Democrats' lies EXPOSED - No pay cut was planned for troops

xxx, it's great to hear that the Pentagon has a workaround. but this quote proves that you are a ****ing idiot.

I will now appeal to my secret time-saving ignore device. BYE BYE.

 

yer rant is so pointless and full of BS I don't even know where to start..


1. how do you equate a indepentant SF newspaper with Democrats being desperate. This isn't as if the SF paper was owned by Clear Channel, with Tom Hicks being close personal friends of Bush and some country artists dared to exercise free speech and pulled their music from all their channels...that would be desperation...

2. where do you get that Democrates dont care at all about our military? Just because Democrates don't favor making Defense contractors filthy rich by inventing a war, doesn't mean Democrates don't care about our military.

3. where do you get that liberals feel that the US military is the "focus of evil in the mordern world"?

It seems the whole point of your post was the blab about nothing with no connection with reality

Swing and a miss? We all assumed the report was correct. What would be the point of "liberal Democrats" putting out a false report that would obviously be denied by the Pentagon?

Well that logic hasn't stoped Bush&Rove from lying....

 

It never ceases to amaze me the depths to which the lunatic fringe liberals (Kerry, Dean, etc) will stoop to advance their negative agenda for America. I suspected this latest fabrication as being particularly disingenous. The liberals know that the American voter has no faith in the Democratic party to provide leadership on matters of national security. They were attempting to undermine the Republicans' great source of strength in this area by concocting a massive lie regarding our troops. It is good to see the Pentagon exonerated and even better to see the malicious liberals EXPOSED for the lies which they were attempting to propagate. The liberals continue to grope for ways to tarnish our military's leadership -- a true indication of hopeless desparation for the party that Americans have voted out of power.

 

ps, I apologize for calling you an idiot... but, er. I've said too much.

It's been real, it's been fun. but I can't say that it's been real fun.



BYE BYE.

 

Gore -50,996,116
Bush - 50,456,169

 

hey, xxx, I love this new tendency by you and trader junior to use *asterisks* all the time when you are pretending to make a point.

Those things are like putting up a giant sign that says "I am a f-cking bullsh-tter and am talking out my ass abou sh-t that I pretend to understand"

Carry on.

 

bigtexxx your *thighs* have been exposed again-- they're pasty white full of varicose veins and need to be covered post haste.

 

Just so we're all on the same page, here's the SFChronicle's original story that texx is referencing:

Troops in Iraq face pay cut
Pentagon says tough duty bonuses are budget-buster

Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau Thursday, August 14, 2003

Washington -- The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120- degree-plus heat.

Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000 in Afghanistan will lose a pay increase approved last April of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances."

The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can't sustain the higher payments amid a host of other priorities. But the proposed cuts have stirred anger among military families and veterans' groups and even prompted an editorial attack in the Army Times, a weekly newspaper for military personnel and their families that is seldom so outspoken.

Congress made the April pay increases retroactive to Oct. 1, 2002, but they are set to expire when the federal fiscal year ends Sept. 30 unless Congress votes to keep them as part of its annual defense appropriations legislation.

Imminent danger pay, given to Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force members in combat zones, was raised to $225 from $150 a month. The family separation allowance, which goes to help military families pay rent, child care or other expenses while soldiers are away, was raised from $100 a month to $250.

Last month, the Pentagon sent Congress an interim budget report saying the extra $225 monthly for the two pay categories was costing about $25 million more a month, or $300 million for a full year. In its "appeals package" laying out its requests for cuts in pending congressional spending legislation, Pentagon officials recommended returning to the old, lower rates of special pay and said military experts would study the question of combat pay in coming months.

WHITE HOUSE DUCKS ISSUE

A White House spokesman referred questions about the administration's view on the pay cut to the Pentagon report.

Military families have started hearing about the looming pay reductions, and many aren't happy.

They say duty in Iraq is dangerous -- 60 Americans have died in combat- related incidents since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1. Another 69 have been killed by disease, the heat or in accidents.

"Every person they see is a threat. They have no idea who is an enemy or who is a friend," said Larry Syverson, 54, of Richmond, Va., whose two sons, Brandon, 31, and Bryce, 25, are serving in Iraq. Syverson appeared with other military families at a Washington, D.C., news conference to publicize efforts to bring the troops home.

"You can get shot in the head when you go to buy a Coke," added Syverson, referring to an incident at a Baghdad University cafeteria on July 6 when an Army sergeant was shot and killed after buying a soda.

AFRAID FOR HER SON

Susan Schuman of Shelburne Falls, Mass., said her son, Army National Guard Sgt. Justin Schuman, had told her "it's really scary" serving in Samarra, a town about 20 miles from Saddam Hussein's ancestral hometown of Tikrit.

Schuman, who like Syverson has become active in a group of military families that want service personnel pulled out of Iraq, said the pay cut possibility didn't surprise her.

"It's all part of the lie of the Bush administration, that they say they support our troops," she said.

It's rare for the independent Army Times, which is distributed widely among Army personnel, to blast the Pentagon, the White House and the Congress. But in this instance, the paper has said in recent editorials that Congress was wrong to make the pay raises temporary, and the Pentagon is wrong to call for a rollback.

"The bottom line: If the Bush administration felt in April that conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan warranted increases in danger pay and family separation allowances, it cannot plausibly argue that the higher rates are not still warranted today," the paper said in an editorial in its current edition.

On Capitol Hill, members say the issue will be taken up quickly after the summer recess when a conference committee meets to negotiate conflicting versions of the $369 billion defense appropriations bill.

"You can't put a price tag on their service and sacrifice, but one of the priorities of this bill has got to be ensuring our servicemen and women in imminent danger are compensated for it," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

"Since President Bush declared 'mission accomplished' on May 1, 126 American soldiers have died in Iraq, and we are losing more every day," Tauscher said. "If that's not imminent danger, I don't know what is."

The Senate bill calls for making permanent the increases in combat pay -- the first in more than a decade -- for service in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House wants to pay more for service in those two countries than for such duties as peacekeeping in the Balkans. With the money saved, the House wants to increase the size of the active military by 6,200 troops.

What won't be clear until Congress returns is whether the Pentagon will lobby against keeping the increase.

The Pentagon reiterated Wednesday that its goal was for service personnel to rotate out of Iraq after a maximum of a year in that country. Units of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, which played a major role in last March's invasion, have already come home.



Interestingly, the two stories say, essentially, the same thing -- that imminent danger and family separation pay will most likely be cut:

"Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000 in Afghanistan will lose a pay increase approved last April of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances." - SFChron

" Defense officials said that even if lawmakers do not reinstate increases passed in April in both "imminent danger pay" and "family separation allowances," the Pentagon will make up the pay losses to troops in those countries in other ways." - Reuters

The only difference is that officials in the Reuters story claim the cut pay will be made up for in other ways, resulting in no net pay loss for soldiers. It's possible that this was something the Pentagon had planned to do all along. But, if that's the case, they obviously didn't make it clear to the soldiers or their families, judging by the angry reactions.

On the other hand, it is possible that after news of the pay cut was reported, and the Pentagon caught wind of the sharp backlash, they scrambled to come up with the above plan in order to cover their own asses.

Additionally, we should note that, even under the revised plan, the news isn't all good for our soldiers:
"Chu conceded that the pay of some U.S. troops serving in other difficult areas of the world could fall if Congress did not reinstate the incentive increases, but that the Pentagon favored an end to the broad package as it constantly reviewed compensation in different deployment areas."


EDIT: Texx -- I just realized you lifted your opening sentences virtually verbatim (excepting your parenthetical dig at SanFran) from Rush Limbaugh's site. The only thing you left out was Rush's repeated reference to Kerry as "French-looking."

I honestly don't think he looks French, but rather like a 19th century New Englander. However, I'm sure that description doesn't carry the same loaded political shorthand.

 

The whole story was based on an erroneous article from the San Francisco Chronicle (surely a newspaper in SF wouldn't have an *agenda* now, would they??) .

Of course, the Army Times also ran a criticism of the plan BEFORE the SF Chronicle article... Is the Army Times now a liberal rag?

 

Provide a link please.

 

Utterly unbelievable—the liberal mongers of despair have once again sunk like a WWII German U-boat to depths only the toothed whales may venture. Comparable to some sort of pre-historic Loch Ness monster they lurk seeking out the slightest crack in the armor that is our national security. The Pentagon stronghold of world’s greatest military minds once again finds itself under attack—yet this time it is not the crazed terrorists, but you guessed it lunatic liberals. These simpletons have, but one goal-- to overthrow the greatest movement towards complete world security in the history of man. Why you ask? They see their beloved giant government shrinking before their beady little eyes—and how can you tax the fine American people if a colossal liberal government cannot function. Support our fine troops, focus on the future, and the liberals will quickly fade like a French firework on a rainy day.

 

Generally, when clowns like you and TJ start talking like *this*, any attempt to address the topic at hand is pointless as you're just going to backpedal with a bunch of buffoonish replies.

So yeah, you got my goat, bigtool, you got it real good. damn you.

 

i have YET to see one republican post an actual reply to this topic, only unfounded mud-slinging...

the SF article is correct, the hazard duty pay WILL be cut

now only the Pentagon is saying it will be made up in other ways..whatever that means

Rush-wannabes, why dont you actually address the topic?

xxx i see has ducked my questions, but found time to post a blast of someone, but not addressing my direct questions..

 

Provide a link please.

Don't have the original article (it's for subscribers only), but it was mentioned in the SF Chronicle article.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-292925-2133271.php

Here's a snippet from the new one:

<I>The Times this week reported on the ongoing congressional budget debate on whether to extend temporary increases in danger pay and the family allowance, and the story ended up touching off a storm of criticism.</I>

Note that it was the Army Times article -- based on DoD budget document -- not the SF Chronicle article, that started all this. But hey, if it makes you feel better to ignorantly bash liberals, by all means, go ahead.

 

There's simply no way a person can defend what Bush has done using actual facts. The media will spin this into an attack on Bush, but the troops will still go home with less change in their pockets. That won't change.

I defy anyone to find one good thing this administration has accomplished. Just one. Killing thousands of innocent people? Jeopardizing the fiscal future of the country? Shattering world trust? Losing 2.5 million jobs?

The only way Republicans (not conservatives; there's a difference) succeed is through fear, bullying, scare tactics and lying. Democrats aren't much better; they just haven't gotten their techniques down as well. If this country was led by a true conservative (instead of a brain-dead power-mongering corporate w****), things would be much better. And I dare not dream of the day that the White House is occupied by a progressive President.