The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: Thor on November 26, 2008, 04:18:53 PM
-
Idiotic: Revision of Law Passed by Democratic Congress Defines "Combat Injuries" for Vet Benefits to Exclude "Non-Combat" Injuries... Such as Being Blown Up in an IED Ambush
—Ace
I imagine this will get fixed. But what the hell?
Technically, this occurs due to a Pentagon regulation-- but that regulation itself was promulgated to be consistent with the Democrat-passed law.
I think this is all just a big mistake, and not intended by anyone, but can anyone imagine the screaming Keith Olbermann would be doing had it not been the Democrats primarily responsible?
Marine Cpl. James Dixon was wounded twice in Iraq -- by a roadside bomb and a land mine. He suffered a traumatic brain injury, a concussion, a dislocated hip and hearing loss. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Army Sgt. Lori Meshell shattered a hip and crushed her back and knees while diving for cover during a mortar attack in Iraq. She has undergone a hip replacement and knee reconstruction and needs at least three more surgeries.
In each case, the Pentagon ruled that their disabilities were not combat-related.
In a little-noticed regulation change in March, the military's definition of combat-related disabilities was narrowed, costing some injured veterans thousands of dollars in lost benefits -- and triggering outrage from veterans' advocacy groups.
The Pentagon said the change was consistent with Congress' intent when it passed a "wounded warrior" law in January. Narrowing the combat-related definition was necessary to preserve the "special distinction for those who incur disabilities while participating in the risk of combat, in contrast with those injured otherwise," William J. Carr, deputy undersecretary of Defense, wrote in a letter to the 1.3-million-member Disabled American Veterans.
The group, which has called the policy revision a "shocking level of disrespect for those who stood in harm's way," is lobbying to have the change rescinded.
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the Pentagon's "more conservative definition" limited benefits for some veterans. "That was not our intent," Levin said in a statement.
Thanks to Ace (http://ace.mu.nu/) at Ace of Spades
This is utter BULLSHIT !!! These ****tards in Congress need to get a ****ing clue !!! (or get them stupid bastards out of there!!) If it's a direct result of enemy action, it should be COMBAT RELATED!!!
-
And how did John Effin Kerry get his Purple Heart?
-
Uh, getting blown up by an IED is combat injuries since they are in a battlefield.
-
FFS those people in Congress should do a tour over there and see if maybe when they get blown up that its not Combat Related injuries
-
I thought they already fixed that?
-
Is it still "combat related" if you get hit by the same sniper that hit Hillary Clinton?
-
I've been to more military funeral than I care to remember. There were several deaths that were caused by accidents while in the rear with the gear, (vehicle accidents, structural collapses etc..) These brave men put on the uniform and went to a foreign soil to do their duty. Their death was a direct result of a theatre of armed conflict and should be remembers and treated as such.
Carl Levin is a piece of shit.
-
I've been to more military funeral than I care to remember. There were several deaths that were caused by accidents while in the rear with the gear, (vehicle accidents, structural collapses etc..) These brave men put on the uniform and went to a foreign soil to do their duty. Their death was a direct result of a theatre of armed conflict and should be remembers and treated as such.
Carl Levin is a piece of shit.
Tucker, there's where I could see a line. During Desert Storm, most people died as a result from Non-combat related injuries like due to car crashes, etc. I could MAYBE go with that.
I will say, that while there may be a main front where bullets are flying, there is really not any more "rear". Remember the 80 some odd Soldiers killed at the AF barracks in Dharan?? They were "in the rear". Today's technology has pretty much eliminated any truly "safe" rear areas. That scud flew over Al Jubayl when we were cross-decking from the USS Tripoli (after she hit the mine) to the USS New Orleans, (another "rear area") ::) Of course, that's a whole 'nother story to be told at a later date.
-
Sorry, but IMHO there should only be two classifications: service-related and non-service related.
If you're in uniform, on duty (and technically, you're ALWAYS on duty in a combat zone), and whatever happened to you wasn't a result of your negligence or design, then it's service-related and you get the same benefits whether you got shot, hit with an IED, or had a car drop on your leg while changing a tire.
It's kind of insulting that someone, merely because of their location or function they were fulfilling, somehow isn't entitled to the same benefits and treatment for their injuries. Were they not also doing their part to fulfill the mission? Are they somehow second-class soldiers simply because they weren't "making bang-bang" against the bad guys?
If your injuries are in the line of duty, regardless of that duty, you should be covered. Period. Levin is a ****tard who'll never get that.
-
Sorry, but IMHO there should only be two classifications: service-related and non-service related.
If you're in uniform, on duty (and technically, you're ALWAYS on duty in a combat zone), and whatever happened to you wasn't a result of your negligence or design, then it's service-related and you get the same benefits whether you got shot, hit with an IED, or had a car drop on your leg while changing a tire.
It's kind of insulting that someone, merely because of their location or function they were fulfilling, somehow isn't entitled to the same benefits and treatment for their injuries. Were they not also doing their part to fulfill the mission? Are they somehow second-class soldiers simply because they weren't "making bang-bang" against the bad guys?
If your injuries are in the line of duty, regardless of that duty, you should be covered. Period. Levin is a ****tard who'll never get that.
H5 and well said. Especially the part about Levin. :-)
That's what I was trying to say.
-
Sorry, but IMHO there should only be two classifications: service-related and non-service related.
If you're in uniform, on duty (and technically, you're ALWAYS on duty in a combat zone), and whatever happened to you wasn't a result of your negligence or design, then it's service-related and you get the same benefits whether you got shot, hit with an IED, or had a car drop on your leg while changing a tire.
It's kind of insulting that someone, merely because of their location or function they were fulfilling, somehow isn't entitled to the same benefits and treatment for their injuries. Were they not also doing their part to fulfill the mission? Are they somehow second-class soldiers simply because they weren't "making bang-bang" against the bad guys?
If your injuries are in the line of duty, regardless of that duty, you should be covered. Period. Levin is a ****tard who'll never get that.
Yes there are many people that feel if you aren't shooting and such, then you are a lesser person. A REMF or such. The majority of the Navy is considered a REMF by others.....................I would like to ask them others to walk a day in our shoes, as I would be willing to walk a day in theirs.
-
Yes there are many people that feel if you aren't shooting and such, then you are a lesser person. A REMF or such. The majority of the Navy is considered a REMF by others.....................I would like to ask them others to walk a day in our shoes, as I would be willing to walk a day in theirs.
And those are the same people who have never spent time on a submarine or on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier during flight ops.