Friday, July 29, 2005

With friends like Mark Green,

our veterans don't need enemies

As a combat veteran, I am more than a little tired of politicians who run for office as great patriots because they are for war. That goes double for the Chicken Hawks who never served themselves but have no hesitation about sending someone else's kids off to war.

Which brings me to Congressman Mark Green, the non-veteran, founder of the Victory in Iraq caucus in the House of Representatives, the guy who says we shouldn't even talk about when we might bring our troops home, the guy who says things are going great in Iraq, and morale among the troops and the population is really high, but the news media never tell us the good news.

Granted, more US casualities, terrorist attacks and suicide bombings in that country, more than two years after President Bush declared victory, do seem more newsworthy to the media than the work our troops are doing to rebuild the country. That should come as no surprise.

A bigger surprise is how Green, who has visited Iraq himself a couple of times and presents himself as the troops' best buddy, has failed to support those troops.

Wisconsin has about 3,500 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, and almost 500,000 veterans in the state, according to the VA and Defense Department.

Nationally, 500,000 veterans and members of the National Guard and Reserve are locked out of the VA health care system because of arbitrary enrollment requirements put in place by the Bush administration. That includes 7,937 in Wisconsin.

In Wisconsin, more than 3,000 veterans must pay the disabled vets' tax, which takes a dollar from their pensions for every dollar they receive in disability benefits.

There is a backlog of about 500,000 claims in Wisconsin, including those from veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. The average wait for disabled vets here to get a disability assessment is 167 days.

Against that backdrop, how has Veterans Champion Mark Green performed?

Here's what his campaign website says:
Supporting our Troops – In 2002, Mark Green cast his vote in favor of a bipartisan resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq (H.J.Res. 114, President signed on 10/16/2002). Since that time he has consistently supported increased funding for our military – this includes higher pay, better armor, and the best equipment available for our brave men and women in uniform (H.R.1268, passed by House of Representatives on 3/16/2005). Mark Green has also visited Wisconsin troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Walter Reed Medical Center and those home in Wisconsin.
That's really touching, but voting for the war and visiting the hospital should not be confused with supporting the troops.

Republican leaders have tried to cut health care benefits for our veterans, refused to expand health care for men and women in the National Guard and Reserves, and rejected measures to keep them safe when they are fighting overseas. Green has voted with the GOP every time.

When he's home for the August recess, traveling the state looking for votes for governor next year, veterans and their families might want to ask him about this record, although it pretty much speaks for itself:

Green Opposed Expanding TRICARE to National Guard & Reserve Volunteers. Green voted against expanding access to the military’s TRICARE health insurance program to all reservist and National Guard members. The proposal would have expanded military health care to provide access to members of the Guard and Reserve and their families for a low fee. [HR 1815, Roll Call #221, 5/25/05.]

Green Opposed $150 Million Increase for Military Personnel. In 2005, Green voted against a budget proposal to increase funding for military health care by $100 million and transitional job training for military personnel by $50 million. [HR 1268, Roll Call #76, 3/16/05.]
Green Voted Against Additional Job Assistance to Veterans Returning from Overseas. Green opposed efforts to provide extra job training assistance to veterans who are returning from overseas. Four out of 10 members of the Guard and Reserve forces lose income when they leave their civilian jobs for active duty, and many are self-employed or run small businesses. This means they face the daunting task of reestablishing their businesses after their release from active duty. [HR 27, Roll Call #47, 3/2/05; 109th Congressional Record, pg. H915, 3/2/05;109th Congressional Record, pg. H2074, 4/14/05]

Green Refused To Consider $2.6 Billion Increase in VA Health Care Funding. Green repeatedly voted to block efforts to increase VA funding by about $2.5 billion. Republicans finally admitted that they had underfunded veterans’ health care by $3.7 billion over the next two years. [H.R.2528, #223,5/26/05; H CON RES 95, #82, 3/17/05; H.J.Res. 107, #478, 9/29/04; Washington Post 6/24/05; AP 6/28/05] [Earlier post, "Green voted for vets' health care -- after he voted against it." ]

23 Comments:

At 9:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill, there is much to be said for original thought. I would encourage folks to visit here: http://coloradodems.org/content/view/204/
and here: http://www.iowademocrats.org/index.php?display=ReleaseDetails&id=580193

Glad those talking points made it around in time for you to post!

 
At 9:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about www.factcheck.org? Why do Democrats continue to spread lies about veterans funding? In Bush's first 4 years funding for the Veterans Administration increased by 37.6%. In the 8 years under the Clinton Administration, the increase was 31%. Bush and the Republican Congress (including Mark Green) are on track to DOUBLE the increases for Veterans compared to the Clinton years.

Do you really think anyone buys this inflammatory rhetoric you are spewing?

 
At 9:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Green is clearly vulnerable on vets issues and they know it. They can't face the facts but here's their chance.

President Bush’s 2006 budget proposal included legislation that would raise veterans’ premiums over 100 percent on prescription drugs and add an annual $250 enrollment fee for veterans who want care for conditions not directly caused by military service and who generally earn more than $25,000 a year. The user fee would increase costs for nearly 2 million veterans nationwide.

 
At 9:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Green and the GOP have habit of ingnoring the costs of war- $1 billion a week, over 40 Wisconsin deaths including 8 in Green's district. Today, number 41, and 9th in Green district, Spc. John O. Tollefson, 22, of Fond du Lac, a young man loved and respected by those who knew him, died Wednesday while serving with the U.S. Army in Iraq.

 
At 10:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Republicans were warned not enough money was being budgeted this year for veterans health care given the number of soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. But the House refused to provide more money. In fact, two of the congressmen who sounded the alarm were pulled from their committee chairmanships. It turns out the predictions of too few dollars for veterans care proved accurate. The Bush administration has now acknowledged a shortfall of at least $1.2 billion, and embarrassed Republican lawmakers are scrambling to provide it.

 
At 10:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is this a lie? Is this inflammatory rhetoric. The American Legion called Bush’s budget, “the wrong message at the wrong time to the wrong constituency.” The Vietnam Veterans of America said the budget did a “disservice to those of us who donned the uniform to defend the rights, principles, and freedoms that we hold dear.” And the Veterans of Foreign Wars decried Bush’s decision as “especially shameful during a time of war.”

 
At 10:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The wingers who posted about Xoff not having an original tought are guilty of regurgitating the same spin from Bush and the RNC, so much for original thought.

Perhaps they have an original thought about the fact that Green WAS NOT one of the congreesman who warned his leadership about the vets shortfall.

Green was silent.....

 
At 10:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Despite being asked by vets groups, Green did not join 30 other Republicans who wrote to their leaders in March 2004 to make the point that failure to close the shortfall would mean higher co-payments and "rationing of health care services, leading to long waiting times or other equally unacceptable reductions in services to veterans."

 
At 10:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Apparently none of you are aware that the users fees have been proposed before and that the president's budget is a NON-BINDING document. It means sqaut.

I find it appalling that folks infer Mark Green and suppoters of our military action do not care about the war dead. That is incredibly unpatriotic and basically treason in my book.

For you to judge someone else's heart is mean spirited and simply wrong.

 
At 10:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How is it that the same people who complain about the cost of war also complain the troops don't have what they need? Your hipocracy is crystal clear.

 
At 10:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Put this in your FACT CHECK

http://www.wisinfo.com/thereporter/news/archive/local_21992927.shtml

 
At 11:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I find it appalling that folks infer Mark Green and suppoters of our military action do not care about the war dead. That is incredibly unpatriotic and basically treason in my book."

Nobody's inferring that -- they're flat-out saying it. Tell me, if a Congressman says he supports our troops and then doesn't vote to give them the health care they deserve, how is that not unpatriotic and basically treason in your book?

 
At 11:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has anyone even looked at the votes Bill has cited? They are PROCEDURAL votes. Not votes that actually create law.

 
At 11:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is it that makes all of you Greenies so upset about this? Is it the Chickenhawk label? It does take a little of the cred out of his pro-war talk, doesn't it?

We all know procedural votes are how you kill a bill or amendment.

 
At 12:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Green should make his Aug recess the OPERATION PROCEDURAL VOTE TOUR, the best they can do is say they were procedural votes?

Can't wait for that response ad.

 
At 12:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me get this straight it's unpatriot to want to bring troops home but patriotic to keep them there to die.

Whoa Nellie!

 
At 12:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another Wisconsin troop death for Green's "Victory in Iraq." Army Capt. Benjamin D. Jansky, 28, of Oshkosh, died Wednesday in Al Taqaddum, Iraq,

So far, 42 soldiers or Marines from Wisconsin have been killed in Iraq among the more than 1,700 U.S. troops who have died since coalition forces invaded the country in March 2003.

Jansky was married and the father of two children.

 
At 6:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another one died today in a vehicle accident. How come you didn't lament his death? Oh, cause it was an accident and doesn’t make the political point you so desperately require to rationalize your empty liberal ideology. Pathetic.

We mourn all of our soldiers who bravely lost their lives – be it in combat or by accident. They are all heroes.

 
At 9:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actualy Army Capt. Benjamin D. Jansky, who was identified in the post above died in a vehicle accident.

You wingers DO have a hard time seeing the cost of war even when it's right in front of you.

All the deaths are the result of Bush's accident.

 
At 10:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah Bush's accident. Somalia was justified and this is ... well it's an accident.

 
At 12:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why did we go to Iraq? I've lost track of the reason? What is Green's rationale today?

 
At 12:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why did we go to Iraq? Are you on crack?

When I grow up, I want to be a liberal. I can have thoughts that don't make any sense and I can use feelings as a substitute.

As I recall - prior to your beloved President Clinton - we hadn't finished our mission in Iraq... ummmm.... oh nevermind. You will never understand any of it anyway.

Oh, I can't. Bad people there in Iraq and they were doing really bad things so we had to make the really bad people go away. Now the citizens (people who live there) can eat food and live in their homes without living in fear... okay honey? Is that better? Do you understand now?

Maybe we need a children's book to explain this.

 
At 8:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are "bad people" everywhere "doing really bad things"; some on a scale much larger than the bad people in Iraq. Your post shows how little you can read or choose to read about life in Iraq right now. Many still have no plumbing or electricity and with the insurgency growing at an alarming rate, few feel safe in their homes. Geez! If you're going to use sarcasm, either be funny or accurate. You were neither. Just a scared little boy who needs to feel that his government isn't made up of liars and thieves.

BTW, the government that has been chosen by the people of Iraq is similar in ideals and goals as Saddam's regime. Mission not accomplished, no matter what Bush lie you believe as the reason for invading Iraq.

Watch Springer and stay off your mom's computer.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home