Bush’s warm words for veterans shouldn’t hide his disgraceful record
George W. Bush and the Republican Party put themselves out as defenders of the military and service men and women, but in fact the Bush administration has lowering funding for veterans health care since 2004 and is even trying to argue that mental illness doesn’t count as a health problem.
By Matt Kennard on Wednesday, November 12th, 2008 - 768 words.
It’s hard to think of a more nauseating spectacle than George W. Bush – draft dodging, chicken hawk extraordinaire – turning on his lacrimal glands for U.S. veterans. But as the country drew together yesterday for the annual national holiday to honor their fighting men and women, there was the commander-in-chief waxing unlyricallly about the “inspiration” he has gotten from the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, his wide-eyes and rictus smile belying his solemn tone.
The media reported his words conscientiously but failed to add the apposite context, which as usual is important. Because not only did Bush and his cronies do the obvious and send the young men and women into harms way for a completely pointless war costing 4,192 American and over a million Iraqi souls. This “war President” has also overseen the calculated destruction of the thin safety net that helps veterans as they cope with the health problems bought on by war.
In 2005, only two years into the war in Iraq, Bush was widely condemned for his budget for veterans health care which fell well short of maintaining the levels of the years before, bearing in mind the huge numbers of new soldiers returning from war. In that year not only did Bush try to double the co-payment that veterans would pay for prescription drugs, he also proposed a flat $250 new fee for some veterans to use the health care. Even Republican Sen. Daniel K. Akaka warned at the time that this could put 192,000 out of the veterans health care system because of the price hike. Later in 2005 it was revealed that the Bush administration had left a $1 billion shortage for veterans health care that had to be plugged by emergency supplemental funds voted for by Congress again.
In 2006, with discretionary spending apparently needing to be cut to deal with the massive deficit, the White House predicted a 16% cut in veterans health care, despite the increasing numbers of veterans needing the services. In that budget year Congress had to add another $2.7 billion emergency funding to the Veterans Association on top of Bush’s budget.
Under the current Bush plan being touted, even though the number of soldiers needing treatment in veterans health care has been rising about 5% per year, in 2009 the budget would be cut again and kept at this smaller number until 2012. The hope is Obama will find a way around these disgraceful estimates and re-evaluate the priorities of a administration which has lost any bearings they once had.
The effect of turning veterans health care from the most important of government responsibilities into an expendable superfluity has had painful consequences for the veterans of the U.S. Vast numbers of soldiers are returning with mental health problems ranging from schizophrenia to post-traumatic stress disorder, but a study in the American Journal of Public Health estimated that in 2004 1.8 million veterans were without health insurance, that constitutes 12% of all uninsured people in the U.S. The number of uninsured grew 290,000 from 2000, Bush’s first year, to 2004, two years into his “war on terror”.
This year the Bush administration was even employing lawyers to fight a case that had been bought to insist that mental health should be included in health care provisions for veterans. You did read that right: the Bush administration somehow doesn’t think mental health qualifies as a health issue.
Yesterday Bush unsurprisingly didn’t mention his squalid record on looking after the veterans of his wars of ideology:
“I am committed to making sure that today’s veterans get all the health care and support they need from the federal government for agreeing to serve in a time of danger,” he said.
And the headlines read: “Bush praises veterans on Veterans Day”, when they should have been, “Bush praises veterans on Veterans Day, while destroying their health care”.
There are many ironies to Bush’s tenure: some, like his IQ, are comical; some, like this one, are just tragic. Despite the Republican Party’s insistence that they are the party of patriotism and strength and “country first”, over the last eight years they have treated the veterans of their wars like every other group that infringes on their ability to stuff cash into the pockets of their rich friends. McCain’s plan was even worse than Bush: he wanted to privatize veterans health care, turn it into a market-oriented trust; just imagine what would have happened during the financial crisis if this had happened. It’s time to fight the Republicans on their own turf and say the patent truth: they just really don’t care about vets or anyone else who isn’t rolling money.
(+1 rating, 1 votes)
Loading ...2 Comments
Leave a Reply
Matt Kennard
26London
Matt Kennard graduated from the Journalism School at Columbia University as a Toni Stabile Investigative scholar in 2008. He now works for the Financial Times in London. He has written for the Guardian, Salon, The Comment Factory and the Chicago Tribune, amongst others. In 2006 he won the Guardian Student Feature Writer of the Year Award
mattkennard@thecommentfactory.com
Articles by this author
-
Chavez, Morales and Correa must speak out on Iran
As I said some months ago, when I get depressed about the state of the world I’m always cheered to think of the movements in Latin America that are genuinely empowering the hitherto marginalised sections of those societies. This movement has the power to make itself felt throughout the world – but it needs to apply itself consistently. That can even take the approach of Lula who stopped short of denunciation and just put forward an offer of sanctuary in an effort to shame the Iranian regime
-
The Observer's Chomsky fetish
Chomsky is big enough to put up with this kind of rubbish, but can the Guardian or Observer, the most influential left-wing journal in the English-speaking world, really not find one journalist who doesn’t have a visceral dislike of Noam Chomsky? Sadly, but maybe predictably, for a newspaper made up of liberals pickled in the self-righteous playfields of Oxbridge liberalism, I guess they don’t
-
The fight to preserve Latin America's democratic revolution
For Prof Anderson the template of Spain after Franco’s destruction of civil society “has become the general formula of freedom: no longer making the world safe for democracy, but democracy safe for this world.” Through a confluence of historical factors, Latin America is the crucible where the last chance to make a world safe for democracy is being fought. The importance of this battle shouldn’t be underestimated: if it fails, we might not get another chance
-
Jan Nederveen Pieterse on Globalization and Empire
The fundamentals of American weakness are its shrinking share of world manufacturing, its gargantuan consumption, low savings rate, faulty policies (massive military spending, massive war spending, deep tax cuts) and gigantic financial deficits. Some problems are structural (high American health care costs are a function of lack of restraint on pharmaceutical industries and reflect the large influence of business interests); this prompts outsourcing, which further weakens the American economy. The military interventions are destabilizing (increase risks for others) and costly (adding to American economic problems) and erode American legitimacy. So the problems are not merely overstretch
-
Massive Attack on influences, war and the cult of fame
I think a lot of it is damaging and I feel there has to be at some point a change in the way we deal with different peoples situations and development. I hate double standards more than anything – I hate the current row over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and whether they should be allowed to have nuclear technology or even nuclear energy. It seems to me that our history is littered with hypocrisy and I find that quite hard to live with being a British citizen
-
Matt Kennard on Russia Today extended: 'US Army sent 'hardcore' neo-Nazi troops to Iraq and Afghanistan'
Under the Bush administration, the U.S. military allegedly started to recruit neo-Nazis and gang members to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. Investigative journalist Matt Kennard talks to RT about his researh into these allegations and other problems in the US military.
-
Tony Benn on the EU, Cuba and Islam
Well I don’t think it helps to go around saying, “Try Blair for war crimes,” if you’re trying to persuade Labour MPs to vote against the war and they are told they’ve got to arrest and see Blair and Cherie locked up. It’s ridiculous. I said this to all the people… I mean it’s mad… I can understand peoples anger, but it is crazy
-
Hilary Benn on aid, the US, Iraq, and Tony Blair
The truth is: The real answer to the question why did we take the decision that we did, is because on the 18th March 2003 a majority of the House of Commons voted to do it
-
Johann Hari on Chomsky, Hitchens, Iraq, and anarchism
But I think Hitchens arguments are so well put and one should engage with them and take them at face value. He says Saddam was intermeshed increasingly with Islam. Zarquawi, for example, was already in Iraq before the war. I don’t agree with his argument on that. Ba’athism and Islamism are different things, and should be opposed for different reasons
-
Polly Toynbee on Iraq and New Labour
No I think it’s very difficult to navigate because for one thing even if you more want to bring democracy to the Middle East more than you want to take the oil – which I think probably is the case now – but such is the fear of fundamentalism that you wonder if you knock over the Saudi’s who takes over? Is it even stronger Wahhabist, and is that even more dangerous, and even less democratic? It’s very difficult
-
Noam Chomsky on the US Empire and hopes and prospects
They hope that China will organize a coalition of peace loving states to stop the militarism and aggressiveness headed by the US and its British ally. Well it's interesting that they have such contempt for American democracy and British democracy: they don't even dream of it coming from within. I don't agree with it - I don't think we have to wait for China to save us from all doom - I think we can do it ourselves
-
Professor Michael Mann on America's incoherent empire
The most you can have is a kind of informal imperialism where the state remains sovereign - you don’t try to interfere in it but you limit its options. This is what, typically, the US has done in Latin America when it is not intervening. The US is formidable. People contrast so-called multilateralism to unilateralist and they think of the United Nations. The US runs the UN and had run the UN for most of the 1990s and that’s what the US can do because the US provides certain resources that no-one else can provide. Nothing much is going to happen in the way of international activity unless the US is part of it and leading it and that’s what the US can return to again. What I think it cannot do is to reconstruct foreign countries on its own without having considerable local support
Matt, you must not understand America yet. This country was founded on the principle that God loves people with money more than he does those without. Also slavery.
We're still working things out. Let me repeat the age-old excuse for the fucked up shit that goes down in the United States: “America is and always has been a work in progress.” Well, all of human history, even our evolution, has been a ''work in progress,'' so this statement is rather meaningless. However, it sounded inspiring in 8th grade and you could definitely defend it with some sort of 500 word essay.
Aren't Communist dictatorships also works in progress? China's certainly changed a great deal since 1949. What about monarchies, constitutional or otherwise? Somebody's gotta keep fucking to make sure a monarchy progresses, producing new heirs to defend their family's claim on the lives and souls and bodies of its subjects. At least we don't have to deal with such a dreadful system as that.
Bush was a disaster for everybody, that's true. I will agree with that. Nice use of facts. That is important in journalism. Also grammar.
Has anyone reading this ever heard the Talking Heads album, ''Remain in Light.'' It is their best, funkiest album by far, aside from the Stop Making Sense video, which rules supremely perhaps over the Talking Heads canon.
Did you know that “canon'' comes from the Arabic word ''qanoon,'' meaning ''law''? It's a fact.
But honestly, let me just say this on the day after Veterans Day, which blessed me with so much time to finish my thesis proposal yesterday, that America rules. I would never live anywhere else.
Call me a jingoistic asshole, but you wouldn't be right. Things are right proper fucked right now, I'll admit that. But at least a man born to an absent Kenyan father and a white Kansan mother can rise to a place of prominence so high that he can go ahead and fuck up the country in all sorts of new, creative ways that none of us here on thecommentfactory have even thought of. That's progress. Let's leave it at that.
Awesome obviously late 90s (1997) David Byrne video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbX4RFBt2Uw
“I love America,
But boy, can she be cruel!”
-D. Byrne
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbX4RFBt2Uw
I never defended Chinese dictatorship, I was merely pointing out the Republicans and Bush — not average Americans — talk the talk about veterans but actually don't give a flying fuck. All powerful people lie, whether they are Chinese, American, socialist, capitalist