QUOTE (StrobeSML @ Feb 12 2009, 09:00 AM)
Of course, once we stop spending $10 billion in Iraq every month, we can use some of that money to supplement the VA and provide better and more varied care for out veterans.
It is sad how the call to "support the troops" isn't as strong once the soldiers get home. The Bush administration was resistant to any increase in veterans care until the scandal of the Walter Reed Hospital. Even then, he showed some signs of resistance but realized that it was not a good idea to snub the vets when there were so many Republicans dealing with election challenges. Sometimes, the politics is a good thing.
I heard a local architect's son got the job to "fix" Walter Reed.
As far as the "troops" go, I think it's the absolute WORST thing to do to politicize them. Because the majority of them are completely neutral and "tricked" into being R's because they'll take you to war. Just as torture has surprisingly become part of the status quo, so has back2back deployments. And Pitts voted against equal time in and out of a combat zone.
I remember a story last year of a vet in Philly who got out of his car with a sword because the lights were too bright on the car behind him. FLASHBACK! Then, he "came back," and was wondering where he was.
$604B appropriated by Congress for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other from Sept, 01 - FY07, and the VA has spent 2B on veterans healthcare.
