• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush is a war criminal...

Should George W. Bush be impeached?

  • Yes

    Votes: 42 41.6%
  • No

    Votes: 59 58.4%

  • Total voters
    101
Status
Not open for further replies.
SKILMATIC said:
Plenty of things which i already mentioned in other threads which you have also read. Sorry I really hate repeating myself. Just use the serch index its what its for. But to name a few and I know you disagree with me on these but its actually facts. He has eliminated threats of terrorism(although I am sure they are still recruiting). He has at least done something about the terrorist threat in some 80plus countries. He has given us tax breaks(well at least i did). There are more jobs. More veterans benefits. More pay for the military. Better economy from the 9/11 attacks which proves he has been trying there.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you not like Bush soo much? I mean hes not a evil person. What has he done other than the war in iraq I already know you dont like that which I already explained to you the reason of going in. But what other than that do you really despise bush for?

Yes, we have discussed this in other threads. And though I do not recall the specifics, I do remember you have some issues with him as well. First of all, I expect a worthy president to at least appear intelligent. If you compare Bush to Clinton, Clinton would come off as Albert Einstein. That's sad. Not that Clinton isn't intelligent, he is. Very. It's just sad that he would come off as that much more intelligent than Bush. Hell, you and I could probably run circles around him in a spelling bee. And were no perfectionists when it comes to that. You know, I could really get into all the reasons why he is a bad president. But, I don't think I have time or enough space in this messege complete my dissertation... However, when it comes to speaking English very well, I think that it a pre-requisite for a presidential candidate. Because, If they can't get thier national language down pat, then I have grave doubts about what they can get right. That's just the beginning. I am more than happy to continue this discussion, if you like. Now, I pass you the ball.
 
Am I on Navy Prides ignore list, or does he just abhor facts.

As to job creation, SKILMATIC, you said he had created jobs, thats not true, I didn't speculate on how the jobs were lost, simply that in the first term of his Presidency he had a net loss of jobs (1.5million), has he created 1.5 million jobs this year? Didn't think so.

As to cutting benefits to Veterans and Military Families, well there's a book out about it called Deserter, or you could just do some actual research instead of listening to Bush, he has a bit of a truth defecit, actually it's a lot like the deficit he created in your economy, enormous.

Do you remember when asked about his campaign promise to avoid defecits just as he first went into defecit? His response was this;

"I said I wouldn't run a deficit unless we experienced recession, war or a national emergency, well I never dreamed I'd hit the trifecta"

Well, his point was fair enough although he never actually said those things, Gore did. Whatever you may think of the massive deficit, why is he still passing massive tax-cuts for the rich? Paul Krugman did some research and couldn't find a single other instance where a country cut taxes in war-time, throughout recorded human history!!!
 
As I explained in a previous post I don't use my ignore list........If I did I would miss to many laughs on you Liberals........

That said let me give you a little friendly advice..........You liberals really need to get over the election in 2000......Its not going to change.......The verdict is you lost...............You also lost in 2000 and 2004........The American people don't buy your left wing mantra...........You need to try and move to the center if democrats are ever going to be a competitive party again....

No charge for the advice........:lol:
 
Navy Pride said:
I already replied to the talking points and I am no Republican but because your a nice Liberal (confused though) Here you go.....

.Did you know that 5 or 6 independent organizations investigated the elections in Florida and found that President Bush won every time......They found that all the charges you bring up were unfounded.........

The same in 2004....President Bush could win by 20,000,000 votes and you Bush haters would still cry foul........Like I told the other Liberal you really need to get over this and move on............It will be 2008 shortly and your party will lose again and you still be whinning about 2000........

Your boy Al Gore lost becasue he ran a horrible campaign.His big mistake was he disatanced himself from Clinton and that was flat dumb.....

Nuff said..............

Navy, a New York Times investigation found that Florida election officials, under intense GOP pressure, counted 680 absentee ballots, mostly military, that failed to comply with the state election laws. That number passed W's 537 vote margin of victory.

And you aren't Republican? You could easily have fooled me especially from your stance on the Iraq war.
 
what i beleive:

1)the president has only a miminal effect upon the economy, positive or negative

2)no man can destroy the union in 8 years

3)bureacratic reogranization and policy intiatives have less to do with stopping terrorism then the motivation 9/11 gave public servants for heightened vigliance
 
Well if you're not ignoring my posts Navy then why are you using the same post to respond to my post which was in fact a response to that very post you keep posting? Sounds like you're working off talking points.

William Shakespeare is going to kill me for that sentence.
 
you said he had created jobs, thats not true, I didn't speculate on how the jobs were lost, simply that in the first term of his Presidency he had a net loss of jobs (1.5million), has he created 1.5 million jobs this year? Didn't think so.

Look, you just said we losed 3million jobs in the first post now its 1.5million? Which one is it? The fact is before Bush was president there was a national 5.9% unemplyment rate. Now this fiscal year even after 9/11 the unemplyment rate is at 4.6%. DO YOU WANT TO IGNORE FACTS? I dont specualte I spit facts or from personal experience or from what has happened in history. Which inturn proves under bushes term has been more of a job creation.

As to cutting benefits to Veterans and Military Families, well there's a book out about it called Deserter, or you could just do some actual research instead of listening to Bush, he has a bit of a truth defecit, actually it's a lot like the deficit he created in your economy, enormous.

UNDER YOUR OWN STATEMENT, I willl tell you that how would you know something like this from reading a biased approach book on it? Furhtermore, you dont learn a subject by reading one source of literature just like you cant get all your news from one news channel. I will tell you that I have done much more extensive research on my own countries military than someone who isnt apart of this country.

For starters, I am in the military. I have served in the Navy in afghanistan and Iraq(twice) and I am now in the national gaurd will be going back to Iraq after my college semester is done. My military knwoledge and its benefits extends all through my family. My grandfather was a navy diver in WW2 a Pearl harbor survivor. He actually served with Master Chief Bresheire (Men of Honor). My other grandpa served as a Colonel in the Airforce as a B52 pilot in the Vietnam war. My dad is retired navy(20yrs of service) and my mom is still active duty with more than 24yrs of service. I can tell you through pure personal experience and knowledge that veterans benefits are far more than in clintons admin. Even are military pay is 20% more than in clintons admin. I would appreciate it if you would first know anything on a particular subject before spiting off false anecdotes. You cant argue with a man that has direct knowledge of what we are discussing. I would appreciate it if you would just say "thank you sir for your service and I was wrong." But I think I may be asking too much. And furthermore you would prolly still argue with me.
 
Hey new coup, you have a point, Presidents don't run the economy, but Bush's tax-cuts and corporate de-regulation have done a lot to both damage the economy and increase the rich/poor divide.

And SKILMATIC, I was referring to the 3 million jobs lost at the start of his Presidency and the 1.5 million NET jobs lost over the entire term. This mean that he then created 1.5 million jobs after he lost the 3 million leaving an overall loss of 1.5 million. It's really quite simple. And I said he cut Danger pay not overall, I haven't read the book I mentioned, I got the information off various internet news source, I only found out about the book tonight and thought you may want to look into it. Obviously you support Bush to much to want to know anything negative he may have done. And you are using anecdotal evidence yourself sir, find some statistics from a verifiable source and I will apologise. And thank you for your service, you've made Iraq a much safer place.

2006 Won’t Be First Year Bush Cuts Support for Veterans
May 28, 2004, 01:48 PM
Yesterday’s Washington Post revealed a preliminary budget framework for the Bush Administration’s second term in 2006 includes $910 million in cuts for the Department of Veterans Affairs. This is not the first time George W. Bush will cut veteran’s programs. While handing out billions in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and corporate campaign contributors, throughout his presidency George W. Bush has steadily cut support for our nation’s veterans, under funding the programs by $4 billion. For example, a survey during the Bush Administration indicates more than 310,000 veterans had to wait as much as six months for medical appointments and there is currently a lag in for veterans receiving disability compensation that runs anywhere from six months to two years. [Source: National Priorities Project, 5/04]

Bush ignores vets; attempts to slash pay to frontline troops

Bush ignores veterans in his 2004 State of the Union. “We were disappointed…that in your State of the Union address you offered no recognition of the contributions of America’s veterans nor of the nation’s solemn obligation to care for those who have borne our battles.” [Source: Letter to the President from Congressional military veterans, 1/26/04]

From the Army Times editorial, 7/2/03:

Bush sought to cap pay raises. “The chintz even extends to basic pay. While Bush’s proposed 2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for some ranks, he also proposed capping raises for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent.” [Source: Army Times, editorial, 7/2/03]

Bush White House complained about plan to double death benefit. “For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.” [Source: Army Times, editorial, 7/2/03]

Bush tried to roll back monthly pay increases for soldiers in combat. “Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.” [Source: Army Times, editorial, 7/2/03]

No tax relief for military families. “Then there’s military tax relief — or the lack thereof. As Bush and Republican leaders in Congress preach the mantra of tax cuts, they can’t seem to find time to make progress on minor tax provisions that would be a boon to military homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training and parents deployed to combat zones, among others.” [Source: Army Times, editorial, 7/2/03]

Bush flips on military pay cut. “The White House quickly backpedaled Thursday on Pentagon plans to cut the combat pay of the 157,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan after disclosure of the idea quickly became a political embarrassment.” [Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 8/15/03]

Bush war in Iraq creating new injured vets fast

18,000 Iraq vets seek care. “Nearly 18,000 soldiers who have returned from Iraq have sought care at VA health facilities, officials reported at the end of March. A separate report in mid-April said 4,000 troops from the war in Afghanistan sought care, although there is some overlap from those who served in both conflicts.” [Source: AP, 5/17/04]

Most are reservists. “About 60 percent of the Iraq veterans and 84 percent of those from Afghanistan who sought VA care came from the National Guard and Reserves. The most common problems affected joints and back, teeth and the digestive system.” [Source: AP, 5/17/04]

Wait averages 171 days for care. “To address the backlog of cases that delayed disability pay for veterans, the VA has hired 1,500 workers and formed special teams to reduce the March, 2002 peak of 233 days for an initial disability ruling. Today, the wait averages 171 days.” [Source: AP, 5/17/04]

Bush FY 2005 Veterans Budget “grossly inadequate;” VFW says vets not a priority for Bush

Bush 05 Budget nearly 4 billion short. “The Bush Administration’s proposed spending on discretionary veterans benefits for fiscal year 2005 amounts to $29.8 billion, well below the $33.6 billion recommended by leading veterans’ organizations.” [Source: National Priorities Project, 5/25/04]

VFW says Vets not a priority for Bush. “The president ignored veterans in the State of the Union Address and with today’s release of his 2005 budget, it is further evident that veterans are no longer a priority with this administration,” said the leader of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., expressing dismay at the disgraceful 1.8% increase in veterans’ medical care funding. “We look to Congress to reject the president’s inadequate proposal and to provide a budget that fully acknowledges the debt our nation owes its veterans.” [Source: VFW, 2/2/04]

Bush budget proposes lowest veterans budget in nearly a decade. “Yesterday, the Administration released its Budget Request for FY 2005 providing grossly inadequate funding of health care for our Nation’s sick and disabled veterans for yet another year. The request includes only $310 million more than the FY 2004 appropriation which was only just passed two weeks ago, nearly four months late. This is the lowest appropriation request for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care made by any Administration in nearly a decade.” [Source: Paralyzed Veterans of America, release, 2/3/04]

Bush veterans budget relies on “gimmicks.” “The VA Under Secretary for Health testified last year that it requires an average yearly medical care increase of 12% to 14% to meet the cost of inflation and mandated salary increases. However, $310 million is only 1.2% more than the FY 2004 appropriation. The Administration’s budget proposal relies far too heavily on budget gimmicks, major cuts in long term care programs, higher out-of-pocket costs for veterans, and not enough on appropriated dollars.” [Source: Paralyzed Veterans of America, release, 2/3/04]

Bush’s budget fails to keep pace with rising costs. Contrary to Mr. Bush’s claims, “the annual percentage increase it requested for veterans’ health care is 5.4 percent—hardly a windfall considering that the consumer price index for medical care was 13 percent during fiscal year 2002. VA officials have testified that it would take a 13 to 14 percent hike in the VA’s health care budget just to maintain the status quo.” [Rep. Lane Evans (D-IL) Op-Ed, The Hill, 9/17/03]

VA head says he did not get funds he asked for. “In a rare move by a Cabinet member, Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi told a House committee he had sought $1.2 billion more than President Bush was willing to put in his budget… “I asked OMB for $1.2 billion more than I received,” Principi said, referring to the White House Office of Management and Budget.” [Source: AP, 2/5/04]
 
Last edited:
Hey new coup, you have a point, Presidents don't run the economy, but Bush's tax-cuts and corporate de-regulation have done a lot to both damage the economy and increase the rich/poor divide.

Ok then why did you just say that bush didnt create jobs? This statment just proves me right. I never said bush created jobs I said under bushes term. Please comprehend what I said before debating against me, thank you.

Which inturn proves under bushes term has been more of a job creation.

OR my earlier post.

Originally Posted by SKILMATIC
Plenty of things which i already mentioned in other threads which you have also read. Sorry I really hate repeating myself. Just use the serch index its what its for. But to name a few and I know you disagree with me on these but its actually facts. He has eliminated threats of terrorism(although I am sure they are still recruiting). He has at least done something about the terrorist threat in some 80plus countries. He has given us tax breaks(well at least i did). There are more jobs.
 
The article was longer, but too long to post so some of it has disappeared.

www.actforvictory.org

And I just found this in the last 5 minutes, do some research, then attack me.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Ok then why did you just say that bush didnt create jobs? This statment just proves me right. I never said bush created jobs I said under bushes term. Please comprehend what I said before debating against me, thank you.



OR my earlier post.

I have to remember not to have a nuanced postion in future. I meant Bush wasn't solely responsible for the eceonomy, they're are other factors, but the economic plans of the President are a major factor, I guess what I meant to write was Presidents don't TOTALLY run the economy, if you read the post I was responding to you would see what I mean. I actually thought coup was dismissing the effects and I was disagreeing. Clinton signing NAFTA definitely had an effect, so has Bush with his tax-cuts and corporate de-regulation.
 
do some research, then attack me.

Good advice mabe you should use it sometime. Let me ask you this then since you are a professional in areas you never had any direct experience from. What is lacking in veteran benefits?
 
cnredd said:
Are you under the impression that if there were 67 Democrats in the Senate right now that impeachment proceedings would have already taken place?

Based on the lies and manipulation of the intelligence to take our nation to war, I certainly think it could be a possibility.

Or does Bush have to 'get some' in the Oval Office for that to happen?
 
SKILMATIC said:
Good advice mabe you should use it sometime. Let me ask you this then since you are a professional in areas you never had any direct experience from. What is lacking in veteran benefits?

2006 Won’t Be First Year Bush Cuts Support for Veterans
May 28, 2004, 01:48 PM
Yesterday’s Washington Post revealed a preliminary budget framework for the Bush Administration’s second term in 2006 includes $910 million in cuts for the Department of Veterans Affairs. This is not the first time George W. Bush will cut veteran’s programs. While handing out billions in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and corporate campaign contributors, throughout his presidency George W. Bush has steadily cut support for our nation’s veterans, under funding the programs by $4 billion. For example, a survey during the Bush Administration indicates more than 310,000 veterans had to wait as much as six months for medical appointments and there is currently a lag in for veterans receiving disability compensation that runs anywhere from six months to two years. [Source: National Priorities Project, 5/04]

Bush ignores vets; attempts to slash pay to frontline troops

Bush ignores veterans in his 2004 State of the Union. “We were disappointed…that in your State of the Union address you offered no recognition of the contributions of America’s veterans nor of the nation’s solemn obligation to care for those who have borne our battles.” [Source: Letter to the President from Congressional military veterans, 1/26/04]

From the Army Times editorial, 7/2/03:

Bush sought to cap pay raises. “The chintz even extends to basic pay. While Bush’s proposed 2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for some ranks, he also proposed capping raises for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent.” [Source: Army Times, editorial, 7/2/03]

Bush White House complained about plan to double death benefit. “For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.” [Source: Army Times, editorial, 7/2/03]

Bush tried to roll back monthly pay increases for soldiers in combat. “Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.” [Source: Army Times, editorial, 7/2/03]

No tax relief for military families. “Then there’s military tax relief — or the lack thereof. As Bush and Republican leaders in Congress preach the mantra of tax cuts, they can’t seem to find time to make progress on minor tax provisions that would be a boon to military homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training and parents deployed to combat zones, among others.” [Source: Army Times, editorial, 7/2/03]

Bush flips on military pay cut. “The White House quickly backpedaled Thursday on Pentagon plans to cut the combat pay of the 157,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan after disclosure of the idea quickly became a political embarrassment.” [Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 8/15/03]

Bush war in Iraq creating new injured vets fast

18,000 Iraq vets seek care. “Nearly 18,000 soldiers who have returned from Iraq have sought care at VA health facilities, officials reported at the end of March. A separate report in mid-April said 4,000 troops from the war in Afghanistan sought care, although there is some overlap from those who served in both conflicts.” [Source: AP, 5/17/04]

Most are reservists. “About 60 percent of the Iraq veterans and 84 percent of those from Afghanistan who sought VA care came from the National Guard and Reserves. The most common problems affected joints and back, teeth and the digestive system.” [Source: AP, 5/17/04]

Wait averages 171 days for care. “To address the backlog of cases that delayed disability pay for veterans, the VA has hired 1,500 workers and formed special teams to reduce the March, 2002 peak of 233 days for an initial disability ruling. Today, the wait averages 171 days.” [Source: AP, 5/17/04]

Bush FY 2005 Veterans Budget “grossly inadequate;” VFW says vets not a priority for Bush

Bush 05 Budget nearly 4 billion short. “The Bush Administration’s proposed spending on discretionary veterans benefits for fiscal year 2005 amounts to $29.8 billion, well below the $33.6 billion recommended by leading veterans’ organizations.” [Source: National Priorities Project, 5/25/04]

VFW says Vets not a priority for Bush. “The president ignored veterans in the State of the Union Address and with today’s release of his 2005 budget, it is further evident that veterans are no longer a priority with this administration,” said the leader of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., expressing dismay at the disgraceful 1.8% increase in veterans’ medical care funding. “We look to Congress to reject the president’s inadequate proposal and to provide a budget that fully acknowledges the debt our nation owes its veterans.” [Source: VFW, 2/2/04]

Bush budget proposes lowest veterans budget in nearly a decade. “Yesterday, the Administration released its Budget Request for FY 2005 providing grossly inadequate funding of health care for our Nation’s sick and disabled veterans for yet another year. The request includes only $310 million more than the FY 2004 appropriation which was only just passed two weeks ago, nearly four months late. This is the lowest appropriation request for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care made by any Administration in nearly a decade.” [Source: Paralyzed Veterans of America, release, 2/3/04]

Bush veterans budget relies on “gimmicks.” “The VA Under Secretary for Health testified last year that it requires an average yearly medical care increase of 12% to 14% to meet the cost of inflation and mandated salary increases. However, $310 million is only 1.2% more than the FY 2004 appropriation. The Administration’s budget proposal relies far too heavily on budget gimmicks, major cuts in long term care programs, higher out-of-pocket costs for veterans, and not enough on appropriated dollars.” [Source: Paralyzed Veterans of America, release, 2/3/04]

Bush’s budget fails to keep pace with rising costs. Contrary to Mr. Bush’s claims, “the annual percentage increase it requested for veterans’ health care is 5.4 percent—hardly a windfall considering that the consumer price index for medical care was 13 percent during fiscal year 2002. VA officials have testified that it would take a 13 to 14 percent hike in the VA’s health care budget just to maintain the status quo.” [Rep. Lane Evans (D-IL) Op-Ed, The Hill, 9/17/03]

VA head says he did not get funds he asked for. “In a rare move by a Cabinet member, Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi told a House committee he had sought $1.2 billion more than President Bush was willing to put in his budget… “I asked OMB for $1.2 billion more than I received,” Principi said, referring to the White House Office of Management and Budget.” [Source: AP, 2/5/04]

Bush child tax credit fails 200,000 military families. “The 2003 Bush tax cut for the rich, for example, failed to extend a child tax credit to nearly 200,000 military personnel.” [Source: The Progressive, 4/2004]

Bush 05 budget doubles prescription drug copay for vets. “Under [Bush’s FY 2005] budget, some veterans would have to pay $250 a year to use the VA health care system; their co-payments for a 30-day supply of a prescription drug would also more than double, from $7 to $15. The proposed changes would affect only the veterans with no service-related health problems whose relative high income places them in the two lowest priority classifications.” [Source: Washington Post, 3/3/04]

Bush FY 2004 Budget

Bush 04 Budget cuts education aid to military families. “President Bush’s fiscal year 2004 budget plan proposes to cut Impact Aid funding by a total of $206 million below current year levels. In addition, the Administration is proposing that the entire reduction be taken from the portion of the Impact Aid program designed to support the education of military children.” [Source: Minority Staff, House Appropriations Committee, 6/03]

Bush 04 Budget does not keep pace with rising costs. “While quick to point out that it requested for fiscal year 2004 a “record” increase for veterans’ health care, the administration is less anxious to draw attention to the fact that the annual percentage increase it requested for veterans’ health care is 5.4 percent - hardly a windfall considering that the consumer price index for medical care was 13 percent during fiscal year 2002. VA officials have testified that it would take a 13 to 14 percent hike in the VA’s health care budget just to maintain the status quo. Meanwhile, the growth in veteran patients continues to climb - from 2.9 million in fiscal year 1996 to more than 5 million projected in 2003, a 71 percent increase.” [Source: The Hill, op-ed, Rep. Lane Evans, 9-17-04]
 
Bush cuts health care access for Vets

Bush Administration budget cuts would have closed seven VA hospitals and eliminated nearly 5,000 nursing home beds. “The administration has sought to more than double the co-payments on prescription drugs for some veterans and create access fees for some veterans to even get in the hospital door. More than 100,000 veterans are now forced to wait more than 6 months for a medical care visit and thousands more fail to meet VA’s standard of 30 days for timely access to care. In addition, the administration proposed to eliminate long-term care services for most veterans resulting in the closure of about 5,000 nursing home beds.” [Source: The Hill, op-ed, Rep. Lane Evans, 9/17/04]

Bush VA cuts access to 164,000 category 8 vets. “The Department of Veterans Affairs announced yesterday that it is immediately cutting off access to its health care system to some higher-income veterans, a move the agency estimated will affect about 164,000 veterans who were expected to enroll in the system during the current fiscal year… Category 8 income levels vary depending on geographic location, but Principi said generally the restrictions will apply to veterans with annual incomes of $ 30,000 to $ 35,000 or higher.” [Source: Washington Post, 1/17/03]

Bush budgets result in fewer staff at VA centers, despite rising case load. “As a result of budgetary constraints, hiring for staff of VA regional benefits offices has been frozen since May 2003. Positions lost through retirement and attrition are not being filled, and the administration is calling for even deeper staff cuts, notwithstanding a backlog of hundreds of thousands of benefits claims.” [Source: The Hill, op-ed, Rep. Lane Evans, 9/17/04]

Bush would set research grant program back six years. “PVA is also disappointed with the major cuts in award-winning VA medical and prosthetic research. This would set the research grant program back six years to FY 1999 funding levels.” [Source: Paralyzed Veterans of America, release, 2/3/04]

Bush opposes Health Insurance for Guard and Reserve

Bush opposes letting guard members buy Pentagon insurance plan. “The Bush administration is formally opposing a proposal to give National Guard and Reserve members access to the Pentagon’s health insurance system, jeopardizing the plan’s future and angering supporters.” [Source: Argus Leader (SD), 10/23/04]

Bush “strongly opposes” allowing guard members to buy health insurance. “The Administration strongly opposes any such amendments, including an amendment that was accepted by the Senate to provide for expanded benefits under the TRICARE program.” [Source: Statement of Administration Policy, S. 1689 & H.R. 3289, 10/16/03]

Bush seeks higher fees and drug co-payments for veterans.

Bush seeks increased fees and co-pays. “Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) is deeply troubled by a proposal to charge a $250 user fee for Category 7 and 8 veterans and to increase prescription co-payments from $7 to $15.” [Source: Paralyzed Veterans of America, release, 2/3/04]

Vets cannot afford Bush’s higher costs. “PVA Executive Director Delatorro McNeal stated, “Many veterans cannot afford these higher costs. The alternative for many sick and disabled veterans will be to forego necessary medical care and risk endangering their health.” He emphasized that “this is yet another attempt by this Administration to pay for the services of one group of veterans out of the pockets of other veterans.” [Source: Paralyzed Veterans of America, release, 2/3/04]

“Two years after tripling the co-payment that veterans pay for prescription drugs the Department of Veterans Affairs wants to raise it again.” Specifically, President Bush’s 2005 budget would increase prescription “drug co-pays from $7 to $15,” for many veterans. In 2002, the co-pay went from $2 to $7. [Sources: Cleveland Plain Dealer , 2/7/04; WP, 2/19/03]

Bush cuts “Impact Aid” to local schools that serve military families

Bush seeks to slash aid to schools that serve military families. “A new report by the Democratic staff on the House Appropriations Committee this week asserts that Bush, by cutting about $200 million in the program that provides assistance to public schools serving military bases, would pare education funding disproportionately for children of soldiers who fought in Iraq.” [Source: Washington Post, 6/17/03]

“On the subject of funds paid to schools that serve children of military personnel, Bush’s 2004 budget recommends cuts of $172 million, or 14 percent, in payments called “impact aid” that make up for lost local tax revenues from tax-exempt property. The analysis by Obey’s staff calculates that the military portion of the program is set to fall by more than 30 percent, to $435 million from $635 million—much of that affecting children of troops that have served in Iraq.” [Source: Washington Post, 6/17/03]

Veterans suffer under Bush administration - Misc

Bush slash funding for military housing, VA benefits. “A new report by the Democratic staff on the House Appropriations Committee this week asserts that Bush, by cutting about $200 million in the program that provides assistance to public schools serving military bases, would pare education funding disproportionately for children of soldiers who fought in Iraq. That adds to several complaints the staff has assembled: Bush’s signature on the latest tax cut, which failed to extend a child tax credit to nearly 200,000 low-income military personnel; a $1.5 billion reduction in his 2004 budget, to $9.2 billion from $10.7 billion, for military housing and the like; and a cut of $14.6 billion over 10 years in benefits paid through the Veterans Administration.” [Source: Washington Post, 6/17/03]

Bush Republicans support millionaires instead of military veterans. Bush allies in Congress stopped efforts to scale back the tax cut for the nation’s millionaires by just five percent – a loss of just $4,780 for the year – in order to restore this funding for military family housing. “This small contribution to the troops was voted down on a party-line vote.” [Source: Washington Post, 6/17/03]

5 minutes on google.
 
Doug Thompson appears to have credibility issues. He self admittedly printed many stories over the course of 20 years based on discredited information.


"The bottom line is that someone has been running a con on me for 20 some years and I fell for it like a little old lady in a pigeon drop scheme."

"Any news publication exists on the trust of its readers. Because I depended on a source that was not credible, I violated the trust that the readers of Capitol Hill Blue placed in me.

I was wrong. I'm sorry."


It was pretty big of him to admit hes been printing inaccurate stories for 20 years.

How ironic it was revealed from a forged document story he had just submitted.
 
Wheres my response SKILMATIC, I'm calling you out bud.

Whats the relevance of Doug Thompson. It's not in reponse to my post is it? The Capitol Hill Blues isn't a source in that article. I'm asking not accusing by the way.
 
Last edited:
kal-el said:
Navy, a New York Times investigation found that Florida election officials, under intense GOP pressure, counted 680 absentee ballots, mostly military, that failed to comply with the state election laws. That number passed W's 537 vote margin of victory.

And you aren't Republican? You could easily have fooled me especially from your stance on the Iraq war.

The NY Times............Now there is a fair and impartial source.......Wy not just site moveon.org or Michael Moore..........they have the same creditability......
 
freethought6t9 said:
Wheres my response SKILMATIC, I'm calling you out bud.

Whats the relevance of Doug Thompson. It's not in reponse to my post is it? The Capitol Hill Blues isn't a source in that article. I'm asking not accusing by the way.


Nah it was refering to post#111.


By all means continue.
 
Navy Pride said:
The NY Times............Now there is a fair and impartial source.......Wy not just site moveon.org or Michael Moore..........they have the same creditability......

Good point, next time I will.
 
Do you think Navy Pride reads the NY Times? I don't, and it's cite by the way. I know it's in poor form to criticise spelling but I didn't know what he meant for like 10 seconds. I thought he was talking about re-zoning or something.
 
creditability? Well the NY Times is very 'creditable' perhaps one of the most credible news sources in America outside of perhaps CSM and the business press, it still has a terrible pro-corporate bias and has ignored some terrible crimes perpetrated by the U.S. Did they report on the U.S. stopping Pakistan driving food convoys into Afghanistan, how about the Indonesian brutality of the East Timooreans, or the terrorist atrocities the Turkish perpetrated against the Kurds, seems to me if it were liberal these issues would be hammered home so much I'd be sick of hearing about them, but no they didn't because they're lazy and subservient, like most of the American Media.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom