Displaced Aggression
tgirsch writes:
There is no other way to describe this than hypocritical and disgusting. This President, his Administration, and his party have vilified anyone who questions the motives for war as “not supporting the troops” has the gall to not only cut Veterans’ benefits, as Kevin reported earlier, but also to try to cut hazardous duty pay. This isn’t some oversight, this was deliberate: the only reason the idea is being shelved is because of the negative attention it receives.
A review of the article reveals that Bush has not cut any benefits (after all that is a function of Congress, for those paying attention). It seems Bush, his Administration and his party have neither advocated nor promoted any such thing.
Any excuse to hate Bush more, I suppose. It’s not as though there aren’t plenty of other real reasons to dislike him (Ashcroft, The Patriot Act, snubbing the assault weapons ban) but pick one that really exists.
Update: Jay has more.
August 15th, 2003 at 3:51 pm
Based on SayUncle’s criticism, I’ve updated and elaborated the piece. I’ve put the original in the “read more” section so that anyone who’s curious can see the updates.
August 15th, 2003 at 3:57 pm
This President, his Administration, and his party have vilified anyone who questions the motives for war as “not supporting the troops” has the gall to not only cut Veterans’ benefits, as Kevin reported earlier, but also to try to cut hazardous duty pay.
*slaps self* Victim of a run-on sentence. This President, his Administration, and his party have vilified anyone who questions the motives for war as “not supporting the troops.” The Administration then has the gall not only to cut…
The Defense Department is arguably a part of the administration, so the thought (as I thought it, not as I expressed it) stands.
August 15th, 2003 at 3:58 pm
Different spin but the fact is only DoD supported not the administration. DOD, DOE, DOx submit budgets and DOD wants it excluded from the budget. No nefarious plot from Bush here, i’m afraid. But someone from DOD needs to be slapped about the head and neck, but their protected as civil service employees 🙂
August 15th, 2003 at 4:20 pm
Doesn’t the DoD report directly to the Secretary of Defense? Isn’t the Secretary of Defense a cabinet member? Doesn’t that make him a member of the Administration?
August 15th, 2003 at 4:23 pm
So, every government employee is a member of the administration?
Are you saying DOD is a member of the administration, even though most are civil service types and military types? That is hardly the case, i think.
August 15th, 2003 at 7:13 pm
This pay issue has been coming down the pike for some time. The “Army Times” wrote an editorial about it a month or so ago. Had the administration been paying attention, they could have headed this one off before it became a news item.
On the other hand, the original appropriation was for a limited time, and that time was expiring. I don’t think that a DoD underling can request a special appropriation from Congress (please correct me if I am wrong), but a high administration official can.
Technically, it was not an iniative from the White House to cut military pay….it was inaction from the White House and its Congressional allies that allowed a scheduled cut that nobody really wanted to proceed. Somebody ought to have been paying attention.
August 15th, 2003 at 7:28 pm
By the way, here is a link to the Army Times editorial of June 30, 2003:
http://www.dailykos.com/archives/003248.html#003248
They have some serious issues with military pay, benefits, base housing, and other things. The Army Times is a generally pretty staid outfit, but they are riled up.
August 17th, 2003 at 6:30 pm
I agree that the administration could have (and should have) nipped it in the bud, that is a more realistic claim than they’re cutting benefits.