http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/national-102/120836545325663 0.xml&storylist=topstories

It should not take new laws to protect guys who served in combat.

The shallowness of your position Radioblogman is disgusting.

I'll be the first to complain that our veterans are badly mistreated and have been for years, especially those who are injured so that they can no longer lead normal lives. I find it disgusting we treat our combat troops that way. But, to blame it on Bush is more of the liberal dribble that populates this forum, which should be renamed the Bash Bush Forum.

How do you know he didn't fall into a gap created by Democrats. How do you know when the rules that governed how he was treated were instituted? How do you know the individuals making the determinations were not registered Democrats. Fact is, you don't.

Remember who has the most disgust for our military. It's the Clintons. How do you know he didn't get caught up in a Clinton era rule.

"But, to blame it on Bush is more of the liberal dribble that populates this forum, which should be renamed the Bash Bush Forum.

How do you know he didn't fall into a gap created by Democrats. How do you know when the rules that governed how he was treated were instituted? How do you know the individuals making the determinations were not registered Democrats. Fact is, you don't. "

We do. It's a matter of accepting facts in evidence which you have a habit of ignoring. After 12 years of Republican Congressional rule, their lack of addressing the care of veterans problems is a matter of record. I'd list the facts, but we already know you have a king size problem when presented with facts contrary to your political ideology.

Andy, you'll get no argument from me that we don't treat our veterans well. But to blame it on one party or other is nothing more than dibble. There's equal blame to go around.

Bush has had almost 8 years to fix the system and 5 years since he started the war in Iraq. The fault with the care of our troops is on his head. It should not take 5 years to ensure vets are treated fairly. Deane you are part of the problem if you keep supporting inaction by Shrub.

And I know for a fact that support for veterans began falling when Reagan was president. My Dad retired from the Army in 1964 and we got good health care at Fort Jackson, but after Reagan took over, my widowed Mom was denied care on base and was outsourced to doctors off base, which she had to pay for.

So Deane, stick your ignorance up you ass.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but it is not "equal."

In February, the Republicans blocked a stimulus package for veterans and the elderly.

Most recently, Senators Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel proposed the new GI Bill, which would bring back WWII-style standards of providing vets with full tuition, room and board. And that is why 51 senators have signed on, including 9 Republicans like John Warner, giving this GI Bill tremendous bipartisan support.

But it isn't enough. Faced with unprecedented filibusters, the only way to ensure Senate passage of the GI Bill is to get 60 co-sponsors. So far, John McCain has refused. The same McCain who insists he supports our troops. The same McCain who is voting lockstep with the Bush administration.

What you're overlooking on these bills is what else might be tacked on. You know only too well that everything including the kitchen sink gets thrown into them so they aren't passable.

If this started down during Reagan, then it took on a major head of steam during Clinton. He had 8 years to turn it and it's only gotten worse.

It's time to stop the nonsense of blaming everything on Bush.

"So Deane, stick your ignorance up you ass."

It didn't take you long to run out of anything useful to say.

"What you're overlooking on these bills is what else might be tacked on. You know only too well that everything including the kitchen sink gets thrown into them so they aren't passable."

I'm not overlooking it. It may well be the case with the stimulus package of 40 billion, but it is not the case with Webb/Hagel.
Again, this is a bill with bipartisan support excluding Republican hard liners, the same ones that have rallied around Bush's 7 year history of cutting veteran's benefits.

lets see, Under President Bush's administration, survivor life insurance has increased from 50,000 to 250,000 with an option to go to 500,000. It has also been changed so seriously injured, ie lose an arm or leg etc, get a substantial part of SGLI. Your don't have to give up your seperate rations, when in the hospital, pay has gone up dramatically, as have reenlistment bonuses. Single housing rates almost match married rates. Clothing allowances have gone up dramatically.

Well, Deane, since you constantly speak out of your ass, I just thought that was appropriate.

The surviving son, is a holdover from WWII, so blame Roosevelt and the Democratic congress at that time. It definatly needs to be reworked, for one thing, should women be included? Should it be sole surviving sibling? The idea was so the name wouldn't die out.

But for it to take affect, you have to have had a brother killed in action.

It was brought about because 5 Sullivan brothers died on the same navy ship, that was lost in combat.

Bush is president, and Bush decided to start the war in Iraq, so YES, it is his fault. No war, no vets being denied care.

"The surviving son, is a holdover from WWII, so blame Roosevelt and the Democratic congress at that time."

Blame? Bullshit, Nwokie, and as a combat vet I am surprised you would call it a blame.

I say it was Democrats looking out for the best of vets and their families, unlike the current president.

Deane, Nwokie, please forgive my juvenile profanity, but I am super sensitive to how veterans are being treated.

Each vet is different, it should be their choice.
In Vietnam, there was a rule, brothers could not serve at the same time in country, unless they both signed a waiver.

I know of a couple of cases in Vietnam where the surviving son rule was applied, and in neither case, did the remaining brother want to be reassigned, or discharges.