Supporting the troops

chcr

Too cute for words
I know (I've known all along) who really doesn't support the troops:
Link

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) ―

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.

Now I don't doubt that this is completely legal. It's just wrong.
 
I know (I've known all along) who really doesn't support the troops:
Link



Now I don't doubt that this is completely legal. It's just wrong.

It happens. Some pencil-pusher in the Pentagon...who has probably never seen the wrong end of a rifle pointing at him/her...was looking for a way to 'cut costs', and fell onto this idea. The rules state that if you cannot fulfill your service obligation, all bonuses become null and void. The clause is pretty standard, and was meant to get slackers who want to bail from keeping the money. It was never meant to penalize those who are wounded and incapable of finishing their commitment.
 
The bureaucrats.

I find it interesting he quoted KDKA...a CBS affiliate in Pittsburgh, PA...(used to watch channel 2 'eyewitless news' growing up). They used to be one of the better local news outlets, but have slipped considerably in the ratings...

There is good news about this, though. check it out...
 
The bureaucrats.

Who do you think runs the government?

I find it interesting he quoted KDKA...a CBS affiliate in Pittsburgh, PA...(used to watch channel 2 'eyewitless news' growing up). They used to be one of the better local news outlets, but have slipped considerably in the ratings...

There is good news about this, though. check it out...

That was just where I saw the story first. Of course, you know why they have a "K" instead of a "W" as well as I do. I wonder who else noticed.

Re your link, I wonder how many others will get left on the hook. Note that I'm sure there are cases where it's justified, but it's a PR nightmare.
 
Back
Top