Is this supporting our troops?

Question

At Walter Reed, the Pres, the cabinet, congress, and foreign dignitaries dine off fine china while sitting in antique chairs while wounded troops watch the mice run around.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-15-walter-reed-vip_N.htm

Answer 1

Hypocrisy abounds among conservative political circles. They give much adulation to the strength and loyalty of our troops, but in reality they deprive them of benefits, force them to work beyond their limits of endurance and patience because of their own failed policies, and treat their families like second class citizens once their loved ones are expended on the battlefield.

What is transpiring at Walter Reed is not surprising. Remember this is the President who laughed and joked about not finding any weapons of mass destruction at a dinner party by looking under a table and exclaiming “well there are no weapons of mass destruction there” all the while the audience members, made up of CEOs of companies that were profiting off the war, were laughing hysterically.

These conservatives may don the clothing of patriotism, but they are anything but patriotic. They are Machiavellian business men that will use any means at their disposal to make themselves, and their colleagues rich. Iraq is a big money making scheme, and I blame the American people most of all for being so gullible as to fall for all this rhetoric of patriotism.

Answer 2

I do not condone mistreatment of our vets. But I also think that part of the problems being paraded by congress is directly traceable to the fact that congress cut funding for maintenance of the facility.

The real shame here is that politicians are again trying to "politicize" the situation rather than just fix it.

Let's get the situation fixed, but that means more funding and I'm sure congress will foot the bill now...after having cut it earlier.

People are not evil as a normal rule and that applies to libs or cons, military or civilian. No one is out to get our vets by treating them badly on purpose.

It takes money to hire the personnel and to pay for the materials and guess who is in charge of that checkbook?

Right. Now you know who to be angry with.

Answer 3

You mentioned, "i ought to work out no longer helping the conflict, it quite is comprehensible, yet why might you no longer help the folk struggling with and dropping their lives over there?" i think of the subject is that the folk that don't help the troops can no longer see the bigger image and are unable to split the lads and girls struggling with the conflict from the guidelines that introduced the conflict. i think of, in case you ought to get the folk with the indications asserting "do no longer help the troops" to think of with regard to the folk and not the coverage, you may locate that extra people help the troops than do no longer.

Answer 4

What a shame. I can't seem to comprehend how the president and his cronies sits back to all these luxuries, while living in their little "bubble" all while our troops are still fighting an illegitamte war on terror, while Osama Bin Laden's still hiding in the mountains. Draft Dodgers at their finest.

Answer 5

BINGO!!!!!

You are correct. The truth is that George Bush does not give a damn about the people he's running through the meat grinder.

Their lives were wasted and the survivors are being treated like human waste.

It angers me that the US Supreme Court appointed this man to be president of the United States.

Answer 6

Have you ever eaten at a meal like that? The portions are small, the food doesn't taste that good, the etiquette is pious. I'd rather watch the mice!

Answer 7

.....And the Government Employees that are responsible for the care given at Walter Reed.
And the Democrats made sure they can't be fired for it.
Remember?

Answer 8

Of course it is!! Now let's send more over to die!!! Yay USA!! Slaughtering our youth in needless wars for 50 years!!!

Answer 9

Nope.

Answer 10

No, in its self its not, but the topics they are going over may.