Also, thanks for posting the pertinent information. You are correct, I had not read in detail what exactly the news media is qouting Rumsfield said and telling us what Bush would do. First, I don't necessarily believe that the newspaper qoute of someone elses pronouncement of what the President will or will not do is accurate.
Something 'ironic' I find is how many are screaming about runaway spending, and there is a new thread on how BUSH is going to crash the economy.
I would agree that priority-wise, I would give this the highest concern, If I were in a position to do so.
I noticed that your partial article contained this:
One is a longstanding complaint that some disabled vets, in effect, have to pay their own disability benefits out of their retirement pay through a law they call the Disabled Veterans Tax. 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.
So my statement that we are the ones responsible for it being this way *(since 1891, jezuz crhys) is correct. We have had 212 years to fix it and haven't notified our representatives and Congressmen that this is what we want, or they won't have a job! WHERE HAVE WE BEEN?
Now, George Bush says (maybe) he will veto.
Did you consider that when a bill starts, it usually is clean and good, but by the time it gets through (especially bills that NO ONE will vote down due to the subject) our politicians, it had so many parasites on it , if it was a dog, the humane society would have to put it to sleep.
Maybe there are reasons you and I have not been told, as to why the President might veto it.
The other choice is that President Bush is a heartless, uncaring individual who feels no responsibility to the men and women of the armed forces, past and present. I know what I think.
So my statement that we are the ones responsible for it being this way *(since 1891, jezuz crhys) is correct. We have had (112) years to fix it and haven't notified our representatives and Congressmen that this is what we want, or they won't have a job! WHERE HAVE WE BEEN? Now, George Bush says (maybe) he will veto.
112 years of history have nothing to do with the fact that Bush says he will veto any increase of veteran's benefits today.
Donald Rumsfeld said Bush will veto it.
Donald Rumsfeld is not a "special interest group," he is the Secretary of Defense, a Cabinet member. Donald Rumsfeld's word can be taken as the official word of the President, barring Rumsfeld's being fired for putting words in the President's mouth.
President Bush said it; his flunky Rumsfeld wouldn't dare lie about that.
Did you consider that when a bill starts, it usually is clean and good, but by the time it gets through (especially bills that NO ONE will vote down due to the subject) our politicians, it had so many parasites on it , if it was a dog, the humane society would have to put it to sleep. Maybe there are reasons you and I have not been told, as to why the President might veto it.
There are reasons we weren't told that could justify Clinton's selling of military secrets to China.
I haven't been told those "good" reasons, so I oppose both the act of selling those secrets to our self-declared enemy and the fact that our new President, Bush, allowed that treason to go unpunished, and by being unpunished, unopposed.
If Clinton didn't have a good reason for his treason, his treason is probably still an active crime. Bill Clinton still has his freedom and his contacts, and Hillary is a well-connected, powerful Senator. Both are in a position to do untold harm to our country.
Maybe Bush has good reason to promote gun control and oppose veterans's benefits. Like Clinton, if Bush wants my support, he's going to have to share his "secret" reasons. (Including the reason he let Clinton walk.)
The other choice is that President Bush is a heartless, uncaring individual who feels no responsibility to the men and women of the armed forces, past and present. I know what I think.
I know what you think, too.
I don't agree. I think Bush is a liberal.
Instead of just taking the sentences that make Bush look bad, I read from beginning to end, and you know what? I get a different story.
First off, by vetoing the bill, President Bush is not denying anyone anything (that they haven't had for 212 years).
Further on in the article, they state just what President Bush is doing to help the veterans.
It is one thing to not have read the article, and be ignorant of what is going on.
It is something else to have read it, tell others to read it, and to have only read and remembered the parts that support your side of the issue. I think that is called having BLINDERS ON
All the arguements about Bush denying veterans their rightful benefits are hogwash.
What BUSH did promise the Veterans is being done in smaller pieces and more efficient ways.
Don't suppose the line in the article about how the cost of that BILL was ridiculous and not anywhere within reason or budget considerations meant anything to you.
You didn't mention that in your remarks.