Supporting Troops Bush Style: Lost a Leg, Give Back Bonus

[hgc]

http://kdka.com/kdkainvestigators/military.signing.bonuses.2.571660.html

The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.

To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.

Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back.


I am speechless.

[Darth Rotor]

http://kdka.com/kdkainvestigators/military.signing.bonuses.2.571660.html

I am speechless.
Did you bounce this against any official DA or DoD information?

Given my experience with bean counters in DoD, I am not convinced it isn't true. Some person with a bottom line to watch in the Manpower office doubtless is trying to save someone a buck, here and there, if this is the case.

Nothing new under the sun. The dinks in the bean counting shop often have no clue about the people at the other end of their spreadsheets.

DR

[Fnord]

Just in case the TV station had been caught in a hoax, I checked the Snopes (http://www.snopes.com) website.

Nothing to report.

[LTC8K6]

http://kdka.com/kdkainvestigators/Iraq.veteran.bonuses.2.592432.html

Yes, Bush is personally out to get these veterans...

Jeez, and I thought the derangement over Bill Clinton was bad...

[hgc]

Did you bounce this against any official DA or DoD information?

Given my experience with bean counters in DoD, I am not convinced it isn't true. Some person with a bottom line to watch in the Manpower office doubtless is trying to save someone a buck, here and there, if this is the case.

Nothing new under the sun. The dinks in the bean counting shop often have no clue about the people at the other end of their spreadsheets.

DR


Too bad the Pentagon didn't deploy spiffy, efficient bean counters to keep track of hundreds of thousands of lost weapons we paid for and sent to Iraq. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6407177

Sorry, Darth, but this just doesn't cut it for me. This "administration" has shown its incompetence in every possible way in managing this war. They will end up having thrown over a trillion dollars down the rat hole. How on Earth did they manage to track down a piddling few thousand dollars that injured troops were paid as signing bonuses? I think that the lack of political connections of the victims of this abuse had everything to do with it. They're outsiders to the kleptocracy, plain and simple.

[hgc]

http://kdka.com/kdkainvestigators/Iraq.veteran.bonuses.2.592432.html

Yes, Bush is personally out to get these veterans...

Jeez, and I thought the derangement over Bill Clinton was bad...


It's easy to try to excuse the CEO president from being responsible for what happens within the Executive branch, I understand. Perhaps this falls under the office of the VP, which afterall is a fourth branch of government.

[WildCat]

This "administration" has shown its incompetence in every possible way in managing this war.
A career Defense Dept. bureaucrat is not the Bush Administration, your hysterics aside.

[LTC8K6]

Well, I saw one case, which was apparently a mistake that will be corrected.

The story doesn't appear to match the headline.

Perhaps it's a true story, but I saw no documentation of "thousands".

No president, Dem or Rep, upon being told of this would let it stand, imo.

I understand that using it to take a cheap shot at Bush might have seemed worth it, though.

[Darth Rotor]

Too bad the Pentagon didn't deploy spiffy, efficient bean counters to keep track of hundreds of thousands of lost weapons we paid for and sent to Iraq. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6407177

Sorry, Darth, but this just doesn't cut it for me. This "administration" has shown its incompetence in every possible way in managing this war. They will end up having thrown over a trillion dollars down the rat hole. How on Earth did they manage to track down a piddling few thousand dollars that injured troops were paid as signing bonuses? I think that the lack of political connections of the victims of this abuse had everything to do with it. They're outsiders to the kleptocracy, plain and simple.
Breath, brother hgc, you seem to be missing my point.

Not everything the DoD does that is screwed up is directly attributable to W. I spent some decades involved in it, and SNAFUs of a variety that might boggle your brain were a common occurrence. A bureaucracy of that size has a staying power for screw ups as a regular feature that outlasts any president, no matter his name or party.

I am not asking you to give Bush any breaks, I know you don't care for him, but you need to avoid falling into the truther myopia trap: not everything wrong with our government is wrong due to W. Plenty of others have contributed. Some of the wrongness predates him. Some of the buggery, of course, he introduced to leave his mark on the tree. :p

DR

[hgc]

A career Defense Dept. bureaucrat is not the Bush Administration, your hysterics aside.


My hysterics show pale in light of your apologetics.

[Darth Rotor]

My hysterics show pale in light of your apologetics.
Please, stop it. That isn't worthy of you.

DR

[Daylight]

Dan Abrams had Jordan Fox on his show today.

Jordan Fox received a letter from the Pentagon that sorta appears to say he doesn’t need to pay the money back. The funny part is it had so much bureaucratize that none of the attorneys on the show could figure out what it said. :rolleyes:

It did appear this was standard practice to send these letters out and SOP was to complain or pay. The sad thing is the wording in the original letter was harsh and definitely inappropriate in its tone.

In other news scientists were close to a breakthrough on how bureaucratic logic works using a model with 234 dimensions through multiple universes. :D

[LTC8K6]

The rules about having to refund a bonus have always been pretty clear. You are not obligated to refund a bonus if you could not complete the terms due to duty related injuries. That rule has not changed.

These letters are clearly errors, imo.

[3point14]

Breath, brother hgc, you seem to be missing my point.

Not everything the DoD does that is screwed up is directly attributable to W. I spent some decades involved in it, and SNAFUs of a variety that might boggle your brain were a common occurrence. A bureaucracy of that size has a staying power for screw ups as a regular feature that outlasts any president, no matter his name or party.

I am not asking you to give Bush any breaks, I know you don't care for him, but you need to avoid falling into the truther myopia trap: not everything wrong with our government is wrong due to W. Plenty of others have contributed. Some of the wrongness predates him. Some of the buggery, of course, he introduced to leave his mark on the tree. :p

DR


I understood that in the military chain of command, a man is responsible for the actions of the troops under him?

Not that, upon cursory examination, this story seems to have much behind it, but I thought that was the way it worked?

[Crossbow]

http://kdka.com/kdkainvestigators/military.signing.bonuses.2.571660.html




I am speechless.

That sounds about right!

There was a case a few months back in my area where some poor fellow who lost one of his arms in Iraq and his Kevlar vest. Therefore, the military kept withholding his medical payments until he paid for the lost Kevlar vest.

Eventually, after the story hit the papers and the two senators from West Virginia go involved, they finally stopped sending him bills and started sending him the money that he was due.

Ugh!

If these folks want their bonus problems resolved, then I expect that it will take several news stories and some high powered political involvement.

[Rob Lister]

I understood that in the military chain of command, a man is responsible for the actions of the troops under him?

Not that, upon cursory examination, this story seems to have much behind it, but I thought that was the way it worked?

You are mistaken. While a commander is responsible to his troops, he cannot be held accountable for their errors or misdeeds unless there was prior knowledge without correction or a situation which a reasonable commander would have foreseen.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Wow. Just wow.

They should be recompensating them! :mad:

[fuelair]

http://kdka.com/kdkainvestigators/Iraq.veteran.bonuses.2.592432.html

Yes, Bush is personally out to get these veterans...

Jeez, and I thought the derangement over Bill Clinton was bad...
It was bad - and stupid (I assume you refer to republican intrigue and stupidity there). Bush is not personally out to get veterans - or at least I have never thought/believed that. He simply cares no more about them than he does about any other US citizen - who is not powerful, wealthy and his supporter. I include, by the by, his supporters who are not powerful and/or wealthy if that is not clear.

If not clear, for Bush (Cheney, et.al.) if you are not in a position to advance him, provide income for him or do favors for him OR not a long-time friend then you, your conditions, your life simply are meaningless to him. You are at best a tool for him to use until you are no longer useable.
The difference between Bush and a number of other politicians (his father for example) is that simple observation of Shrub shows this clearly. He cannot/does not effectively hide it (which is why Michael Moore finds him such an easy target - he doesn't at least wait for the cameras to go off before adding some comment that shows he isn't taking things seriously).

[Puppycow]

If not clear, for Bush (Cheney, et.al.) if you are not in a position to advance him, provide income for him or do favors for him OR not a long-time friend then you, your conditions, your life simply are meaningless to him. You are at best a tool for him to use until you are no longer useable.
The difference between Bush and a number of other politicians (his father for example) is that simple observation of Shrub shows this clearly. He cannot/does not effectively hide it (which is why Michael Moore finds him such an easy target - he doesn't at least wait for the cameras to go off before adding some comment that shows he isn't taking things seriously).

That is what most infuriates me about the man: He doesn't take his job seriously. He doesn't want it to get in the way of his personal life. He is incurious and reactive. He makes comments like "OK, you've covered your ass" to intelligence officials warning him of impending danger instead of asking more about the situation and what he could do about it as president.

[hgc]

...he doesn't at least wait for the cameras to go off before adding some comment that shows he isn't taking things seriously).


Case in point: A recent interview wherein he said that when he's an ex-president he would hit the speech circuit right away to "refill the ol' coffers." That's what being president means to him. Matching support the troops rhetoric with any kind of action - pay raises, adequate benefits, bearable hospital conditions, body armor - is irrelevant, unimportant and downright inconvenient. Support the troops has always been a bludgeon to support my war policy. It has nothing to do with soldiers.

I know some people think I'm hyperventilating on this, but I will not stand down (heh). I am convinced that this is standard Bush "administration" operating procedure, and not standard US military operating procedure. I refuse to accept that the military regime of Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Wolfie, replete with torture and incompetence, are what passes for "the way things are" with the DOD.

[JoeEllison]

Case in point: A recent interview wherein he said that when he's an ex-president he would hit the speech circuit right away to "refill the ol' coffers." That's what being president means to him. Matching support the troops rhetoric with any kind of action - pay raises, adequate benefits, bearable hospital conditions, body armor - is irrelevant, unimportant and downright inconvenient. Support the troops has always been a bludgeon to support my war policy. It has nothing to do with soldiers.

That reminds me of what Jon Stewart was talking about a few weeks ago. When Bush rolls into town to speak on an issue, he starts by saying "I'm just here to say-", followed by the issue. So, if a bridge collapses, he'll fly in, and say "I'm just here to say that we need to do something about these collapsing bridges".

He's being entire honest. He's JUST there to say that something needs to be done. That's all. He's not actually there to DO anything, just to say that something needs to be done. That's pretty much the best you can hope for from him.

[cloudshipsrule]

I understood that in the military chain of command, a man is responsible for the actions of the troops under him?

You forgot to add 'directly' between 'troops' and 'under'. The CO of a base will not take heat for an E3 on the base who crashes into a barracks while under the influence. Crap rolls DOWN-hill in the military, at all levels.