This is "support"?

[acroyear]

WCSH6.com - National Guard Troops Denied Benefits After Longest Deployment Of Iraq War:

MINNEAPOLIS, MN (NBC) -- When they came home from Iraq, 2,600 members of the Minnesota National Guard had been deployed longer than any other ground combat unit. The tour lasted 22 months and had been extended as part of President Bush's surge.

1st Lt. Jon Anderson said he never expected to come home to this: A government refusing to pay education benefits he says he should have earned under the GI bill.

"It's pretty much a slap in the face," Anderson said. "I think it was a scheme to save money, personally. I think it was a leadership failure by the senior Washington leadership... once again failing the soldiers."

Anderson's orders, and the orders of 1,161 other Minnesota guard members, were written for 729 days.

Had they been written for 730 days, just one day more, the soldiers would receive those benefits to pay for school.

"Which would be allowing the soldiers an extra $500 to $800 a month," Anderson said.

That money would help him pay for his master's degree in public administration. It would help Anderson's fellow platoon leader, John Hobot, pay for a degree in law enforcement.

"I would assume, and I would hope, that when I get back from a deployment of 22 months, my senior leadership in Washington, the leadership that extended us in the first place, would take care of us once we got home," Hobot said.

Both Hobot and Anderson believe the Pentagon deliberately wrote orders for 729 days instead of 730.

This is, of course, yet another wonderful example of this administration's dedication to "supporting the troops".

Grokked from Dispatches.

Comments

[fiona64.livejournal.com]

Both Hobot and Anderson believe the Pentagon deliberately wrote orders for 729 days instead of 730.

You had best believe that it was done deliberately. :-( I used to work for DoD as a civilian -- at one point in Financial Services, one division of which prepares mobilization orders -- and the Army is *very* careful to write orders in such a way that it saves the government money.

[johnbroadfoot.livejournal.com]

Maybe your vaunted democrat congress (who ACTUALLY pulls the purse strings)could have/should have done something about this. Too bad they're too busy maligning Generals (way to support the troops you no-load arrogant gasbags) and talk show hosts to do their actual jobs.

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

Congress is currently (the 110th) democrat. The 108th and 109th congresses were republican controlled. The orders were were written at least 729 days ago, that would mean, who was in charge at the time?

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

touche

[katrinb.livejournal.com]

Yep - maligning military heroes is a Publican prerogative. (If you're going to leave off syllables to be insulting, so can we.) Calling a General a liar and an administrative puppet, just because he, well, lied to support the administration? Awful. Calling a real war hero a faker because he's running against you in a political race? Peeeerfectly legitimate tactics. Talk about no-load arrogant gasbags.

And remember, there's still a solid Publican minority in that Democratic Congress who can't even be persuaded to give the troops a decent vacation. Can't get much passed when you're fighting filibusters (un-American and un-democratic when the Democrats are doing it, but apparently patriotic as all heck when the Publicans do...). That's politics for you.

[johnbroadfoot.livejournal.com]

You very eloquently missed the point entirely. Also, "publican" means inkeeper, among other things, while "Democrat" means a member of the Democratic party in the U.S., how is that insulting?

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

I never, ever, have made the dealings with this administration a "black and white" situation with the exception of the administration is black and people with a skeptical, rational view of the world know it to be so (and thus, can be seen as closer to "white"). This administration vs Congress situation has been "black" verses a very dark "gray". *Neither* side is really committed to upholding the Constitution they swear to uphold, nor to really supporting the troops in any meaningful way.

I have *never* openly said that the Democrats are the better. Quite the opposite. Even my very long-winded post the week before the election was merely that the Republican controlled congress, which lived and breathed solely on maintaining a level of fear in the common man of terror threats that have never really existed and a symbolic gesture of patriotism that outright rejects the very constitutional foundations of this nation that should disgust anybody even remotely education.

I don't expect the Democrats to do much better. In fact, a *careful* examination of the election results would show that very few "extremists" were replaced by "extremists" in the other party (Rick Santorum and George Allen being significant exceptions). Quite the contrary, it was mostly relative moderates replacing relative moderates that created the current majority.

I would have hoped that a Democratic congress would have actually done more to reassert the powers of the Legislation, as defined in Article I, and restored the system of checks and balances intended by our founders, but such has not been the case.

That this Congress spends more than necessary "lip service" to criticizing members of the administration and the military's leaders while real problems continue unadressed bothers me greatly.

That in spite of all of that posturing, they continue to give this administration everything they've ever asked for, financially or in terms of the systematic destruction of our bill of rights and the constitutional balance essential to protecting ourselves from becoming a tyranny, disgusts me.

While we're at it, lets remind ourselves that the President is, in fact, the Commander in Chief. While Congress can control "the purse", they can't directly control orders made by the Pentagon that they are unaware of. And given that every attempt to become aware of such orders is rebuffed under the constant executive declaration of "national security", and every attempt to actually "control the purse" is countermanded by the administration as "not supporting the troops", the very hypocrisy that started this conversation, then I see a number of tautologies that can no be directly resolved merely by blaming a "democratic" congress.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

second pp: ^education^educated

[johnbroadfoot.livejournal.com]

I knew what you meant Joe. You have some valid arguments there, but can't we agree that the current congress isn't doing it's job?

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

i think we did. :)

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

By the way, I am more furious with this Congress for condemning the moveon.org ad than I am for any criticism they themselves gave to Patreus this past month.

That open condemnation *blatantly* shows the contempt they ALL (both sides) truly hold for the first amendment.

I thought the moveon.org add was in poor taste, and for that matter was poor humor and failed to really say anything relevant. The solution to the "slogan game" is not to make even worse slogans (whose sentiment is bluntly wrong, much less inconsiderate of the larger issues involved).

I have no problems with individuals in Congress (on either side) saying the same thing as I just said, many did in the week following the ad on the Sunday various talk shows.

I have an *extreme* problem with Congress reacting as they did, *as a whole*, to speech that neither threatened this administration nor threatened the legislative body or rebuked any actual law passed by them.

I have an *extreme* problem with Congress using the moveon.org ad to make public posturing and distractions while then turning around and passing yet another law or two that gave away their rights of oversight and our rights under the 4th and 5th amendments away to an administration that clearly has shown it can not be trusted.

Which is exactly what happened that week.

there is no black and white here - there is only a black administration and a dark gray congress continually staining the white document left to us by our founders.

[johnbroadfoot.livejournal.com]

Are you equally pissed at their ridiculous condemnation of radio personalities?

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

it didn't stick out as much in the headlines, but generally yes. Congress should answer its critics directly, as individuals, and not as a body except by passing a law that addresses the *subject* of the criticism and not acting like all criticism is ad hominem.

granted, much of the criticism of Limbaugh/O'Reilly talk IS ad hominem, which does complicate things on the few times they aren't crying "wolf".