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: fightinJAG
Army Times publishing company (Marine Corps Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times, Army Times, Federal Times, Defense News) is owned by Gannett. Same outfit that puts out USA Today and 89 other dailies.
To: McGavin999
Bump!
Liberty
62
posted on
06/28/2003 11:22:15 PM PDT
by
Liberty Valance
(Please excuse me while i tune my tag line...)
To: mark502inf
No, you are clueless. Try giving some facts for your dispute. I know what I said to be fact, and if you dont, that is your problem. The Army's feelings for the administration are well known. It's not my fault if you are out of the loop.
63
posted on
06/29/2003 12:48:56 AM PDT
by
Pukin Dog
(Sans Reproache)
To: Pukka Puck
Like Gore or Nader would be better.
No, not better, just the SAME! Blackbird.
To: marron
65
posted on
06/29/2003 5:15:47 AM PDT
by
Terp
(Retired US Navy now living in Philippines were the Moutains meet the Sea in the Land of Smiles)
To: fightinJAG
Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas... 'nuff said. This is an interview with the political enemy of both the military and the Republicans!
66
posted on
06/29/2003 5:25:16 AM PDT
by
Jumper
To: Radix
Gee, capping the salary increases of the lower ranks at a lower percentage than the higher ranks ought to do wonders for re-enlistments and retention of junior grade officers...I do not know if all of the numbers are accurate, but I would accept them unless I was confronted with evidence to the contrary...Perhaps they might want to consider capping or reducing the salaries of the members of Congress.Good FIRST step & abolish ALL mindless congressional juckets, Get the troops out of the U.N. European Missions...let the Europeans handle their own backyard...tranfer the monies to the U.S. troops as pay...sunset/or vote every UN mission every 2 years...forbid any frm. congresscritter/admins. officer from taking ANY position (real prison time, heavy fines, loss of ALL retirement perks)...etc., put ALL D.o.D. spending on a 2-year budget as a start...
67
posted on
06/29/2003 5:55:13 AM PDT
by
skinkinthegrass
(Just because you're paranoid,doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. :)
To: Jumper
Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas... 'nuff said. This is an interview with the political enemy of both the military and the Republicans!Really...Rep. Edwards, ('RAT-TX) and with the comments by Rep. Obey, ('RAT-MI)..."Army Times" paper owned by Gannett...liberal slant piece... again 'nuff said.
68
posted on
06/29/2003 6:29:06 AM PDT
by
skinkinthegrass
(Just because you're paranoid,doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. :)
Comment #69 Removed by Moderator
To: x1stcav
A "million years" ago, the paper was important to most as a source of information regarding promotions and assignments. In fact, I learned of one assignment through the Army Times.
I no longer receive telephone solicitations for subscription renewal because I have been very descriptive as to what they could do with their rag.
70
posted on
06/29/2003 6:45:23 AM PDT
by
verity
To: verity; x1stcav; skinkinthegrass; fightinJAG; Pukin Dog; SMEDLEYBUTLER; Mo1; gatorbait; Terp; ...
Smedley wrote:
Army Times publishing company (Marine Corps Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times, Army Times, Federal Times, Defense News) is owned by Gannett. Same outfit that puts out USA Today and 89 other dailies.Smedley has it right, the Army Times has nothing to do with the Army--it is an independent civilian owned and run newspaper. Now, for all you (come to the position of attention, Pukin Dog & PhiKapMom) who tried to make this an Army issue, the same editorial ran in the Marine Corps Times, the Navy Times and the Air Force Times. Pukin Dog & PhiKapMom, as you were.
To: mark502inf
Where do you think Army Times got the numbers re cuts in Hostile Fire and Family Sep pay cuts....?
72
posted on
06/29/2003 7:44:22 AM PDT
by
mystery-ak
(The War is not over for me until my hubby's boots hit U.S. soil.)
To: marron
Years <2 2 3 4 6 8 (sorry for the formatting..or lack of)
E-4 1502.70 1579.80 1665.30
$1749.30 1824.00 1824.00
Housing in JACKSON, MS (with dependants) $542.00
$542.00+$1749.00 = $2291.00 Per Month
$2291 x 12= $27,492 per year
(Add family separation if deployed of $3,000 per year (non taxable) and Imminent danger pay (if in a danger/combat zone)of about the same I think (non taxable)) and you have a Married 23 year(about) old making about:
$33,000 (gross)per year. (+I didn't put in the extra this person would recieve because of no federal taxes becasue I don't know what they would have paid)
I did this really quickly... I think it is right...
73
posted on
06/29/2003 7:51:15 AM PDT
by
M0sby
To: mark502inf
..
the Army Times has nothing to do with the Army--it is an independent civilian owned and run newspaper....and I though, the printing was outsourced...for cost-cutting reasons...and it's an independent civilian owned and run newspaper...So its' nothing more than a liberal mouthpiece...figures...no truth. :(
74
posted on
06/29/2003 7:52:24 AM PDT
by
skinkinthegrass
(Just because you're paranoid,doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. :)
To: mark502inf
Oh shut up. Where do you think these articles are sourced? I'm still waiting for someone to dispute the FACT that Army Leadership hates the current administration. If you think that the media has gone off half-cocked without significant external sourcing for these articles, that is your problem. I stand by what I said.
75
posted on
06/29/2003 7:57:54 AM PDT
by
Pukin Dog
(Sans Reproache)
To: fightinJAG
"Help is on the way..."
76
posted on
06/29/2003 8:12:13 AM PDT
by
Jhoffa_
(I am tired of voting AGAINST people.. Give me someone I can vote FOR.)
To: america-rules
I can tell you what the other side of the coin is...and that is the screw job the military retirre has been handed if he is disabled by service connection.
The general population is not aware of the fact neither the Department of Defense, nor the Department of Veterans Affairs even existed in 1891, as we know it today. The US Congress and the US Congress alone is responsible for the disabled military retirees having their retirement pay taken away from them. The US Congress being the governmental body that passed the law taking away the retirement pay, results in their being the only governmental entity that can pass a law returning the retirement pay.
Our military retirees who suffer service connected injuries or illnesses have their retired pay reduced by any amount of Veterans' Administration compensation they may be awarded. If the service connected condition warrants compensation of 600 dollars per month, the military member's pay is reduced by that amount! Bear in mind that no other segment of society has his or her retired pay reduced for being disabled
it is only the retired military that are so blatantly and disrespectfully discriminated against! These are the folks who gave up their most productive years in service to this nation and this is how they are treated in retirement! All others working with the US Military who are Civil Service Employees in all branches of the Government, including The Department of Defense, The Armed Forces, Senators, Representatives, and Presidential Staff draw both their full retirement pay and full VA compensation for service connected injuries and/or illnesses.
In many cases, a retiree's entire retired pay is eliminated because he or she has a service-connected disability! Is that the way we honor and care for our veterans? It seems so and is indeed the case!
Keep in mind the US Congress also passed into law it is unlawful to discriminate. However, this is clearly a case of discrimination in the purest sense and definition of the word. (Ref: US Code, Title 10, Chapter 74, Sections 1461 through 1467. Also, discrimination of any veteran (treating one or group any different from any other veteran) is addressed throughout Title 38 and is prohibited under penalty of violation of the law.)
Congress has delayed action to eliminate this disparity and disgrace for eighteen years. Every bill proposed in the congress has been shuffled off to committee where it dies and no action is taken!
Election years usually mean promises and proposals. In this case, we need none
we need action!
YOU can assist your disabled retired veterans by making congress and the president know that this discrimination and illegal denial of retirement must end now!
Call the toll free number to Washington and ask to speak directly to your United States Senators and Congressional Representatives and tell them you want concurrent receipt for our retired veterans passed now!
77
posted on
06/29/2003 10:02:00 AM PDT
by
NMFXSTC
To: x1stcav
"isn't the tone of this editorial rather strident and contentious? We are subscribers and had the exact reaction. We were outraged. Things have sure changed over the years.
To: Eagle Eye
These people do difficult duties often in spite of the pay, not because of it. But to get nickel and dimed like this is insulting to them. How else can we make sure senior citizens get a massive government subsidy? The money has to come from somewhere, and right now it appears a prescription drug plan is Priority #1.
To: fightinJAG
Well, now. If things are that
bad, it is a small matter to just leave the military and go for better.
The all volunteer army is overall excellent and competent, but it does attract a significant number of whiners who just
knew that actually being exposed to fighting (horrors!) was not an option.
The draft today would also be ineffective.
Since the concept of treason has been wiped from the books.
Then there's the matter of the ongoing policy since the Korean war: sacrifice somebody else's kid's life for political leverage, not to defeat the enemy.
Under those cicumstances I would refuse to fight.
I would also advise my sons not to fight.
80
posted on
06/29/2003 10:36:53 AM PDT
by
Publius6961
(Californians are as dumm as a sack of rocks)
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