Veteran worries Clinton might win
I’m a “lifer,” a 20-year man; spent it in the U.S. Air Force during both the Korean and Vietnam situations, seeing the world and getting an education.
We were promised repeatedly that if we stayed in harm’s way until retirement, we and our dependents would have medical care for life.
I retired in 1968. When “Slick Willie” and “Slick Hilly” Clinton took over this country, they denied us retired personnel our health care. We were told that we could go on Medicare just like the common people. That was not widely acknowledged and lasted for eight years before we got our medical care reinstated.
My concern is that if “Slick Hilly” gets any federal power, we will lose our medical care again, just like we did when she was running the country and “Slick Willie” was chasing teeny-boppers around the Oval Office.
Please say it isn’t so.
Richard Taylor, Littleton
Mr. Taylor, I agree with you totally. I have had the pleasure, when I was active duty to see Billy boy get an example of how much he was liked when aboard USS Constellation, when he went to eat with the enlisted, they all got up from the seats and left the mess decks. God help the military and the country as a whole should she get elected. Billy boy did more to destroy the military than any foriegn force ever thought of
Posted by Nick on July 9, 2007 12:41 AMYou guys still blaming Clinton for everything huh?
FYI—Republicans have cut veterans benefits drastically since they got in power, not to mention the debacle at Walter Reed Hospital.
Posted by conservative media on July 9, 2007 05:13 AMHere is a fact for you. Bill Clinton is credited for making the largest reduction in government . You know how he did it. Forced out members of the military, denied reenlistment, slashed medical for not only retired but active duty personel. All the gains the military made in pay and living conditions under Ronald Reagon went out the window with Clinton.
How do I know? I was one of thousands, who was forced out by Bill Clinton
Posted by on July 9, 2007 05:57 AMYea! If Rudy or Mitt wins, then that means that our military units have been subjected to 20 consecutive years of "leadership" at the hands of surrender monkeys, communist-siders, and draft-dodgers. We can do better.
Posted by fleecedbyritterowens on July 9, 2007 06:06 AMIt is an abomination that we have not lived up to our commitments to those who have honorable served in the military. Historically, the dems have gutted the military prior to each major war. The republicans have turned their head this time. Of all the monies spent on social programs for people who have done nothing, cannot more be use for those who served? Regardless of who is politically in charge (it will not be "we the people"), we should and must take care of our Vets.
Posted by Tom on July 9, 2007 07:12 AMI share your concerns. However, just look at the long list of major Bush failures including a failed effort in Iraq, still open and insecure borders with nearly 700 miles of the promised fence still missing, a fortunate but failed attempt at a Ted Kennedy-engineered amnesty for illegals, still insecure ports, wreckless fiscal spending and unnecessary deficits, major tax cuts that will be left to expire, no serious attempt at fixing social security, turning education leadership over to Teddy Kennedy, a wacky addition to medicare that most folks didn't want, losing the house and senate to socialist stumble-bums like Ried and Pelosi, the unraveling of 12 good years and hard work by republicans, the likely forefieture of the next 2-3 appointments to the Supreme Court and the most ineffective "leadership" that I have ever seen from our commander-in-chief and President.
What a sorry clown. Bush was easily the most incompetent and worst republican president of my lifetime. His exit is long over-due. And he won't be missed either, even if like his dad before him, W turns The Prize over to yet another Clinton..
Posted by hank on July 9, 2007 07:27 AMMy father retired in 1972 with 30+ years in the military (his Idaho National Guard time counted, even though he lied about his age to get in) - and I watched his benefits get slashed by BOTH parties. The GOP was especially fond of referring to them as "entitlements" - while they paid what Ike referred to as "the military/industrial complex" corporations ludicrous amounts of money (does anyone else remember the $600 hammers & the $3000 toilets). And - as a reminder for you all, Congress, starting in 1994 (2 years into Clinton's 8 years), was a GOP majority - and THEY presented the budget to Clinton. The GOP is every bit as responsible for gutting the military prior to a major war - or did you miss the fact that the president's just prior to going into WWI & Vietnam were ALL GOP, as was the president who helped us end up in the Great Depression - which worldwide ended up in WWII? I'm not clear on how the GOP got the reputation for be so pro-military - when they appear to just be pro-armament companies.
Posted by Mary on July 9, 2007 08:00 AMWe had a Republican Congress during the last six years of President Clinton's time in office. There was no change in the retired military health system during the first two, Democratic Congress, years. It all came during the era of the Republican "let them eat stale bread" Congress.
Should we blame the Republican congress or the Democratic President for legislation during those six years?
My understanding is that it is Congress rather than the President who legislates.
But you think that Richard Taylor is going to blame the people who are actually responsible for the situation he describes? Of course not; they are his Republican friends. That wouldn't fit his political agenda. Better to find a handy scapegoat, particularly one from the opposite party. It's a common Republican tactic.
Thanks, Richard, for your service to our country. No thanks for your service to your Republican party. Whether you are military or not, honesty is still a virtue to be followed.
Mr. Taylor,
WEH WEH WAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!! What exactly have W and his buddies done for the vets other than cut the buget for vets.
Slick Dick is sure full of nicknames for everyone.
Posted by Riptide on July 9, 2007 08:36 AMIt's a fact that Ronald Regan and George Bush, Sr. cut the military more than any other presidents throughout history.
The reduction of the military during Clinton's presidency was a result of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission -- started during Ronald Regan's administration.
How could Clinton keep millions in the military once Reagan and Bush had closed dozens of bases?
Reagan and Bush Sr. thought that once the Cold War was over that there would no longer be a need for a huge military -- and they saw cutting military spending as a great way to save money and boost the economy.
Unfortunately, an increase in global terrorism and the uprising of many "rogue nations" like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. has made a large military more necessary than ever.
Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, conservatives and liberals all need to get their heads out of their behinds and start working together to SOLVE problems.
Partisan bickering is not helping anything.
Posted by Tree Hugger on July 9, 2007 09:02 AMNote to Republicans: President Clinton did not have the powers of a dictator, he acted in the scopes of checks and balances just like every other president. One of those checks and balances was a Republican controlled Congress, who per the Constitution, set the budget. The President can only veto it or accept it. Please revisit your high school civic class, that is if you even went to high school and judging by the letters and comments written here most Republicans did not, and come back here so that you may post a more informed opinion.
Posted by Sean on July 9, 2007 10:54 AM"Limp" Dick Taylor sure loves his chimpy master.
Posted by UYRMN on July 9, 2007 11:34 AMEntitlement, Medicaid, SS, Prescription Drug Act (one of Bush's "fisically irresponsible conduct"), et al: On Sixty Minutes last night, Sunday, America going bankrupt is inevitable unless ....
Deicide Corner: Bush continues to give $billions of borrowed money to Christianity and Mitt et al (Republicans) says the President should be a man of faith except Mitt would give it to the Mormon church.
Posted by RG r22037yahoo on July 9, 2007 12:08 PMPosted by Sean on July 9, 2007 10:54 AM
Thanks for the post. These are the same screamers who claim that Congress can't cut the budget for the fiasco in Iraq. How is that Congress gets all the blame for not ponying up $14,000,000,000 PER MONTH for Bush's war but Hillary gets reamed for veterans budget cuts done by a Republican Congress?
Mr. Taylor is the quintessential partisan hack. using FEAR FEAR FEAR once again to get people to vote against their self interest. Standard run of the mill fear mongering Mr. Taylor. Too bad your hate Hillary theory is a bunch of BS.
Posted by Wes on July 9, 2007 12:10 PMTree hugger: "It's a fact that Ronald Regan and George Bush, Sr. cut the military more than any other presidents throughout history."
If memory serves me correctly, there was a stalemate between 1977 and 1988 between congress and the pentgon bringing all base closures to a halt. That would pretty much cover Reagans 2 terms, wouldn't it?
I still think Sowell Thomas said it best regarding Hillary in the whitehouse:
"If the Democrats' presidential and vice-presidential candidates next year are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, most of the mainstream media will just gush at the image and the rhetoric of a woman and a minority -- and specific issues and track records will fade into the background."
Posted by KW on July 10, 2007 09:22 AMRichard:
I think you best worry what this present Prez will do before he leaves office before you start worring about the next.
larry - What many are afraid will happen is voters will rush to elect anyone that will bring a change.
Change just for the sake of change, without evaluating the consequences, is not a good thing.
Look what happened in the last election. People voted in a group who campaigned on a slogan without any substance. And as a result we have even more corruption than there was before.
Posted by KW on July 10, 2007 12:51 PMKW:
No matter who we vote in can't be worse than the most corrupt man in the history of this country. George W Bush.
larry - That's what you guys said in the last election. Look where it got you. We now have a do nothing congress that has taken 7 months to pass one bill. And they needed two tries at that before getting it right.
Please learn from your past mistakes.
Posted by KW on July 10, 2007 03:05 PMI have to agree with Mary. In my 35-years of close affiliation with the DoD (25 of them on active duty) I constantly saw defense contractors cleaning-up big time. They actually dictate policy to both congress and generals alike.
Conflicts of interest abound. High ranking military decision makers retire then go immediately to work for defense contractors. It's all a self-oiling perpetual motion machine with veterans taking it on the chin and below the belt.
If Richard Taylor thinks Hillary Clinton would be hard on the military, then he is blind to what is happening now to our armed forces under the current administration.
Drastic personnel cuts are underway as I write this to pay for the F-22 and Littoral ships (to name just a few toys) and that poorly planned sink hole called Iraq.
Mr. Taylor, when you have the opportunity, read about why the Commandant of the Coast Guard is scrapping eight new ships that were were pooly built and vastly over budget. Or why the troops in Iraq are calling their new uniforms crap because they were poorly made and designed.
Bush and his flag waving cronies have been a disaster for both troops in the field and veterans. Hillary Clinton would be a an improvement.
Mission Accomplished.
Posted by 593Boat - USS Thresher on July 10, 2007 06:50 PMKW,
Better to take 7 months to pass one bill instead of just giving the president a rubber stamp to pass whatever legislation that he wants.
Just take the ridiculously-named Patriot Act for example. Before 911 and a Republican president, Congress and Supreme Court -- there would have been no chance of passing such a law.
The Patriot Act undermines our Constitutional Rights against unlawful search, and it effectively repeals Habeus Corpus, among other terrible impacts.
In the meantime, Bush has been issuing signing staements and invoking executive privledge so often that he has effectively made himself the first "emperor" of the United States by exempting himself and his cohorts from the very laws thaey were elected to uphold.
And lemmings like you still blindly follow the idiot off the edge of the cliff with huge smiles on your faces -- as long as the Democrats aren't in charge.
Here's a little friendly advice: quit watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh, and start thinking for yourself.
(Source: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/)
Posted by Tree Hugger on July 11, 2007 02:16 PMTree Hugger: "Better to take 7 months to pass one bill instead of just giving the president a rubber stamp to pass whatever legislation that he wants."
It blows me away that you defend these clowns you elected to congress. You complain about the right but give a pass to the left. Your double standards know no bounds. But hey, defend away I always say. If you can stomach it.
"Here's a little friendly advice: quit watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh, and start thinking for yourself."
Talk about not being able to have a single thought of your own, you make a parrot look weak.
I'll let you in on a little something there Tree, I've NEVER listened to Rush's show, never. But you obviously roll in the filth of moveon, air america, media matters, etc...
Posted by KW on July 11, 2007 02:46 PM