Re: OT: Bush BETRAYS US Military

From: Fred Bloggs (nospam_at_nospam.com)
Date: 10/02/04 

Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 09:58:05 GMT

John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 13:16:53 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>There really should have been a military advocate at last night's debate
>>so we could watch him choke over the lies, deception, and hypocrisy of
>>GW Bush regarding "strong unwavering leadership" and sending a "clear
>>message to our troops". The troops have nothing but *contempt* for this
>>so-called commander-in-chief who has done an incredible amount of harm
>>to them.
>>
>>http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-doc.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-2-199
>>
>> July 22, 2004
>>
>>Has President Bush Honored His Commitments to Our Nation's Military?
>>
>>Has President Bush Honored His Commitments to Our Nation's Military?
>>
>>As he campaigned for the presidency in 2000, candidate Bush made a
>>promise: "my good running mate *** Cheney and I, have a message to all
>>of our men and women in uniform and to their parents and to their
>>families: Help is on the way." (11/3/00) Yet, during its term in office,
>>the Bush Administration has repeatedly failed to deliver for our troops
>>and their families. From failing to provide our troops the benefits and
>>equipment they need to lengthy and repeated overseas deployments that
>>keep them away from their families for long periods of time, the
>>Administration has neglected the needs of our troops and their families.
>>In President Bush's own words, "to point out that our military has been
>>overextended, taken for granted and neglected, that's no criticism of
>>the military. That is criticism of a president and vice president and
>>their record of neglect." (11/3/00)
>>
>> * President Bush: "I want to make sure the equipment for our
>>military is the best it can possibly be, of course." (10/16/00)
>>
>>Bush Administration has failed to provide soldiers with appropriate
>>equipment and protective gear. Tens of thousands of soldiers deployed to
>>Iraq were outfitted with Vietnam-era flak jackets incapable of stopping
>>an AK-47 round instead of the Army's best body armor because the Bush
>>Administration had failed to procure and provide them with the needed
>>armor kits prior to their deployment. As of December 2003, nine months
>>after the invasion and more than a year after U.S. forces were deployed
>>to the region, 40,000 of the 130,000 soldiers in Iraq still lacked the
>>best body armor.
>>
>>While the Defense Department now claims to finally have distributed body
>>armor in sufficient quantities to protect all troops, the Bush
>>Administration has still failed to provide other equipment that could
>>make our troops more secure. For example, more than 10,000 of the 12,000
>>Humvees in Iraq are currently without adequate armor. The Bush
>>Administration's Fiscal Year 2005 budget would provide funding for the
>>construction of 818 new armored Humvees, but provides zero funding for
>>upgrading the 10,000 vulnerable vehicles already in Iraq. The Army does
>>not expect a full compliment of heavily armored Humvees to arrive in
>>Iraq for more than a year. Newsweek recently reported on a defense
>>consultant's unofficial study of casualities in Iraq, which found that
>>"perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if
>>they had had stronger armor" on their Humvees. (5/3/04)
>>
>> * President Bush: "We will give the men and women in uniform the
>>equipment they need and the respect they deserve." (3/7/00)
>>
>>Bush Administration poorly coordinated the invasion of Iraq, leaving
>>thousands of soldiers with insufficient food, water, ammunition, and
>>other critical supplies. According to the New York Times, a recent U.S.
>>Army study "has concluded that American forces prevailed [in Iraq]
>>despite supply and logistical failures, poor intelligence, communication
>>breakdowns, and futile attempts at psychological warfare." (7/3/04) The
>>report, entitled "On Point" and produced by the Operation Iraqi Freedom
>>Study Group, noted the following failures: ammunition resupply was
>>"problematic;" "stocks of food barely met demand" and "there were times
>>when the supply system was incapable of providing sufficient MREs [meals
>>ready-to-eat] for the soldiers fighting Iraqi forces;" the medical
>>supply system "failed to work;" and units were unable to obtain crucial
>>spare parts needed to keep tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles running.
>>
>>According to the report, Secretary Rumsfeld's Defense Department
>>contributed to these failures by adopting an ill-conceived "running
>>start" plan that launched the invasion before all support units and
>>supplies could arrive. The report notes that this strategy left
>>commanders unprepared when their mission suddenly changed from
>>warfighting to securing post-Saddam Iraq, and that "partially due to the
>>scarce resources as a result of the running start, there simply was not
>>enough to do both missions."
>>
>> * President Bush: "My plan understands what endless deployment
>>means to young married families in the military." (2/22/00)
>>
>>Bush Administration has forced thousands of soldiers to accept extended
>>tours in Iraq. The Department of Defense took five months - from March
>>until August 2003 - to develop a rotation plan for National Guard and
>>Reserve soldiers stationed in Iraq. When it finally developed its one
>>year "boots on the ground" policy, Secretary Rumsfeld told reporters,
>>"Is it likely that we would end up extending people past what was
>>announced, namely, a target of not more than a year? No, I don't think
>>that is likely. If we were to do that - and I don't anticipate it, so -
>>but we'd have to recognize that the effect of it could be adverse. And
>>we don't want that effect." (Media Availability, 8/25/03)
>>
>>Eight months later, Secretary Rumsfeld announced that, because he had
>>failed to anticipate continuing violence in Iraq, he was forced to
>>extend the deployments of 20,000 active duty and reserve troops beyond
>>the regulation one year tour. Some of the units whose tours were
>>extended were on airplanes ready to leave for the United States when
>>they were told this news. Moreover, the DoD has announced that it will
>>shift thousands of soldiers, now serving on the Korean Peninsula, to the
>>Iraqi theater, where they will serve a minimum of one year. This one
>>year deployment comes in addition to the time - often several months -
>>that they have already served away from their families in South Korea.
>>
>>In addition, the military has continually imposed a "Stop-Loss" policy
>>in Iraq for the last two years, forcing soldiers who are eligible for
>>retirement or separation from their unit to continue to serve with their
>>unit until at least 90 days after the unit's tour in Iraq is over. Steve
>>Strobridge of the Military Officers Association of America has stated,
>>"People ought to be aware that we are extracting more service
>>involuntarily out of the people who have already served...It's a pretty
>>good indication that someone didn't do their planning that well."
>>Finally, in a sign of the strain on the reserve component, the Bush
>>Administration has mobilized nearly 6,000 soldiers out of retirement for
>>service in Iraq. These soldiers are members of the Individual Ready
>>Reserve, a contingent not used since Operation Desert Storm in 1991.
>>
>> * President Bush: "We must restore the morale of our military."
>>(11/19/99)
>>
>>Bush Administration policies have eroded soldiers' morale. Personnel
>>decisions such as extension of deployments, which Secretary Rumsfeld
>>admitted are likely to have deleterious effects on the morale of these
>>soldiers, came shortly after an Army study found that a majority of
>>troops in Iraq reported that their morale is low, and "nearly 75% of the
>>groups [of soldiers in the study] reported that their battalion-level
>>command leadership was poor" and demonstrated a "lack of concern" for
>>their soldiers. "Unit cohesion," the study found, "was also reported to
>>be low." A senior Army commander who specializes in morale issues,
>>speaking on the condition of anonymity, said, "I'd be extremely worried
>>by these numbers," and the findings should "set off alarm bells."
>>(Washington Post, 3/26/04) The Pentagon study confirmed the findings of
>>a survey published in August 2003, which found that a majority of
>>soldiers reported low morale in their unit.
>>
>>Bush Administration has ignored troops' mental health concerns. Time
>>magazine recently reported that as many as one out of every six soldiers
>>(17 percent) serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom has returned with
>>psychological damage, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD),
>>depression, and anxiety. (7/12/04) Also troubling are reports that the
>>suicide rate among troops serving in Iraq is substantially surpassing
>>the rate in other Army units. Soldiers fighting in any war experience
>>psychological consequences, but these consequences have been exacerbated
>>by the Bush Administration's failure to adequately screen for
>>psychological damage and to respond to diagnoses of mental problems.
>>
>>Earlier this year, United Press International reported that several
>>returning soldiers they interviewed had not received required
>>post-deployment psychological counseling and that some had not even
>>received psychological screening until months after their return.
>>(5/13/04) According to a clinical psychologist interviewed for the
>>article, "the Army is not properly diagnosing or treating soldiers who
>>have mental problems. Instead, some are pushed out of the Army, making
>>them feel worse."
>>
>> * President Bush: "My plan says we'll make sure we pay our military
>>a decent wage." (2/22/00)
>>
>>President Bush's policies have exacerbated financial strain on soldiers.
>>Another consequence of extended deployments for members of the National
>>Guard and Reserve is added financial strain. Reservists in Iraq now
>>comprise a larger percentage of frontline troops than during any other
>>conflict in history. The almost 200,000 reservists currently mobilized
>>have roughly 311,000 dependents, according to the Department of Defense.
>>Upon mobilization, citizen soldiers sacrifice the difference between
>>their civilian salary and military pay, and every additional day that
>>soldiers serve means another day without their civilian salaries. Lt.
>>Governor Cruz Bustamante of California, which has the largest number of
>>mobilized reservists in the nation, notes that there is "a drastic need
>>among our military families. As [reservists] are protecting us abroad,
>>their families are going into bankruptcy, losing homes and cars."
>>(Operation Home Front press release, 2/11/04)
>>
>>President Bush has exacerbated this problem with his opposition to
>>increases in pay and benefits for both active personnel and reservists.
>>The Bush Administration has:
>>
>>opposed increases in military pay bonuses. In April 2003, Congress
>>passed legislation to increase the family separation allowance from $100
>>to $250 per month and imminent danger pay from $150 to $225 monthly for
>>eligible military personnel for one year. These combat bonuses are
>>critical in bolstering military pay while soldiers are away from their
>>families. The Bush Administration did not request an extension of these
>>bonuses for 2004 and then opposed congressional efforts to provide such
>>an extension.
>>
>>failed to implement a high deployment allowance. The Administration has
>>not implemented another special pay bonus - the high deployment
>>allowance - despite its authorization by Congress in the Fiscal Year
>>2004 Defense Authorization Act. This allowance is designed to relieve
>>financial burdens placed on soldiers who are frequently deployed for
>>short periods that keep them ineligible for Family Separation Allowance
>>and other financial supports.
>>
>>opposed efforts to improve soldiers' benefits. Finally, the Bush
>>Administration has opposed guaranteeing National Guard and Reserve
>>members and their families have access to health care as well improving
>>the Survivor Benefit Plan, a safety net the military provides to
>>military families in the event of a soldier's death.
>>
>> * President Bush: "One thing I won't do as president is to allow
>>our military preparedness to slip below levels necessary to keep the
>>peace." (5/23/00)
>>
>>President Bush's policies have diminished our military's readiness.
>>Instead of assembling an international coalition to help share the
>>burden in Iraq and fully planning for the post-combat reconstruction
>>period, the Bush Administration has adopted a unilateral, confused
>>course of action that has demanded sizable and continuing contributions
>
>>from U.S. troops. As a result, the Los Angeles Times reports that, "for
>
>>the first time, three Army divisions - more than a third of its combat
>>troops - are classified as unfit to fight." (5/15/04) These units
>>include the 101st Airborne Division, the 82nd Airborne Division, and the
>>4th Infantry Division. Moreover, "another division that had been due to
>>return home this spring, the 1st Armored, was ordered in April to stay
>>in Iraq at least three more months. When the 1st Armored does come home,
>>it will likely be in the same shape," leaving fully half the military
>>unfit for deployment.
>>
>>General Richard Cody, Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, validated
>>this report, testifying to the House Armed Services Committee that
>>operations have seriously strained both active and reserve forces: "Are
>>we stretched thin with our active and reservecomponent forces right now?
>>Absolutely. We just did the largest move of the Army since World War II.
>>You can't move 8.5 divisions and 240,000 soldiers without stressing the
>>force." Moreover, in a recent memo, the Army Human Resources Command's
>>Chief of Infantry Officer Assignment, Lt. Col. Lee Fetterman, noted that
>>the Army is experiencing roughly a 30 percent shortage of infantry
>>officers in combat-ready units around the world: "units are suffering
>>badly at all grades...we are short infantrymen at all grades, but
>>particularly at major and lieutenant colonel." (Washington Times, 7/12/04)
>>
>> * President Bush: "We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals.
>>We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met
>>recruiting goals...And - and therefore I want to rebuild the military
>>power." (10/3/00)
>>
>>The Bush Administration's policy failures have strained our National
>>Guard and Reserve. The Bush Administration's reliance on the National
>>Guard to provide forces in Iraq "is raising concerns about the Guard's
>>long-term ability to recruit and retain troops, and it is provoking more
>>immediate worries in states that rely on the Guard to deal with fires,
>>floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes," according to the
>>Washington Post. (6/6/04) As Maine's National Guard state commander put
>>it, "the current pace isn't sustainable." (Washington Post, 6/6/04)
>>Furthermore, not only has Iraq drawn Guard and Reserve members away from
>>disaster response and relief activities, it has also diminished the
>>number of reservists available to carry out critical homeland security
>>missions that include air patrol and military facility security.
>>
>>The Bush Administration has impaired its ability to recruit and retain
>>soldiers. As a result of the strain on the military, and particularly of
>>the unprecedented operations tempo of the reserve component, the
>>military is struggling to meet recruiting and retention goals - despite
>>the Administration's Stop-Loss policy which prevents retirement-eligible
>>soldiers from leaving the military during, and for some time before and
>>after, deployment to Iraq. The Philadelphia Inquirer recently reported
>>that, as of May 31, "most reserve components were falling below their
>>recruiting goals for the year." The Army National Guard is at 88 percent
>>of its goal, the Air National Guard is at 93 percent, and the Air Force
>>Reserve is at 91 percent.
>
>
>
> 256 lines! A personal best! Your cutting and pasting skills continue
> to improve!
>
> I think you should set your goal to 1000.
>
> John
>
>

I pasted the lines as a backup in case the Senate website was down. This
is one of the more detailed summaries, you can find similar statements
on the Appropriation Committees' webpage too. The FY 2005 Defense
Appropriations Bill was a bipartisan coalition to get these serious
problems fixed DESPITE THE BUSH THREAT TO VETO THE BILL. The record on
the Bush CRIMINAL is clear: he is very generous to THE MILITARY
INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX in the way of shoving billions of dollars into
Missile Defense, which every single knowledgeable scientists has said is
a waste of money because it can be easily defeated with very simple
decoy technology and it is impossible to test reliably, but he CARES
LITTLE FOR THE FIGHTING MEN AND WOMEN- depriving them of ample logistics
support so that he can STARVE THE TROOPS OF AMMUNITION TO FREE UP MONEY
FOR SCANDAL RIDDEN AND CORRUPT CONTRACTORS LIKE HALLIBURTON. This is
beyond criminal, it makes no difference that Bush is President, he
should be put on trial for "high crimes and misdemeanor". The TROOPS
HAVE RECEIVED BUSH'S MESSAGE LOUD AND CLEAR- THEY WANT HIM RELIEVED OF
COMMAND.