. This war must continue until we "win."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 04:04 pm
Deadliest attacks on mosques in Iraq

By The Associated Press
40 minutes ago



Some of the deadliest attacks against mosques in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003:

___

_June 19: A car bomb strikes near the Shiite Khillani mosque in Baghdad, killing at least 78 people and wounding more than 200.

_Feb. 24: A truck bomb explodes as worshippers leave a Sunni mosque in Habbaniyah, west of Baghdad, killing more than 50 people and injuring at least 60.

_Jan. 30: A suicide bomber strikes a crowd entering a Shiite mosque, killing 19 people and wounding 54 in Mandali, near the Iranian border.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 04:47 pm
Iraq commanders say no to breaks in combat

By Gregg Zoroya - USA Today
Posted : Tuesday Jun 19, 2007 17:28:26 EDT

WASHINGTON ?- U.S. commanders in Iraq are rejecting a recommendation by Army mental health experts that troops receive a one-month break for every three months in a combat zone, despite unprecedented levels of continuous fighting and worsening risks of mental health problems.

Instead, commanders are trying to give troops two to three days inside heavily fortified bases after about eight days in the field, said Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson, chief aide to the ground forces commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno.

"We would never get the job done of securing [of Baghdad] if we went out for three months and came back" for one, Anderson said.

U.S. forces in Iraq spend more time in continuous combat without a break than those who fought in Vietnam and World War II, according to Army psychologists who studied troops in Iraq.

U.S. commanders can't match the World War II policy, Odierno said in a news conference late last month. "Even in World War II and other times ... we would pull forces off the line and bring them back on. Here we don't do that," Odierno said. "They [U.S. troops] are out there consistently every single day. So you have to be mentally and physically tough."

President Bush committed 28,000 more troops to Iraq this year as part of an escalation that started in February.

Army psychologists say continual combat may cause more mental health problems. Their research, conducted in Iraq last year, shows that 30 percent of soldiers and Marines experiencing high levels of combat demonstrate signs of anxiety, depression or acute stress.

Army Col. Carl Castro, a research psychologist who co-wrote the mental health study, said combat "is extremely, extremely stressful, and we don't want people to lose sight of that." That stress is aggravated, he says, by multiple tours of duty and deployments that have been extended from 12 months to 15.

Castro and Maj. Dennis McGurk, who co-authored the study, recommend U.S. troops by company or battalion be pulled back into fortified areas to rest for one month after every three months of combat, a recovery period similar to that used in World War II.

High-level combat is defined as spending at least 56 hours a week outside base camps on patrols or missions, a routine pattern for combat soldiers in Iraq. Psychologists defined the "front line" in Iraq as any time a soldier or Marine is outside a fortified installation.

"At no time in our military history have soldiers or Marines been required to serve on the front line in any war for a period of six-seven months, let alone a year, without a significant break in order to recover from the physical, psychological and emotional demands," Castro wrote in the study.

Army Spc. Jeremy Osborn, 27, who finished 14 months in Iraq in February, said more breaks would relieve stress. "The body and mind need to take a break from always being on guard," he said. "Never knowing when we were going to get attacked again was quite stressful."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 05:02 pm
As more troops come home with injuries, Bush has cut veteran's benefits and services beginning in the 2008 fiscal year. What a nice guy!
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 06:40 pm
Everything is stretched so tight in Iraq that soon something is going to give, I am just afraid of what it will be. Don't the republicans in congress read the news or do they just have it tuned into 24 hours fox? Don't they see overstretched our military is? If after August, nothing has improved despite the "surge" of our wore out troops, surely for the sake of the troops if not the Iraqis, they will finally vote to bring them home?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 07:25 pm
Which of these two actions will ultimately result in the most deadly consequences?

1. USA military leaving Iraq before Iraq is secured?

2. USA military remaining in Iraq until Iraq is secured?

Why do you think so?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 07:27 pm
Common sense would dictate so, but we never know about how much more stubborn Bush can get, and the "yes" congress with no spine.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 07:27 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
As more troops come home with injuries, Bush has cut veteran's benefits and services beginning in the 2008 fiscal year. What a nice guy!

MALARKEY! BUSH HAS DONE NO SUCH THING!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 07:30 pm
Bush wants cuts to veterans' health care."The Bush administration plans to cut funding for veterans' health care two years from now ?- even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system. Bush is using the cuts, critics say, to help fulfill his pledge to balance the budget by 2012. … Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly ?- by more than 10 percent in many years ?- White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter." February 12, 2007 10:08 pm | Comment (103)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 07:33 pm
American Legion Commander: ?'I Blame Bush And Congress' For Veterans Cuts
President Bush spoke to the American Legion today, claiming that "support of our veterans has been a high priority in my administration," and that one of his priorities is "making sure that our veterans have got good, decent, quality healthcare."

Watch it:


President Bush should save his rhetoric. In an interview with National Public Radio, even American Legion National Commander Paul Morin, a regular political ally of the White House, pointed out that Bush has consistently skimped on veterans funding. "We are not pleased with the budget for the military and for the VA hospitals for our veterans," Morin said. "I blame the President and Congress for insufficient funding of the VA health care system."

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN
A look at the facts back up Morin's claims about Bush's short-changing of veterans:

Bush plans to cut veterans health care after 2008. "The Bush administration plans to cut funding for veterans' health care two years from now ?- even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system. … Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly ?- by more than 10 percent in many years ?- White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter."

Bush raises health care costs for veterans. For the fifth year in a row, Bush's budget has attempted to raise health care costs on 1.3 million veterans, calling for "new enrollment fees and higher drug co-payments for some veterans."

Bush administration has claimed veterans benefits are "hurtful" to national security. In 2005, the Wall Street Journal noted the growing cost of veterans benefits due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pentagon's response was to complain that it would "rather use [the funds] to help troops fighting today." "The amounts have gotten to the point where they are hurtful. They are taking away from the nation's ability to defend itself," says David Chu, the Pentagon's undersecretary for personnel and readiness.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/12/2026 at 12:07:20