http://www.iava.org/

It’s at the top,

Christ these chicken shits discredited Kerry’s, Max Cleland and Murthas service.

Chris makes some fine comments, but he has not worked out how to bypass prejudice. Those who support war when it suits them SUPPORT WAR.

All killing is the same. Someone is [ir]responsible.

Say it with me: “Pretentious? Moi?”

And of course, fuck you.

Right, why’d I ask.

Lokk, it’s ntot just yotr spelling. But tis revalse a si,ple inhumanity tht maks me want to hulfd. aaain:

Fuck you.

From Paul Kiel, @ TPMmuckraker

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA), who introduced a bill last month that would require the Pentagon to pay bonuses to wounded vets in full within 30 days after discharge for combat-related wounds, said he was “heartened” by Tucker’s announcement this morning that the Army won’t seek repayment of bonuses. He added:

“However, I am disappointed that the policy does not go further by stating that wounded soldiers will also receive the remaining balance of future bonus payments. It is preposterous for our government to have a policy that says that a soldier who has sustained serious injuries in the field of battle has not fulfilled his or her service obligation.”
Pentagon rules, Altmire says, prevent enlistees from receiving their full enlistment bonus unless they fulfill their entire military obligation.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004758.php

And Sen. Clinton is addressing this in the senate.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=287855&&

I do not recall [could be wrong, tho] compensation during my days in the military.

The Democrats have not rubber stamped things, the higher body of the Senate is the stumbling block, GOP Senators vote with Bush..

Just a reminder.

Though I agree that most troops would feel they have received a pretty rum deal, I am sure that piece of legislation was available to them upon signing up and accepting the bonus structure.

It is, as with legislation, a wishy-washy document that heavily relies on interpretation. Though I am sure they is an interpretations glossary that I haven’t seen, “subject to the condition that the member continue to satisfy certain eligibility requirements” seems to imply that if we decide you are not going to get the bonuses, we will concoct a determination that classes your efforts short of “eligibility requirements”.

I, personally, am not a fan of war and troops, so I find any reason to deter those intent on signing up a good positive thing. If every battle was a Camelot, I would have no problem with an invidual’s career decision. But as the present topology brings the far greater reakoning in the form of colateral damage. Mindless slaugher of innocents in the way, does not make me congratulatory of any reward mechanism for our or any other armed services.

I agree with your questions 100%. Those questions must absolutely be adddressed.

This statment in the law was, to me, very telling:

except in certain circumstances authorized by the Secretary concerned.

Seems like delegation by Congress whether they knew it or not.

Larry also does have a point. According to our Constitution it is Congresses specified responsibllity to actually write the laws. Over the last 7 or perhaps more years, somehow everone BUT Congress is writing the laws, and I seriously have to wonder if Congress even READS them. That is wrong and must change.

Otherwise, why do we the people, through our taxes, even pay for Congress to have Legislative aides and Assistants?