Skip to comments.
Nothing but lip service ("Army Times" newspaper rips Bush & Republicans)
ArmyTimes.com ^
| June 30, 2003
| House editorial
Posted on 06/28/2003 7:01:35 PM PDT by fightinJAG
Edited on 05/07/2004 10:06:22 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap
(Excerpt) Read more at armytimes.com ...
TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: army; bush
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-92 next last
To: PhiKapMom
Look at the cut in pay for Hostile fire and Separation.....when they see this there is going to be a lot of pissed off GI's....cause Im steaming now....I hope this is bogus, we just got the increase.
21
posted on
06/28/2003 7:51:06 PM PDT
by
mystery-ak
(The War is not over for me until my hubby's boots hit U.S. soil.)
To: Lion Den Dan
How and when was this allowed to happen?
22
posted on
06/28/2003 7:51:25 PM PDT
by
x1stcav
( HOOAHH!)
To: fightinJAG
Standard fare for Army Whines since the 50's
23
posted on
06/28/2003 7:58:47 PM PDT
by
dts32041
("The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.")
To: fightinJAG
I won't defend the Army Times.
But I will say I'm disappointed with how Bush and Rumsfeld have held the purse strings tight on the Army given the amount of pork this administration has packed over the last 2 1/2 years. The low level of soldier pay is a scandel Bush promised to fix.
The Army is under seige from Rumsfeld, some deserved, some not. Appointing a Secretary from a rival service and jumping over all active Generals to name a retiree Chief of Staff isn't going to help the situation, IMHO.
The Army performed magnificently in Iraq, yes the mechanized Abrams/Bradley force Reagan installed that Rumsfeld's whiz kids thought was obsolete, that force. I fear Rummy seems determined to ignore the lessons of Iraq to continue unmodified the transition to a much smaller and more vulnerable Army.
To: Chu Gary
I deeply resent that. I am not rich like Senator Kerry. I happen to work for a living. If you think that pay rates for soldiers that qualify them for food stamps is adequate, then bully to you. I don't. We disagree, and leave it at that without the scurilous attacks thank you.
I am fine with cutting a paper pushers pay to pay for soldiers pay raises. I am not referring to socialism here, I am referring to the fact that our boys are giving their lives, and their pay stinks. I feel strongly that fire fighters, police officers, and soldiers need to be adequately compensated as an elevated class.
If that makes me John Kerry in your eyes, so be it.
To: PhiKapMom
Are any of the "facts" and figures in this article true then?
I only know that my son is serving his second year in the Navy and that the government took $800 in income tax out of his $15,500 annual wage. Fortunately, he is single, but he was making 2-3 times that wage at a local factory.
To: x1stcav
Is this usual for the Army Times or is there a hidden story? Maybe there's no hidden story, just the story. It is true that the Bush administration had been very reluctant to spend any money on conventional forces.
To: TLBSHOW
28
posted on
06/28/2003 8:10:42 PM PDT
by
deport
( BUSH/CHENEY 2004...... with or without the showboy)
To: bjcintennessee
My daughter is also in the Navy and after she got her refund she didn't pay hardly anything in Income Tax! In fact she got her bonus and got back all but a few dollars of what they took out for Income Tax.
29
posted on
06/28/2003 8:12:34 PM PDT
by
PhiKapMom
(Bush Cheney '04 - VICTORY IN '04 -- $4 for '04 - www.GeorgeWBush.com/donate/)
To: deport
If you like throwing all conservative principals away go for it deport.
30
posted on
06/28/2003 8:15:28 PM PDT
by
TLBSHOW
(The Gift is to See the Truth)
To: Sci Fi Guy
You are no doubt right, but the strident tone of the editorial tells me there is an agenda on the part of the Army Times' staff that has nothing to do with pay raises, per se.
31
posted on
06/28/2003 8:16:54 PM PDT
by
x1stcav
( HOOAHH!)
To: TLBSHOW
What's a matter, can't find an answer like you said? All talk and not produce....
32
posted on
06/28/2003 8:18:28 PM PDT
by
deport
( BUSH/CHENEY 2004...... with or without the showboy)
To: deport
Sell the kool aid to the blind.......
33
posted on
06/28/2003 8:25:37 PM PDT
by
TLBSHOW
(The Gift is to See the Truth)
To: PhiKapMom
I filed his tax return and he got a refund, but it still came down to his paying over $800. Maybe next year, I'll foward his tax return to you 'cause I must have missed something.
My son is stationed in Norfolk on the Enterprise. Do you mind my asking where your daughter is serving?
To: PhiKapMom
"crap w/o facts" saysssssssss it all .....
"continue to believe this" hits the nail on the head too ...
Thanks for your comments!
35
posted on
06/28/2003 8:26:03 PM PDT
by
patricia
To: TLBSHOW
36
posted on
06/28/2003 8:30:12 PM PDT
by
deport
( BUSH/CHENEY 2004...... with or without the showboy)
To: Radix
I wouldn't worry alot about these cuts. In 12 months, with almost 500 Army personnel dead (1 and 2 per day on average)...alot of Army personnel and their families will make a big decision....leave the military. And the administration (whether Bush or some democrat) will be stuck having to pay massive amounts of allowances to get people to stay in and face death in Iraq. The entire reason...if none of you have figured that out...for the 'leave Germany & Europe' option...is because they won't able to afford operating there. There are going to be billions upon billions spent to get troops to Iraq (watch a 150,000 man rotation every 12 months), help them survive, and pay off Iraqi citizens to accept this whole game.
To: Pukin Dog
The current Army leadership hates the Bush Administration because they do not have the respect of Don Rumsfeld, who is downsizing their weaponry and reducing their role in favor of the better trained and more disciplined Marine Corps. Articles like this one are to be expected. Pukin Dog, You're clueless. The Army Times has nothing to do with the Army or the Army leadership. It is a completely independent, private newspaper. And anyway, the editorial covers all services, not just the Army.
To: sarasmom
The Army seems to resist the idea that in the real world,advances in technology and aversion to unneccessary casualties,have occurred in civilian world.Code-talker? How about a translation for the rest of us.
To: fightinJAG
Something doesn't smell right to me. Way too dem-sided.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-92 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson