Bush, Republicans losing support of retired veterans

[I]f the base is so selfish they'll get pissed off over something like this, I'm sure President Bush would just as soon go home to his ranch at Crawford instead of sacrificing the best years of his life to solve the biggest problems this country has ever faced. Why should he give up so much to serve people who will sell their vote so cheaply?

I agree with you. I pay a very modest amount--about one-tenth the typical health insurance premium per month--for Tricare Prime coverage for the entire family. I have no complaints. I pay nothing for my medical prescriptions, get immediate referrals to quality specialists as needed, and haven't had to contend with a provider who wasn't fully and promptly paid by Tricare.

I am grateful for what I have been provided courtesy of the American taxpayer. I was honored to defend this nation and will continue to defend it to my last breath.

God bless America and God bless President George W. Bush.

Here is the speech, where is the lie?

Text of Bush Speech on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

[Following is the text of U.S. President George W. Bush's speech on Thursday, August 9, 2001, announcing his decision to prohibit any federal funding for new embryonic stem cell research:]
Good evening. I appreciate you giving me a few minutes of your time tonight so I can discuss with you a complex and difficult issue, an issue that is one of the most profound of our time.

The issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos is increasingly the subject of a national debate and dinner table discussions. The issue is confronted every day in laboratories as scientists ponder the ethical ramifications of their work. It is agonized over by parents and many couples as they try to have children or to save children already born.

The issue is debated within the church, with people of different faiths, even many of the same faith, coming to different conclusions.

Many people are finding that the more they know about stem-cell research, the less certain they are about the right ethical and moral conclusions.

My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos.

A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization which helps so many couples conceive children. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are implanted in the mother.

Once a couple successfully has children or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories. Some will not survive during long storage, others are destroyed. A number have been donated to science and used to create privately funded stem-cell lines. And a few have been implanted in an adoptive mother and born and are today healthy children.

Based on preliminary work that has been privately funded, scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer, from Parkinsons to spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they are not yet certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique potential.

You should also know that stem cells can be derived from sources other than embryos: from adult cells, from umbilical cords that are discarded after babies are born, from human placentas. And many scientists feel research on these types of stem cells is also promising. Many patients suffering from a range of diseases are already being helped with treatments developed from adult stem cells.

However, most scientists, at least today, believe that research on embryonic stem cells offers the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body.

Scientists further believe that rapid progress in this research will come only with federal funds. Federal dollars help attract the best and brightest scientists. They ensure new discoveries are widely shared at the largest number of research facilities, and that the research is directed toward the greatest public good.

The United States has a long and proud record of leading the world toward advances in science and medicine that improve human life, and the United States has a long and proud record of upholding the highest standards of ethics as we expand the limits of science and knowledge.

Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo, and thus destroys its potential for life.

Like a snowflake, each of these embryos is unique, with the unique genetic potential of an individual human being.

As I thought through this issue I kept returning to two fundamental questions. First, are these frozen embryos human life and therefore something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?

I've asked those questions and others of scientists, scholars, bioethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of Congress, my Cabinet and my friends. I have read heartfelt letters from many Americans. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, prayer, and considerable reflection, and I have found widespread disagreement.

On the first issue, are these embryos human life? Well, one researcher told me he believes this five-day-old cluster of cells is not an embryo, not yet an individual but a pre-embryo. He argued that it has the potential for life, but it is not a life because it cannot develop on its own.

An ethicist dismissed that as a callous attempt at rationalization. "Make no mistake," he told me, "that cluster of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives. One goes with a heavy heart if we use these," he said, "because we are dealing with the seeds of the next generation."

And to the other crucial question -- If these are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for good purpose? -- I also found different answers.

Many of these embryos are byproducts of a process that helps create life and we should allow couples to donate them to science so they can be used for good purpose instead of wasting their potential.

Others will argue there is no such thing as excess life and the fact that a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource.

At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It lives at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages.

As the discoveries of modern science create tremendous hope, they also lay vast ethical mine fields.

As the genius of science extends the horizons of what we can do, we increasingly confront complex questions about what we should do. We have arrived at that brave new world that seemed so distant in 1932 when Alduous Huxley wrote about human beings created in test tubes in what he called a hatchery.

In recent weeks, we learned that scientists have created human embryos in test tubes solely to experiment on them. This is deeply troubling and a warning sign that should prompt all of us to think through these issues very carefully.

Embryonic stem-cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. The initial stem cell researcher was at first reluctant to begin his research, fearing it might be used for human cloning. Scientists have already cloned a sheep. Researchers are telling us the next step could be to clone human beings to create individual designer stem cells, essentially to grow another you, to be available in case you need another heart or lung or liver.

I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans. We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts or creating life for our convenience.

And while we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means.

My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs. I'm a strong supporter of science and technology, and believe they have the potential for incredible good -- to improve lives, to save life, to conquer disease.

Research offers hope that millions of our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I have friends whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan has written me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And like all Americans, I have great hope for cures.

I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your president I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world.

And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated.

Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments, yet the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril, so I have decided we must proceed with great care.

As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research.

I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem-cell lines, where the life-and-death decision has already been made.

Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.

I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord, placenta, adult and animal stem cells, which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year your government will spent $250 million on this important research.

I will also name a president's council to monitor stem-cell research, to recommend appropriate guidelines and regulations and to consider all of the medical and ethical ramifications of biomedical innovation.

This council will consist of leading scientists, doctors, ethicists, lawyers, theologians and others, and will be chaired by Dr. Leon Cass, a leading biomedical ethicist from the University of Chicago.

This council will keep us apprised of new developments and give our nation a forum to continue to discuss and evaluate these important issues.

As we go forward, I hope we will always be guided by both intellect and heart, by both our capabilities and our conscience. I have made this decision with great care, and I pray it is the right one.

Thank you for listening. Good night, and God bless America.

I don't like to vote for the lesser of two evils. Not didn't vote at all. I voted for Harry Browne

Browne isn't "good." He's just another evil.

Ergo, you voted for an evil.

Since 1891, anyone retiring after a full military career has had their retirement pay reduced dollar for dollar for any Veterans Administration checks they get for a permanent service-related disability. However, a veteran who served a two-or-four-year tour does not have a similar reduction in Social Security or private pension.

Presumably, every American who has enlisted in the armed forces since 1891 with a career track in mind knew this going in. So, the merits aside, how does Bush get the blame for this?

I'm still waiting for the explanation of your little fit to me this morning.

You can wait until Baghdad freezes over.

Bush goes to war on a whelm instead of getting a Declaration of War from Congress

Now this a fine example of an out and out lie. It's what I'm looking for from you when I ask you for cites.

The Constitution is silent on the means and methods of declaring war. A resoltuion or a simple majority vote to "go forth and kick their ever loving asses" which each do nicely.

How about all of the veterans who signed on the dotted line for over 20 years of service, with a PROMISE that they had health care when they retired. This was not a handout, damnit---this was something they EARNED. And they were denied after the fact.

Don't give me that crap about how all of the veterans should have served for nothing in return but blood, sweat and tears. They did their duty, and now it's time for Uncle Sam to do his and pay the piper.

When you are employed by any other employer, if they fail to pay what they stipulate in their contract, they are taken to court and sued. If it's Uncle Sam, he just sticks in an escape clause saying "sorry, we can screw you whenever we want." I, too, know many many veterans, who are also W supporters, but who are extremely pissed off about this.

To: dogbyte12
Of course, it's also possible that certain interest groups are taking advantage of what may be an intractable problem, in order to "blame Bush" and undermine his traditionally high support from the military ...
***************

What interest group does Donald Rumsfeld belong to?

From the article:

A majority of members of Congress, from both parties, wants to change the law. A House proposal by Rep. Jim Marshall, D-Ga., has 345 co-sponsors. But it would cost as much as $5 billion a year to expand payments to 670,000 disabled veterans, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld earlier this month told lawmakers that the president would veto any bill including the change.

How about all of the veterans who signed on the dotted line for over 20 years of service, with a PROMISE that they had health care when they retired. This was not a handout, damnit---this was something they EARNED. And they were denied after the fact.

Go suck your thumb, whiner.

You can wait until Baghdad freezes over.

LOL! I expected nothing less. I love ya Kev. God bless you.

You voted for Harry Browne and you have the temerity to complain about Bush?

The same Harry Browne who wants unfettered borders and blamed 9/11 on the USA. The Harry Browne who opposed the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq? That Harry Browne?

This was not a gimmee, you fool. This was a PAY BENEFIT promised to veterans in return for services rendered. How would you like to work for a company for 20 years with the promise of a pension... and then the company says, oh well, too damn bad. This is NOT welfare, it is NOT Medicaid. Veterans EARNED this, and if you can't see the difference, you obviously don't know the difference between PAY and entitlement.

When you are employed by any other employer, if they fail to pay what they stipulate in their contract, they are taken to court and sued. If it's Uncle Sam, he just sticks in an escape clause saying "sorry, we can screw you whenever we want." I, too, know many many veterans, who are also W supporters, but who are extremely pissed off about this.

Employers far and wide have had to reign in their retirement plans and install co-pays on medical insurance.

I think promises should be kept and if they were promised free health care then by God, that's what they should get.

However, your comparison is not exactly a valid one.

How about all of the veterans who signed on the dotted line for over 20 years of service, with a PROMISE that they had health care when they retired.

Did you do a scientific poll ? Can you post the results ? ALL vets were promised health care ? ALL vets refuse to vote for Bush ? Did Bush create this problem ? Did he promise to fix it ? Did you rely on his promise and vote for him ?

Now wonder you were reluctant to admit who you voted for.

Goodness! I have never been reluctant to say who I voted for and why.

carenot - Shame on the Republican Party for not giving us a good candidate.
VRWC_minion - (Bush)is the most conservative person that can be elected. He cannot move farther right than 50.1% of the population in the states comprising an electoral majority.
***************

50.1 % of the population?!

We are NOT a Democracy, VRWC_minion, despite claims made by both Republican and Democratic Parties that we are.

This is a Constitutional Republic, and for a Republic to work, we must each of us vote for what we think is right, not for what we think will get the support of those we don't agree with.

BTW, dont't vest have medicare and can't they get free medical care at military hospitals ?

But it would cost as much as $5 billion a year to expand payments to 670,000 disabled veterans, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld earlier this month told lawmakers that the president would veto any bill including the change.

Besides, Bush has much better plans for that 5 billion a year which he will spend in his African aid package. What's wrong with these whiney disabled vets anyway? Don't they know that aid to foreign nations comes before them?

Did you do a scientific poll ? Can you post the results ? ALL vets were promised health care ? ALL vets refuse to vote for Bush ? Did Bush create this problem ? Did he promise to fix it ? Did you rely on his promise and vote for him ?

What the hell are you spouting this logorrhea for? You don't need to do a scientific poll in order to know that veterans were promised health care. It is a fact, not an opinion. THAT is the issue here. The rest of your bloviating has no point. How many years did YOU serve?