If you were sticking to your budget, it’d be impossible to be over-budget.
Seems pretty clear to me he was responding to those accusing him of accusing Bush. Please show me where in the OP he makes any reference to the Pres and I’ll shut up.
Chefguy: Maybe you should read the this thread’s Title?
“How the Bush military cares for injured reservists” Seems like a mention of Bush to me.
It’s not in the op. He also didn’t say “I wasn’t talking about Bush” in his later replies. Nay, he confirms that the OP was about Bush.
BTW, I was, in no way, trying to confrontational…just saying, is all…
After seeing John’s reply, I would just like to say…
D’OH
I read the entire article and I don’t think it’s as bad as it seems. There’s a lot of speculation on the part of soldiers, for one.
I just do not believe that a soldier in dire need of surgery for a crushed foot is being ignored. I believe that any soldier who needs emergency medical care is getting it.
As for the conditions they are living in; they should be used to it by now. I’m in the National Guard and their quarters sound exactly like were we stay when we train in Ft. Hood.
I think a lot of that Drudge report is hype.
Do I think soldiers have no right to complain? Wwwwwwwwell…I’ve heard stories of the govt denying illness claims one too many times. As an M1 tanker, I’m pretty concerned about Deplted Uranium too.
Points taken. I’ll slink away now. Bush is a poopoo head.
spooje: you’ve got a good point there. I think I’ll retract my remarks for the time being.
France.
I’m kind of finding the story a little unbelievable, as well. What exactly are these “illnesses and injuries” that these soldiers are having to wait to have seen? A months wait for a non-urgent condition is not nesscarily unreasonable, or, quite frankly, uncommon in the military medical system.
Like 1kBR Kid, I have a very hard time believing that any soldier needing urgent care is not getting it.
Lucretia: I’m also wondering why that story has the Soldiers waiting “in hot cement barracks.” Heck, I was stationed there in 1982~1983 and my barracks were cement; however, when I bothered to turn on the air conditioner, it wasn’t that hot.
Ya don’t suppose someone decided to do a bit of embellishing, do ya?
Nope, Michael. I suppose someone put in a load of bullshit.
The first three arguments (except “1©”) lay the blame for everything at Bush’s door. I don’t buy that. I never gave Clinton credit for the economy either.
But 1© and 4 make a lot of sense to me. The administration should take a personal interest in the health care of the military because it is the right thing to do, not to mention the crass politics of the whole thing.
They have a contractual, moral, and self-interested political obligation.
My grandfather authoring the enabling legislation for the VA – and my dad having been a disabled vet – make me perfectly objective on this issue. :dubious:
Well one man’s bullshit is another’s embellishing. 
Well, just to be technical and pedantic (because we all can pretty much tell what Reeder thinks), just mentioning the President the military is serving under at the time of the problem doesn’t necessarily mean an accusation towards that President. It can easily be interpreted as, among other things, a marker of time…
:rolleyes:
I suppose it’s easier to convince yourself that the reporter is embellishing rather than to accept the fact that these conditions do exist and that real soldiers are receiving substandard medical care.
Perhaps we’d like to see some reputable reporting about that substandard care, cmason. Did you ever think of that?
Perhaps you might come up with some evidence that this report is not reputable instead of merely speculating that it is not.
Or perhaps the reporter could do his damn job and show some facts and evidence.