TERRORISTS' RESTLESS LEG SYNDROME

[TheSarge]

I thought the rest of the world was going to love us if we elected B. Hussein Obama! Somebody better tell the Indian Muslims.

As everyone but President-elect B. Hussein Obama's base knows, many of the Guantanamo detainees cannot be sent to their home countries, cannot be released and cannot be tried. They need to be held in some form of extra-legal limbo the rest of their lives, sort of like Phil Spector.

And now they're Obama's problem.

If Obama wants his detention of Islamic terrorists to be dramatically different from Bush's Guantanamo, my suggestion is that he cut off -- so to speak -- the expensive prosthetic limb procedures now being granted the detained terrorists.

Far from being sodomized and tortured by U.S. forces -- as Obama's base has wailed for the past seven years -- the innocent scholars and philanthropists being held at Guantanamo have been given expensive, high-tech medical procedures at taxpayer expense. If we're not careful, multitudes of Muslims will be going to fight Americans in Afghanistan just so they can go to Guantanamo and get proper treatment for attention deficit disorder and erectile dysfunction.

After being captured fighting with Taliban forces against Americans in 2001, Abdullah Massoud was sent to Guantanamo, where the one-legged terrorist was fitted with a special prosthetic leg, at a cost of $50,000-$75,000 to the U.S. taxpayer. Under the Americans With Disabilities Act, Massoud would now be able to park his car bomb in a handicapped parking space!

http://www.anncoulter.org/

[Thor]

And yet, the American Soldiers are having a difficult time getting medical treatment owed to them..... go figure....

[TheSarge]

And yet, the American Soldiers are having a difficult time getting medical treatment owed to them..... go figure....

Once again it's the Left's twisted sense of who is a friend and who is an enemy coming into play.

[NHSparky]

Once again it's the Left's twisted sense of who is a friend and who is an enemy coming into play.

Let's not forget, the VA is one of the first places where the budget will fall under the chainsaw of "That One's" budget "cuts".

For all the whining and pontification of the left, consider this:

LINK

Start on page 81.

Starting in FY 1994 (the first year under which a budget fell on President Clinton), the VA budget was about $37.4 Billion dollars.  By FY 2001, his last budget, that figure had risen to just over $45 Billion--an increase of 20 percent in 8 years.  That comes out an annual increase of 2.3 percent.  In two years (FY 1996 and FY 2001) VA expenditures actually DECLINED in real dollars over the previous year.

Starting in FY 2002, where VA spending increased 13 percent over FY 2001, we see an increase from $50.9 Billion to a FY 2009 (proposed) budget of $91.8 Billion--an increase of 80.4 percent, or over 8 percent per year. 

Now while the left might claim this is because of Iraq and Afghanistan, that's not entirely the case.  VA caseload has increased because of Iraq/Afghanistan by--get ready--a whopping 5 percent.  Most of the increased caseload is due to the aging WWII/Korea/Vietnam veteran population, NOT Iraq/Afghanistan.  But this is where the cuts in an Obama administration will be felt first and deepest.