English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Huge bonuses to those that screwed up at the VA hospital? Is this another "Heckuva a Job" instance?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/veterans_care_bonuses;_ylt=AriNRR5mwHbuBhJxkGIQKdx34T0D

2007-05-03 06:13:18 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

Oh, and before the Bush lapdogs start screaming, YES, this is Bush's fault. We are at war, and he is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Everything in regards to the US military is HIS responsibility. He even said that yesterday in regards to the Iraq funding bill, and him being the Commander in chief.

2007-05-03 06:15:10 · update #1

13 answers

I agree with you. I can't wait until his term is over. I am counting down the days.

2007-05-03 06:18:24 · answer #1 · answered by Liberal City 6 · 3 5

Typical, typical, typical.

If something is bad in the government, the Left blames Bush as though he personally makes every decision. The Right, having no FACTS with which to argue, attacks the messenger. When a Con finally does something other than attack the messenger, he dredges up ten-year-old politics so that he can blame the whole thing on Clinton.

Kids, the WTC attacks happened in 2001. That was five and a half years ago. If Bush knew he was going to war and the forces and support services available to him weren't adequate for the job, he's had five years to improve them. But to do that, he might have had to ask for his tax cuts to be repealed, which would have been an admission of error. So he used the Rumsfeld plan of minimal forces and a short duration, even though every member of the Joint Chiefs told him it wouldn't work, as did Colin Powell. Bush's response? Replace all the JCS and fire Powell. When it became apparent that the JSC had been right in the beginning, did Bush THEN call for an expansion of the military? No. That, again, would have been an admission of error. So instead of sufficient troops, we have too few serving too long and going back too many times. Instead of the proper support services, we have red tape, obfuscation, and payoffs to keep people silent (which is what I assume these bonuses are).

Two points here: first, Bush never made the bold move of doing what was necessary to get the funding he needed for all the troops and support services required for the Iraq war. Second, since he was afraid that the Congress wouldn't give it to him, maybe that should have told him something about the American commitment to the effort that might have changed his plans. The only people committed to this war are Bush, his neo-con allies, Haliburton, Exxon, and an army of Rush ditto-heads.

2007-05-03 13:48:46 · answer #2 · answered by Chredon 5 · 1 0

I know I will get slammed for this answer and I honestly don't care. We are at war because it is what the American people wanted.
Immediately after 9-11 there was a major outpouring for us to fight. Americans wanted to kick somebody's butt. We were pointed in the direction of Iraq.
For those of you who say that the terrorist attacks and Iraq are not connected, you are only partially right.
I remember what happened after 9-11, don't you. Patriotism was at an all time high. I think we would have attacked Mexico if we had a good enough excuse. Nobody attacks the USA and gets away with it. It took almost a year to get to the point were we could "do" something.
We criticized the government for doing nothing. We wanted a fight. What we got was a war tht we can't humanely pull out of without causing more problems for the country of Iraq. We are stuck and now must see this through to the end.

I think people here are so used to believing every spoonfull of crap that the media dishes to us that we have lost our own abilities to look beyond what they are printing.
Ask a soldier who has been to Iraq what he/she thinks. You will here a different story then the garbage they are handing us here. My husband has served in Iraq for 3 tours. Believe me he would rather be here, watching his kids grow up, then over there. He would be the first to tell you that we can't leave yet. He will continue to go over until the job is completed. Whenever and for as long as that takes.
Those of you who feel that the next C.I.C. will pull us out of there right after he/she steps into office better think again. It can't be done.


In regards to the VA hospitals why don't you look at the amount of time these people were incharge at the hospitals.. Some hadn't been in there positions for very long. Why should they have received the blame? The problems for VA hospitals didn't crop up overnight.
I think you will find that the resources available to staff these facilities is poor. I am glad that the care the soldiers received wasn't. Most soldiers will tell you that if something happens to them, they want to go to Walter Reid. Paint and crappy buildings don't equal care. We all do the best with what we have.

What if I told you that housing on some military installations still have asbestos in them...Soldiers and there families still live in them. SOme housing areas are well below anyones standard yet I don't see you out on the streets screaming to have this fixed.

Another case of "If the media doesn't print it, it doesn't exist".

2007-05-03 13:46:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Pretty funny to attack the people before response to the question and then to a responder attacks rebuttal....Yes Bush is the CINC, but congress passes the budget and has the over sight of the VA.
Amazing how some on the left just want to Blame Bush no matter what. It is both parties at fault in the VA, to cherry pick blame to make your Bias feel good shows the weakness of your point.

Do note: that the Budgets were reduced through the 90's and actually are 16-30% higher under Bush....so with you basis for the question I can't blame congress of any party that I must blame the CINC so I guess here is another Clinton era created problem...

2007-05-03 13:26:45 · answer #4 · answered by garyb1616 6 · 1 1

This is a fundamental flaw in your conception of government. None of these guys who got bonuses were appointed by anyone. They were senior career officials who after reading the bio’s of several I see the least of which had been in office 23 years. They were also union and the other senior career officials approved it.

While I believe that someone should be accountable, I am not sure it should be the president. The key word here is career – they were taking these same bonuses while the other administration was in place…..

Using the same logic, it could be said in your job you should not get a bonus because the president of the company does not know you.

History is a relentless master. It has no present, only the past rushing into the future. To try to hold fast is to be swept aside. John F. Kennedy

2007-05-03 13:33:19 · answer #5 · answered by patrsup 4 · 1 1

The troops are the last on the list of the Bush agenda. I have actually heard that some of these guys wounded have had their benefits cut drastically by review boards that want to blame their injuries on falling in the 6th grade or other such assinine reasons. The way this administration has treated our military is deplorable. This man is a case of bubonic plague to America. We owe our military better than this. We owe them a decent Commander in Chief that is accountable to the American people for things he does. Yes they voluntarily enlist, but they enlist with an honest wish to serve their country. That means America not the interests of Halliburton or the Bush base of haves or have mores. This is a shame and a scandal on the Bush administration. America has forgotten those that gave their all for her.
And to Delphi.........poor Bush....everybody blaming him for things .....gee, one would think he was President and accountable. My mom used to say ...if it is not true, kind or necessary, then don't say it. Well, I see nothing true, kind or correct about his administration and freedom of speech gives me the right to say my opinion. If you so love Bush ....ENLIST.

2007-05-03 13:28:59 · answer #6 · answered by kolacat17 5 · 2 0

President Bush does not support the troops. This should be obvious to everyone by now.
He sent too few under armored troops to occupy Iraq.
He plans on keeping troops there permanently, knowing the attacks on them will never cease.

This is not support. This is a poorly planned attempt at Empire Building.

2007-05-03 13:47:05 · answer #7 · answered by Think 1st 7 · 1 1

OMG did they mention healthcare cuts for veterans?Who knew huh?I would NEVER have thought Bush would do that to our returning soldiers.I know for a fact he has a yellow ribbon.It must have been the Democrats and the Liberal press is confusing the facts again.Shame on them for trying to bash Bush.

2007-05-03 13:25:25 · answer #8 · answered by Whiner 4 · 0 0

Look at Steve. Attacking the answerers when he has nothing with which to argue. Hey, look at me attacking Steve.

2007-05-03 13:24:16 · answer #9 · answered by BigRichGuy 6 · 1 1

Look at these idiots above me....typical Republican...attack the messenger if the message sucks.

2007-05-03 13:21:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4 5

fedest.com, questions and answers