Bush Administration denies benefits to wounded Iraq veterans

Pentagon alleges battle injuries are due to “pre-existing conditions” :

I don’t have enough outrage left to express how despicable this administration is. That two-faced smirking chimp has the nerve to accuse Democrats of not supporting the troops, all the while booting vets, who have in many cases left parts of themselves on the battlefield, out of the system. Supporting the troops does not end with shoving American men and women into the meat grinder that is Iraq; we have an obligation to give them the care they deserve when they return, no matter what their condition, or what the cost. We must stop this madness by any means necessary, and the sooner the better.

:eek: :mad: I’m appalled that this regulation ever came into existence in the first place, irrespective of which Administration has been most egregious in exploiting it. Cut a vet wounded in action off from medical care because you decide retroactively that s/he has a personality disorder?! What the FUCK?!!?

Sure, the Army should be able to dismiss servicepersons early in their military careers if they’re too messed-up mentally or emotionally to function in the military, and in such cases the VA should not be on the hook for their medical care for the rest of their lives.

But by Og’s holy hammer, they should get that screening-out process taken care of BEFORE THEY SEND THE SERVICEPEOPLE OVER TO A FUCKING WAR ZONE ON FUCKING ACTIVE DUTY!!! I don’t know which is more horrifying: the thought that our government is deliberately trying to weasel out of providing health care to wounded vets to save money, or the thought that our government is deliberately telling us with a straight face that it sends clinically ill enlistees into battle to fight for our country.

What evidence do you have that this is because of Bush? Did this occur under Clinton? Bush pere? Nixon? Earlier? Or is this simply SOP for the military?

I’m missing something here. The Army accepts that these soldiers are unfit for further duty. But due to a condition that existed when they first mustered in. Which means, does it not, that they were never fit for duty in the first place? But were nonetheless enlisted?

What, pray, the fuck?

This is so horrible that I don’t believe it.

I really don’t.

I do.

I’m not happy about the fact that I believe it, but nevertheless, I do believe it.

The OP is a little bit confusing:

“Bush Administration denies benefits to wounded Iraq veterans.”

Then in the excerpt given from the link, the following statistics are given:

There is also an indication that this number is growing.

What those statistics don’t indicate is how many of those soldiers were diagnosed and discharged after being wounded. And that is a relevant part of the topic. The first young man in the article was obvious wounded and a real victim of the policy described, but that does not mean that everyone discharged because of a personality disorder was.

I can certainly believe that discharges for personality disorders are going up. Hasn’t the military been lowering standards in some ways to get more people to sign up? Maybe they’ve turned a blind eye to those who seem a little quirky on their psychological screenings.

I don’t think anyone who has been to the Middle East should end up owing the government a single penny at the end of their time there. They should sue for being abused.

Please, let’s not not ruin another Bush Sucks screed by asking for facts or clarification. We begin with certain postulates which may not be questioned, after all.

both options suck, however. Either they’re lowering their standards enough that they’re putting sick folks at risk, or they’re screwing casualties out of benefits. both are reprehensible. While I don’t believe that Bush et al were gleefully rubbing their hands over this particular plan, they are, in fact, responsible for the conditions that exist in todays USA military (ie, needing to lower standards to keep the war going, changing regs so folks ar e kept longer, benefits problems etc.)

Enlighten us, Friend Bricker, how many bona fide cases of benefits denied to wounded Iraq veterans does it take to tip this from a simple Bush Sucks screed to something that would cause even you to pause from licking Dubya’s nutsack and express one scintilla of disapproval?

I hardly think that fair, Fear. I doubt there is any poster current who has not, at least to some degree, expressed some discontent with this galactic-level pooch screwing.

I was referring to **Bricker’s ** drive-by dismissal of this particular pooch screwing, not the larger Pooch Screwing that provokes near unanimous condemnation.

It does bear a certain resemblance to his recent drive-by dismissal of concerns over the administration’s mass firing of U.S. Attorneys. Who knows, maybe he’s right this time.

Ditto and ditto again.

And I didn’t vote for or against Bush so it matters not to me WHO is bringing these reprehensible rules into play, just that they are. Whoever authorised these changes needs to hang their head in shame. It’s fucking outrageous.


Just a moment, please, how can anyone prove the condition was pre-existing? Is the map of the brain and its methods fully known now?

The really shameful thing is that barring the discovery of dishonesty on the pre-induction physical, if the military takes you with a known pre-existing condition they assume responsibility for it.

The implication here is clear: the military is claiming that these people were dishonest on their pre-induction screening, and they sat on it on the chance that they would be able to toss them and abdicate responsibility in the event of injury. The only thing worse than that is the alternative: that they’re making it up.

I’m proud of the job that I do. I’m proud of what I have earned. I’m proud of the people I serve with. But this, this makes it tough for me to hold my head up, look a current serviceman or veteran in the eye, and tell them that I will keep the faith with them. How do you tell a man that you have their back when the government you serve is simultaneously betraying them?

Serious questions here:

Isn’t psychological testing a normal part of the induction process? And from my understanding, diagnoses like Personality Disorders are not so much exhibited outwardly (like say schizophrenia or depression) but are ONLY diagnosable via a clinical test. IOW, it would be nigh on impossible for someone to cheat on a test that was properly and adequately administered because cheating would be indicative of a disorder. I’m not quite explaining myself properly here, but I think you get my drift…hopefully??

Therefore, either the Armed Force/s testing and screening programs are woefully inadequate (in which case they are responsible), or as Kimstu mentioned above, the forces are knowingly sending people into conflict zones who are handicapped from the get-up. And they’re responsible.

I’d like to see an IG of some kind conduct an audit of records for the past, say, 25 years, showing annual numbers of 5-13 separations, and analyzing for factors such as time in service, MOS (or rating), and location of service at the time of recommendation for consideration for separation.

In the meantime, at least they haven’t started processing these things posthumously.


‘Personality Disorders’, although recognised by the DSM back in the 50’s have only more recently (at least many less than 25 years) by the general psychiatric community. I would doubt that there would be any reliable stats or audit available for that time frame.

Well, whatever time frame is applicable, then. We do need to be able to figure out when this became a potential problem, and when it blossomed into a fully-realized problem.