Marty Griffin reports:
There's a local connection to this story. A guy named Jordan Fox, serving in Iraq, was injured and lost all the sight in his right eye. He was sent home because of the injury and now the Pentagon wants part of his signing bonus back.The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.
To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.
Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back. [emphasis added]
As Spencer Ackerman over at TPMCafe wrote:
Just in time for the holidays, there's a special place in Hell just waiting to be filled by some as-yet-unknown Pentagon bureaucrat.Here's the coverage over at ThinkProgress. And at Carpetbagger.
Each report notes that last month Congressman Jason Altmire introduced legislation (H.R. 3793) in order to change this.
As of this evening, there are 219 cosponsors.
Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, this administration does NOT support the troops. Forcing them to pay back these signing bonuses is just the latest example.
Bush should be ashamed of himself.
20 comments:
Other examples of the Misadministration not supporting the troops would include
1) cutting combat pay immediately after combat started and
2) allowing both Cheney and John K. to live.
John K.says: I always like it when the liberal kooks try to defend the troops. They block recruiting stations, deny them access to schools, and trash them in public with false allegations. To the left wingers the troops are only pawns that need to be demeaned in their quest for power. So when a liberal defends the troops, I think of Reid and Durbin and the nut jobs in here and LMAO at who stupid they make themselves look.
Is that why you haven't joined the army Koward? Was the recruiting station closed by protesters on that one day that your mom let you leave the house?
Some of us 'liberals' are either retired or active duty you jackass.
We come from military families where service to our country is expected.
You go ahead and spread your fox news theories about the military being 'republican'. If that is the case why aren't you shit-head chicken-hawks over in Iraq?
Is it because you're a KKKoward?
John K. says: Left wing support for the troops includes, calling them murderers (Murtha) without evidence. Demeaning their success prior to even listening to the testimony of their boss (Reid and Pelosi). Using military equipment for private gain (William Jefferson from LA). The list goes on. Which is why I think it is funny when a left wing kook tries to use the military for personal gain. Speaking of cowards, did Sen Harkins ever really fly those missions over N. Vietnam? LOL LOL
Murtha a liberal?!?!?!?! Bwahahahaha! Why not point out some real liberals who oppose the war -- like Pat Buchanan!
You Chickenhawks just keep getting better and better at making us lefties look good.
Hey Anon, very few libs join the service. If you were active duty or retired, as you infer, you would know that.
This notion that only Republicans should fight the war is tiresome.
If you think the Afgahn war (the "Splendid Little War") is justified, why didn't you and your ilk join up after 9/11 to fight that?
Thought so...
You sure know how to pick your spots, X. You take on the idea that jobs should be done by those who benefit from them, but ignore John K's blather about how libs hate the troops, Harkins being a coward, ad nauseum. (Not to mention the fact that he makes you look like an asshole. Correction, he makes you look like you celebrate acting like an asshole.)
Your logic may arguably be legit in this one case (finally!), but your choices suck like a Hoover.
Man up, X.
Are you drinking lunch today?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
X Boy: Fox Noise said the military was republican not Anon. I can see why you didn't enter the military, they wouldn't take you: too damn dumb. A-F-G-H-A-N, say after me X Boy, A-F-G-H-A-N, not afgahn. Maybe you better start drinking lunch, couldn't hurt.
Don't try to play dumber, X. You know exactly what I'm talking about.
Anonymous, try not to display your ignorance. X served his country as an Army Ranger.
SS or John K, I didn't realize Army Rangers spell Afghan differently. Now I know.By the way why don't you use only one handle SS-John K. People aren't as ignorant as you think. Quit playing charades-grow up.
Hey X,
I'm glad you served. So did I. Several members of my family are serving right now - in different branches of the military even.
Guess what? We are all Democrats and proud of the fact that the Democrats are the only ones trying to bring some sanity to all of this.
We need to get Osama Bin Laden's head on a stick, win the war against Al Qaeida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, help diplomatically to bring peace to Pakistan, and end the illegal war in Iraq.
Stop lying about what the Democrats and liberals are trying to do.
Happy Thanksgiving to all of you and God Bless.
Man, you kooks are stuck on stupid. I slammed your argument about only those who support the war should serve, and a slew of non-sensical drivel comes spewing out.
We're winning in Iraq, the surge is working, troop pullout is starting, and you all can't stand it (remember party of country is the lib kook way.
To coin a phrase from John K., it really IS too easy to slam you all.
Ed. Note: Party OVER country.
Ed. Note: Party OVER country.
At least you're honest about that. And only that.
By the way, it's good to have you back as a representative of the most corrupt, most incompetent, and most all-around screwed up political movement in the history of our country. At least your Wingnut idiocy is capable of being parsed.
Perhaps xranger might enlighten us regarding when victory in Iraq will be accomplished, and what will constitute the "victory" he expects?
And perhaps he could explain how a victory would change the point that we shouldn't have attacked Iraq in the first place.
Or perhaps -- as with the six-year failure to get the guy responsible for the 9/11 attacks -- not.
In any event, let us know, xranger, when your appetite for pointless deaths and maimings of American soldiers has been sated.
I hope XRanger won't mind my speaking for him. Here are the answers to your questions:
when victory in Iraq will be accomplished
This will happen the moment the neocons say it has happened. Not one minute sooner or later. (Most likely time: just prior to next year's elections.)
what will constitute the "victory"
Why, whatever Cheney wants to call victory, of course. Can't you think at all?
how a victory would change the point that we shouldn't have attacked Iraq in the first place
Are you out of your mind? We had to attack Iraq to clear out the WMDs that were likely to be launched on 45 minutes notice. Otherwise, the smoking gun would have been a mushroom cloud. You obviously weren't paying attention.
the six-year failure to get the guy responsible for the 9/11 attacks
OK, we haven't gotten Osama yet. But we have captured his number 2, 3, and 4 men six times each. What's more, we have crippled Al Qaeda so that they can't attack is in Iraq. Oh, wait...
when your appetite for pointless deaths and maimings of American soldiers has been sated
As soon as Cheney has leeched the last 50 barrels of oil and the last $50 dollars he can steal from Iraq.
Were there any additional questions?
Thanks, John S., that sums it up nicely. I guess after all these years I am changing your perspective.
That's it, X. I am now a Wingnut. I have actually given Dick Cheney most of my money so that he can buy some more congressmen. Of course, you have too.
But I'm so new at hating America that I can't decide which I like better: The way they have killed our servicemen, the way they have screwed up the economy, the way they have wrecked the Constitution, or the traitorous outing of active CIA personnel. What's your preference?
While we're at it, tell me: Is it better that they are so corrupt, or is it better that they are so incompetent?
They're corrupt that's for sure. They put incompetent people in leadership positions throughout the government, to make sure they fail. They don't want Dept. of anything to operate except Dept. of Defense. But the real incompetent people are the American people for letting all this happen.
Post a Comment