Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

...It also talks extensively about the VA's interest
in perpetuating PTSD to the point of falsifying diagnoses for the
purpose of maintaining high funding levels.


Fair enough. I guess I'll have to read the book to find out the details.
However, if the VA has falsified diagnoses for financial gain as the
author apparently claims, it hasn't been very successful. Both Bush Sr.
and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously. It seems like the
leaders who beat the war drums the loudest and lavish money on the
military the most...also have no qualms about screwing over the people
who answered the call and paid for it in blood.

The latest shining example is maimed vets (returning from Iraq) at
Walter Reed actually being charged for their food (because the
government didn't want to pay for it).


(Please do not jump ahead and suggest that I'm all wet if I deny PTSD.
I certainly do not. Read the book and see what Burkitt documents.)


Sounds like a worthwhile read. The only book I've ever read concerning
Vietnam was Chickenhawk....which being a helo type, I enjoyed immensely.


...
It isn't Kerry's combat experience that can speak for itself whether
you respect it or find it self-serving.

I don't find ANYBODY's combat experience to be self-serving. If you put
your ass on the line and/or shed blood, honor is merited.

It is his conduct during the
Winter Soldier testimony, his categorization of the military still in
harm's way as criminals and guilty of atrocities,

Did he say that all military personnel in Vietnam were criminals and
guilty of atrocities?


his throwing of
someone else's medals over the White House fence

What of it?

his alignment with
VVAW and offering of aid/comfort to the enemy.


How did he offer either aid or comfort to the enemy?


He now seeks to turn the clock back and trade on his combat experience
as that seems to offer more traction in a nation at war.


He was silent on it for a long time, but the media kept bringing it
up...over and over again. Is he supposed to remain quiet about his
honorable service to country?

The Republicans made such a big deal about Clinton not having served and
avoiding serving. Now that their opposition served in combat and served
with honor while their candidate and many of the people in his admin
(the people who really run this country) did everything in their power
to avoid putting their asses on the line is on the table...they do
everything to discredit honor where honor is due and inflate the service
to country of a chickenhawk administration.

It's bad enough when chickenhawk politicians use such tactics, but its
shameful when real vets do. You don't have to like John Kerry (I
personally don't although the alternative is unthinkable) and you don't
have to vote for him. But to **** on his service because he came home
against the war (like many vets) and was outspoken about it is shameful.


...
Didn't you say a while back that you were in the CSAR business? Never
got to employ your skills?


Nope. About 10 years too young to have served in Vietnam and got out
well before Iraq. I was in the active reserves (HS-246) during the first
Iraq affair, but never got called...and quit the reserved after
hostilities ended (out of disgust over US troops being sent there in the
first place).

My CSAR experience is limited to the Nevada desert around NAS Fallon and
a few close calls with some Iranian gunboats off of Bandar Abbas.


--Mike

"Michael Wise" wrote

Fair enough. I guess I'll have to read the book to find out the details.
However, if the VA has falsified diagnoses for financial gain as the
author apparently claims, it hasn't been very successful. Both Bush Sr.
and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously. It seems like the
leaders who beat the war drums the loudest and lavish money on the
military the most...also have no qualms about screwing over the people
who answered the call and paid for it in blood.

The latest shining example is maimed vets (returning from Iraq) at
Walter Reed actually being charged for their food (because the
government didn't want to pay for it).

This condition has been in effect for a very long time.

If a military member is receiving BAS (Basic Allowance for Subsistance), and
is also receiving meals in a military facility (mess facility or hospital),
s/he is required to either pay for the meals at whatever the standard rate
is, or forfiet the per day BAS pay.
You can't receive money to eat, and also get free meals.

See DOD 7000.14-R VOL 7, Ch 25 (Feb 2002)
http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynam.../07a/07A25.pdf

------------------------------
2505 Meal collection rate

250501. Any member receiving a full BAS type must pay for all meals and
rations that he or she receives from, or on behalf of, the government. All
meals furnished by or on behalf of the U.S. Government will be charges at
the rates established annually by the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller)

C. All members receiving any type of full BAS and not on per diem orders, in
the following listed categories, will have the collections for meals
deducted from their pay account. The collections will be for full days at
the discouont meal rate, except the first and last day will be collected at
25 percent of the discount meal rate. Exception to pay account collection
will be made for any meals paid in full by the individual in cash.

1. Sea duty or temporary afloat assignment.
2. Field duty or temporary field assignment
3. Group travel
4. Essential messing
----------------------------------------

Let me reiterate - you can't get paid for BAS, *and* eat free meals.

Now...the case may be made that combat hospitalized personnel should be
exempted, but this is not a condition put in place by Bush and Co to screw
the military members over. It would be an exception to the standing rule.

It certainly *sounds* bad to the non-military person! "OMG....you're making
wounded GI's pay for their own meals in a military hospital? You cheap
*******s!"

Of course, I could be completely wrong, and this was a specific change by
the current administration to the previous regulations. But I'd have to see
some proof of that.

It certainly was the case when I enlisted in 1976, and still was when I
retired in 1997.

Pete

In article ,
"Pete" wrote:

Fair enough. I guess I'll have to read the book to find out the details.
However, if the VA has falsified diagnoses for financial gain as the
author apparently claims, it hasn't been very successful. Both Bush Sr.
and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously. It seems like the
leaders who beat the war drums the loudest and lavish money on the
military the most...also have no qualms about screwing over the people
who answered the call and paid for it in blood.

The latest shining example is maimed vets (returning from Iraq) at
Walter Reed actually being charged for their food (because the
government didn't want to pay for it).

This condition has been in effect for a very long time.

If a military member is receiving BAS (Basic Allowance for Subsistance), and
is also receiving meals in a military facility (mess facility or hospital),
s/he is required to either pay for the meals at whatever the standard rate
is, or forfiet the per day BAS pay.


1) Since when do soldiers in the field receive BAS? (or are you
suggesting the military enrolled them in BAS while they were flying
armless, legless, eyeless, or whatever back home?)

2) Pedantic attempts to enforce BS bureaucracy by desk pilots be damned,
anybody who is in a hospital with wounds sustained in the course of
doing what their country ordered them to do (right or wrong) shouldn't
be charged squat for anything.



--Mike

"Michael Wise" wrote


1) Since when do soldiers in the field receive BAS? (or are you
suggesting the military enrolled them in BAS while they were flying
armless, legless, eyeless, or whatever back home?)

You have been in the military, right?

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/.../pay/blbas.htm
"Enlisted members, with or without dependents, used to lose BAS if they were
deployed (or "in the field"). In 1998, Congress changed this. Now, enlisted
members temporarily assigned to duty away from their permanent duty station
or to duty under field conditions at their permanent duty station are
entitled to BAS at a rate not less than that which they had at their
permanent duty station."

hmm...it seems it has changed slightly since I retired. But not by Bush...

i.e....you used to lose your BAS, and were provided either per diem pay, or
meals in the dining facility or field kitchen, or MRE's.
Now, it is...you don't lose your BAS (your paycheck remains the same), but
you must pay for all meals, either by deduction, or cash.

Either way, it ends up the same. You cannot double dip. The members actual
money remains the same. You get BAS, or meals, but not both.

Aquaint yourself with DOD 7000.14-R Vol 7A, Chapter 25
http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fmr/07a/07A25.pdf

2502
250201
Section P
"Military members *may not receive* a full BAS (SEPRATS, RIKNA, EMRATS, or
officer BAS) and meals or rations at no charge for the same period of
service. Members in reciept of any type of full BAS *must pay for meals and
rations*. This is a personal obligation of the individual. Meals and rations
may be paid for with cash, by payroll deduction or by collection/reduction
of otherwise entitled per diem. "

[emphasis mine]

2505
250501 Meal Collection Rates
"Any member receiving a full BAS type *must pay for* all meals and rations
that he or she receives from, or on behalf of, the government."

[again, emphasis mine]

It has always been thus.


2) Pedantic attempts to enforce BS bureaucracy by desk pilots be damned,
anybody who is in a hospital with wounds sustained in the course of
doing what their country ordered them to do (right or wrong) shouldn't
be charged squat for anything.

They're not being 'charged'. They are giving back BAS money that they are
not entitled to because they're getting meals provided by the govt. It
'looks like' a charge, because the finance dept at Walter Reed or Landstuhl
may not be set up to automatically change a members TDY status upon
admission. Their system might be to charge the daily rate, and the member
works it out as far as TDY/per diem/BAS status with their particular finance
office.

It used to **** me off too, having to be the accountant shifting DOD money
from MyHomeBase to the TDY location housing and dining facility. (That's
what computers are for...you figure it out!) But it wasn't extra money I was
entitled to.

Or are you suggesting that military members be entitled to BAS *and* free
meals?

Pete

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 04:33:55 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

1) Since when do soldiers in the field receive BAS? (or are you
suggesting the military enrolled them in BAS while they were flying
armless, legless, eyeless, or whatever back home?)

Except for the lowest ranking enlisted troops, almost everyone gets
BAS. Low ranks get a "meal card" which they display at the chow hall
to eat for free. Those on BAS pay the surcharge rate when they eat in
the chow hall.

It has long been a sore point that troops deployed in the field or TDY
to bare-base facilities get docked their BAS when they submit their
travel vouchers. It isn't a new policy.

2) Pedantic attempts to enforce BS bureaucracy by desk pilots be damned,
anybody who is in a hospital with wounds sustained in the course of
doing what their country ordered them to do (right or wrong) shouldn't
be charged squat for anything.

My wife has a favorite quote: "It ain't right, but it's real." What
you think is "right" means nothing. What is in the JTR's is real.




Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

So while we're waiting for Michael to apologize and take responsibility for
his spreading of anti-bush lies and propaganda . . . .

Steve Swartz




"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 04:33:55 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

1) Since when do soldiers in the field receive BAS? (or are you
suggesting the military enrolled them in BAS while they were flying
armless, legless, eyeless, or whatever back home?)

Except for the lowest ranking enlisted troops, almost everyone gets
BAS. Low ranks get a "meal card" which they display at the chow hall
to eat for free. Those on BAS pay the surcharge rate when they eat in
the chow hall.

It has long been a sore point that troops deployed in the field or TDY
to bare-base facilities get docked their BAS when they submit their
travel vouchers. It isn't a new policy.

2) Pedantic attempts to enforce BS bureaucracy by desk pilots be damned,
anybody who is in a hospital with wounds sustained in the course of
doing what their country ordered them to do (right or wrong) shouldn't
be charged squat for anything.

My wife has a favorite quote: "It ain't right, but it's real." What
you think is "right" means nothing. What is in the JTR's is real.




Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:14:01 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

Both Bush Sr.
and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously.

"...John McNeill, deputy director of the VFW, credited the Bush
administration with increasing the VA's health care budget during the
last few years..." ?

The latest shining example is maimed vets (returning from Iraq) at
Walter Reed actually being charged for their food (because the
government didn't want to pay for it).

"The rule was established because most military personnel receive
$8.10 a day as a "basic allowance for subsistence" for food. But when
they are hospitalized, the government tries to recoup the money on the
theory that they are eating hospital food and therefore are
double-dipping."

Military personnel that had to eat in the chow hall, and usually live
on base, pay nothing while in the hospital, but those authorized,
usually to live off base, whether married or unmarried get $8.10 a day
extra to pay for food.

So if they forgive the $8.10 a day one person makes money and the
other gets nothing? And they will probably end up changing the law
because the single person living in the barracks eating in the chow
hall is always the one coming out on the short end of the stick...

In article ,
Buzzer wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:14:01 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

Both Bush Sr.
and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously.

"...John McNeill, deputy director of the VFW, credited the Bush
administration with increasing the VA's health care budget during the
last few years..." ?

If you're going make citations, don't you think you should be including
attributions as well?

Who said that? In what context? How much did Bush slash from the health
care budget before increasing it?


The latest shining example is maimed vets (returning from Iraq) at
Walter Reed actually being charged for their food (because the
government didn't want to pay for it).

"The rule was established because most military personnel receive
$8.10 a day as a "basic allowance for subsistence" for food.

When I was in, only military personnel who lived off-base received such
compensation. If you were at sea or in the field, BAS stopped.


But when
they are hospitalized, the government tries to recoup the money on the
theory that they are eating hospital food and therefore are
double-dipping."

Better to go after the kid not even old enough to drink who will never
walk again for that $8.10 than chickenhawk government cronies like
Cheney who fleece there way out of millions.


--Mike

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 04:40:44 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

How much did Bush slash from the health
care budget before increasing it?

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Bob
Stump (R-AZ) welcomed the Clinton/Gore Administration’s proposed $1.3
billion increase for VA health care in fiscal year 2001, but wondered
why veterans had to wait so long to get their attention.
The proposed increase is the first from the Administration since the
1996 budget.

So while we're waiting for Michael to apologize and take responsibility for
spreading his ant-Bush lies and propaganda . . .

Steve Swartz

"Buzzer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:14:01 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

Both Bush Sr.
and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously.

"...John McNeill, deputy director of the VFW, credited the Bush
administration with increasing the VA's health care budget during the
last few years..." ?

The latest shining example is maimed vets (returning from Iraq) at
Walter Reed actually being charged for their food (because the
government didn't want to pay for it).

"The rule was established because most military personnel receive
$8.10 a day as a "basic allowance for subsistence" for food. But when
they are hospitalized, the government tries to recoup the money on the
theory that they are eating hospital food and therefore are
double-dipping."

Military personnel that had to eat in the chow hall, and usually live
on base, pay nothing while in the hospital, but those authorized,
usually to live off base, whether married or unmarried get $8.10 a day
extra to pay for food.

So if they forgive the $8.10 a day one person makes money and the
other gets nothing? And they will probably end up changing the law
because the single person living in the barracks eating in the chow
hall is always the one coming out on the short end of the stick...