s skippy the bush kangaroo

skippy the bush kangaroo

Thursday, July 31, 2003

if you're going to participate in the discussion, listen to what is said

one of skippy's readers from the right, person of choler [ed. note: we don't get it, either], left a comment on the report about veterans' facilities being cut tomorrow.

it seems only yesterday that, to the left, veterans were rice paddy poisoning baby napalmers. now you're gooey with solicitude for our well being.

call me cynical, but i suspect that your new found interest in veterans' problems has a lot more to do with your dislike of george bush than any tender feelings for ex-military. any stick will do to beat a dog, as they say.

we guess you only read our blog when you feel like lefty bashing, person. if you were a regular reader of our blog, you would know our position on several things.

first of all, we have always supported the troops. even back, as you say, "it seemed like only yesterday" when veterans were baby napalmers. (if yesterday was 30 years ago, you might have a point). however even then, when we was against the viet nam war, we was in favor of the soldiers, because we know they are only grunts doing their job.

second of all, we’ve always differentiated between the brave men and women who put their lives on the line for this country, and the cowards back home in office who have never served a day in their lives, who are dictating the political agenda. two different set of people there. awol failed to serve his tour of duty, he is a coward and a criminal for that act alone. we will not even get into cheney and wolfowitz. the men and women who are dying (over 200 since bush declared "mission accomplished") in iraq deserve the respect of this country. they've got mine.

third, since the repubbblicans are the ones who cut the benefits to veterans, they are guilty of hypocrisy in the extreme, because "supporting the troops" means more than flag waving. it means support, emotional and financial support, for the human beings, not just the oil agenda.

fourth, skippy comes from a military family. his father proudly served aboard a submarine in the pacific theater in world war ii. his sister, his aunt who lived with the family, and both men who married his two sisters were in the military. skippy himself had a congential heart defect and was rated 4-f, and could not serve. but that does not mean skippy doesn't know about honor, commitment, love of country, duty and loyalty. it's the repubbblicans that have trouble with these concepts.

what are the democrats doing to improve the veterans administration? since you obviously didn't read the post, we'll repeat it for you.

one lawmaker clearly worried is rep. gregory w. meeks, d-n.y., who tried without success to get language attached to the 2004 veterans’ appropriations bill preventing the st. albans veterans facility in queens, n.y., from being closed. the 386-bed facilities provides inpatient and outpatient care, including extended care for veterans who cannot easily be placed in nursing homes. meeks’ amendment that would have prevented the hospital from being closed was defeated by voice vote july 25 during debate on the funding bill.

but, that's right, you don't count democrats fighting for their constituents. the dems either have to fix the entire problem right away, or they are no good. as opposed to the repubbblicans, who are cutting the funding to the veterans benefits? how does that make the dems worse than the repubbblicans? even if you did have logic there, we fail to see it.

by the way, person of choler, what branch of the military did you serve in?
posted by skippy at 11:40 AM |


Add a comment