0bama vs. The Military Veterans

[Cerise]

He wants to get them out of that damn hellhole and use them for more just causes and not waste lives on BS like Bush did.

Not so fast, Jackass. He wants them in Iraq, and A-stan. Why is he such a war-monger?

But sources provided FOX News with the identity of all 17,000 troops: 10,000 will be Marines stationed in the South; 3,800 with an Army Stryker Brigade; 1,000 Special Operations Force trainers and 3,200 force enablers.

Obama also said he is withdrawing some U.S. troops from Iraq. He said that will give the Pentagon more flexibility in shifting troops to Afghanistan.

The troop increase is a down payment on a larger influx of U.S. forces that has been widely expected this year. It will get a few thousand forces in place in time for the increase in fighting that usually comes with warmer weather and ahead of national midyear elections.

WASHINGTON, March 2, 2009 – Defense Department officials today announced replacement units scheduled for 12-month deployments later this year to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nearly 9,000 soldiers from an Army division headquarters and two Army brigade combat teams have been identified to deploy as part of the Defense Department’s regularly scheduled rotation of forces to those combat theaters, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters.

The 82nd Airborne Division Headquarters from Fort Bragg, N.C., and the 4th Infantry Division's 4th Brigade Combat Team from Fort Carson, Colo., will begin deploying to Afghanistan in late spring. They are replacing the 101st Airborne Division Headquarters and the 1st Infantry Division's 3rd Brigade Combat Team from Fort Riley, Kan.

The 2nd Infantry Division's 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team from Fort Lewis, Wash., is heading to Iraq in the fall, and will fill in for the division's 56th Stryker Brigade Combat Team.

A Fort Lewis Stryker combat brigade will deploy to Iraq this fall, several months ahead of the original schedule, Army officials said Monday.

When the 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division departs, all three Stryker brigades based at the Army post will be simultaneously deployed to combat for the first time. Each brigade has about 4,000 soldiers.

In addition to the Stryker brigades, the deployment of I Corps headquarters and between 2,000 and 3,000 additional soldiers from other units will mean that half of the active-duty force stationed at Fort Lewis will be deployed overseas this year – the largest number since summer 2007, said Joseph Piek, a spokesman for the Army post. Fort Lewis has about 31,000 active-duty soldiers.

The Department of Defense has assigned the Fort Lewis-based 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division to a combat mission in Afghanistan starting midsummer.

DoD Announces Iraq Deployments

Specific units receiving deployment orders include:

Headquarters units:

I Corps Headquarters, Ft. Lewis, Wash.

1st Cavalry Division Headquarters, Ft. Hood, Texas

II Marine Expeditionary Force Headquarters, Camp Lejeune, N.C.

Brigade combat teams:

4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, Ft. Bliss, Texas

4th Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Ft. Bragg, N.C.

5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Ft. Lewis, Wash.

1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Ft. Bragg, N.C.

3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Ft. Lewis, Wash.

4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Ft. Riley, Kan.


Security force brigade:

115th Fires Brigade, Cheyenne, Wyo.

This announcement reflects the continued commitment of the United States to the security of the Iraqi people and provides replacement forces required to maintain the current level of effort in Iraq. Subsequent deployment orders will be issued based on force level decisions made in the future.

Ooops!!

Bagram is 0bama's Gitmo.

Detainees being held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan cannot use US courts to challenge their detention, the US says.

The justice department ruled that some 600 so-called enemy combatants at Bagram have no constitutional rights.

Most have been arrested in Afghanistan on suspicion of waging a terrorist war against the US.

The move has disappointed human rights lawyers who had hoped the Obama administration would take a different line to that of George W Bush.

Prof Olshansky said the conditions at the Bagram facility, which is near the Afghan capital, Kabul, were worse than those at Guantanamo Bay, adding that there was a lack of due process available to detainees.

"The situation in Bagram is so far from anything like meeting the laws of war or the human rights treaties that we're bound to," she told the BBC.

"There are no military hearings where the detainees can present evidence," she added. "Torture has led to homicides there that have been admitted by the US."

 

[2minkey]

when you have something concrete, we'd all like to see it.

.

 

[Cerise]

If a veteran has coverage that will cover him, why should the government pay for his care, if the insurance he carries covers the care?

The government currently pays for the medical treatment of the injuries a member of the military sustains while in the service of his country. That treatment may be for one day, or one lifetime.

 

[Cerise]

.

You're going to have to wait until next month for any specifics, dearheart.

Don't worry. You'll be kept up to date on the topic between now and then.


Vets object to billing private insurance for service injuries

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Veterans groups are warning President Barack Obama against going ahead with a possible administration move to charge veterans' private health care for service-related injuries. A White House spokesman would neither confirm nor deny the option is being considered.

"The details of specific proposals will be transmitted with the full submission in April."

February 27, 2009
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC

Dear President Obama:

On behalf of the millions of veterans represented by the veterans and military service organizations that have joined our effort, we write to express our serious concerns about a policy proposal that has been discussed this week in conjunction with the release of your first budget.

We have been told that your Administration may be considering a proposal that would allow the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system to bill a veteran’s insurance for the care and treatment of a disability or injury that was determined to have been incurred in or the result of the veteran’s honorable military service to our country. Such a consideration is wholly unacceptable and a total abrogation of our government’s moral and legal responsibility to the men and women who have sacrificed so much for our freedoms.

As you know, the mission of the VA is “To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.” Similarly, the VA emphasizes that it will “provide veterans the world-class benefits and services they have earned—and to do so by adhering to the highest standards of compassion, commitment, excellence, professionalism, integrity, accountability, and stewardship.” Unfortunately, the proposal to bill veterans for the care of their service-connected disabilities ignores the most important aspect of this vision—that their care has been earned.

This proposal ignores the solemn obligation that this country has to care for those men and women who have served this country with distinction and were left with the wounds and scars of that service. The blood spilled in service for this nation is the premium that service-connected veterans have paid for their earned care.

We understand and accept that the VA bills third-party insurers of veterans who are treated for non-service connected conditions. However, we cannot and would not agree to any proposal that would expand this concept any further. There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran’s personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable. If in fact your Administration is considering this proposal, we would like to meet with
you, as well as VA Secretary Eric Shinseki and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Peter Orzag, to discuss this further.

We strongly urge your Administration to drop consideration of any proposal to bill third-party insurers for veterans’ service-connected conditions. We appreciate your continued emphasis on caring for the men and women who have served in defense of this country, as evidenced by the significant increase provided for VA programs in your FY 2010 budget submission. You can reaffirm this commitment by not allowing such a proposal to be carried forward. We stand ready to work with you, Secretary Shinseki, OMB Director Orzag, and others in your Administration to ensure that appropriate care and benefits are provided to those who have earned and deserve it.
Sincerely,
David K. Rehbein John C. Hapner
National Commander National Commander
The American Legion AMVETS
Thomas Miller Raymond E. Dempsey
Executive Director National Commander
Blinded Veterans Association Disabled American Veterans
Paul Reickhoff Ira Novoselsky
Executive Director National Commander
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Jewish War Veterans of the USA
VADM Norb Ryan, USN (Ret.) John P. Leonard
President National Adjutant
Military Officers Association of America Military Order of the Purple Heart of the USA, Inc.
Randy L. Pleva, Sr. Glen M. Gardner, Jr.
National President Commander-in-Chief
Paralyzed Veterans of America Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
John Rowan
National President
Vietnam Veterans of America


Cc: Eric Shinseki, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs
Peter Orzag, Director, Office of Management and Budget
Honorable Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader
Honorable Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader
Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
Honorable Steny Hoyer, House Majority Leader
Honorable John Boehner, House Minority Leader
Honorable Daniel Akaka, Chairman, Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
Honorable Richard Burr, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
Honorable Bob Filner, Chairman, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
Honorable Steve Buyer, Ranking Member, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

 

[Cerise]

Whitehouse Backpedals

The Obama White House showed every sign yesterday of backing down on a controversial proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who suffered service-related disabilities and injuries.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters on Tuesday that the Obama administration was not committed to the controversial veterans’ health care proposal after all. The apparent retreat from the President’s top spokesman came twenty-four hours after Rehbein and other heads of veterans’ organization came away from a meeting with the President convinced that he was indeed committed to it. This clearly angerd them, and they made it clear to the press.

At the regular press briefing at the White House Tuesday, Major Garrett of Fox News cited criticism of the measure requiring third party insurance companies to pay for combat-related injuries, noting that “it’s never happened before,” and asking why the administration felt it was a good idea.

On this one, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs clearly danced around and seemed to be moving away from the firm commitment to the proposal that Rehbein and heads of ten other veterans organizations got from the meeting with Obama.

 

[2minkey]

wow. an administration that appears willing to make changes and move forward in ways with a wider base of support. well that's certainly an improvement over the last 8 years of i'm gonna do what i wanna do.

but until you really have anything concrete, sugarbutt, please continue to post sensationalist pulp in the manner of some sissy liberal journalist.

 

[MrBishop]

Q One other quick policy question. The President met yesterday with about 11 veterans groups, and discussed with the chief of staff and the head of the Veterans Administration the concept -- which hasn't been put in the President's budget yet, but it's on the table -- of having third-party insurance companies pay for combat-related injuries -- something that's never happened before. The American Legion put out a very strong letter today condemning that; IABA also has questioned this very strongly. Can you conceptually explain to the American people why for the first time it would be a good idea to think about the Veterans Administration having a third-party private insurance company pay for combat-related injuries?

MR. GIBBS: Let me not make the case for a decision that this administration hasn't made yet regarding the final disposition or decision on third-party billing as it relates to service-related injuries.

Q It is on the table, though, correct?

MR. GIBBS: But no decisions have been made. Let me give this answer to -- and I know that the veterans, the VSOs, the Veterans Service Organizations that were here yesterday to meet with the President, the VA chief and the Chief of Staff, who will return later in the week to meet again with the Chief of Staff, can have confidence that the budget the President has proposed represents an historic increase in discretionary spending to take care of our wounded warriors, those that have been sent off to war, have protected our freedom and have come back wounded. There's an 11-percent increase in discretionary spending in the VA budget, an historic jump -- because this President takes very seriously the needs of our wounded warriors that have given so much to protect our freedom on battlefields throughout the world.

Q But why would this even be on the table?

MR. GIBBS: Again, I think the President and the VSOs had a good conversation, and the veterans can be assured that the President understands any concerns that they would have, as well as shares -- looks forward to sharing with them the fact that the budget represents an historic increase for discretionary spending as it relates to taking care of wounded warriors.

Taken from the transcript

 

[Cerise]

wow. an administration that appears willing to make changes and move forward in ways with a wider base of support. well that's certainly an improvement over the last 8 years of i'm gonna do what i wanna do.

Are you suggesting that there was support for "make the vets pay"?

More like a backlash, my crispy peanut butter balls.*












*INGREDIENTS

* 2 cups creamy peanut butter
* 1/2 cup butter
* 4 cups confectioners' sugar
* 3 cups crisp rice cereal
* 2 cups semisweet chocolate chips

DIRECTIONS

1. Melt peanut butter and butter in saucepan, over low heat. In large bowl, mix crispy rice cereal and confectioners' sugar well. Pour melted peanut butter and butter over cereal and sugar and blend together thoroughly.
2. Form into 1 inch or smaller balls, spread on cookie sheets, chill till firm in refrigerator (over night is okay).
3. Melt chocolate in double boiler and keep melted while working with balls. A teaspoon is best to use in dipping the balls in chocolate. Dip good and place on cookie sheet. As you dip them place them back on cookie sheet and keep chilled till firm.

 

[spike]

Are you suggesting that there was support for "make the vets pay"?

Once again it seems you depend on misrepresenting crap. It would have been "make the insurance companies pay".

Also, it's looking like it was just one plan under consideration like I said which makes you look pretty foolish. Not too mention you have yet to answer questions asked in the second post of this thread as if you're utterly terrified.

"Why would you feel the need to start this discussion off with complete lies and bullshit?

The private insurance thing is one plan under consideration. Do you really need to misrepresent shit in some kind of alarmist crap.

And where was your outrage over Bush's treatment of the VA exactly?"

 

[2minkey]

Are you suggesting that there was support for "make the vets pay"?

look at your comment that my comment is directly proximate to. if you can't figure out what i meant, then i simply can't help you.

oh, wait, you're just trying to be clever.

 

[Cerise]

Oh, my mistake. You were one of those sheeples that voted for "Change". Soooooooo sorry.

 

[2minkey]

chug it, chooch.

and, gee, lookie here!

"The president listened to concerns raised by the VSOs (veteran service organizations) that this might, under certain circumstances, affect veterans and their families' ability to access health care," Gibbs said. "Therefore, the president has instructed that its consideration be dropped."

WOWIE_FUCKIN_CRIPES! he actually listened to folks and dropped the idea in acknowledging their concerns!

oh no, one less thing to whine about. well, don't worry, i'm sure he'll eat some babies again soon!

 

[Cerise]

Hey, Ace....Ketsup!

 

[2minkey]

yeah, sugarblumpkin, there's a difference between "giving signs" and actually finalizing a decision.

 

[Cerise]

It's all about the public opinion.

Meanwhile, a new poll by the independent Pew Research Center for the People & the Press has found Obama’s approval rating falling to 59 percent from 64 percent in February. It also found the ranks of Americans who disapprove of his job performance rising, to 26 percent from 17 percent.

 

[spike]

Looks like it was just one plan under consideration.

Hey Cerise you've still been avoiding these questions since the beginning of the thread...

Why would you feel the need to start this discussion off with complete lies and bullshit?

And where was your outrage over Bush's treatment of the VA exactly?

What's the problem?

 

[2minkey]

simple. she's not interested in reality. cartoons are her thing.

 

[Frodo]

It's disturbing that he even considered this. Not only because of his utter lack of a sense of duty to care for veteren's, but also his complete ignorance of how the public would react. I think he spent too much time with Ayers and Wright.

 

[2minkey]

i'd be curious how the total benefit to the veteran would play out in most cases. but since we'll never see the details, let's just go with the assumption that the plan was pure unadulterated evil.

 

[Frodo]

i'd be curious how the total benefit to the veteran would play out in most cases. but since we'll never see the details, let's just go with the assumption that the plan was pure unadulterated evil.

Yes, let's.

I suspect the conversation that started all this went something like this..."You know, our socialized medicine agenda still has too much opposition. Most Americans are too happy with their health care and don't want us to dictate their health care decisions to them. If there was some way we could over burden the private health insurance companies, then they would be forced to raise premiums or cut back on service. But how...."