Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
From the online edition of the Wall Street Journal editorial page--
Quote:
The Iraq Panic
Zarqawi's bombs hit their target in Washington.
Monday, June 27, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
"It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."--Senator Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.), June 27, 2005, U.S. News & World Report.
"And we are now in a seemingly intractable quagmire. Our troops are dying and there really is no end in sight."--Senator Ted Kennedy (D., Mass.), June 23, 2005, Armed Services Committee hearing.
The polls show the American people are growing pessimistic about Iraq, and no wonder. They are being rallied against the cause by such statesmen as the two above. Six months after they repudiated the insurgency in a historic election, free Iraqis are continuing to make slow but steady political and military gains. Where the terrorists are gaining ground is in Washington, D.C.
This is despite tangible, albeit underreported, progress in Iraq. In the political arena, an Iraqi transition government has formed that includes representatives from all ethnic and religious groups. Leading Sunnis who boycotted January's election are now participating both in the parliament and in drafting a new constitution. The Shiite uprising of a year ago has been defeated. The government now has three deadlines to meet: drafting a constitution by August, a referendum on that constitution in October and elections for a permanent government in December.
This political momentum vindicates the decision to hold the January election, despite warnings that it was "going to be ugly" (in Joe Biden's phrase). Some of those who predicted the worst because the Sunnis refused to participate--Mr. Biden, the Hoover Institution's Larry Diamond--are the same people who now say again that disaster looms. Clearly the smart strategy was to move ahead with the vote and show the Sunnis they had to participate if they wanted a role in building the new Iraq. So why should we believe these pessimists now?
As for security, the daily violence is terrible and dispiriting, but it is not a sign of an expanding insurgency. As U.S. and Iraqi military targets have hardened their defenses, the terrorists have turned to larger bombs delivered by suicidal jihadists aimed at softer targets. This drives up the casualty figures, especially against Iraqi civilians, but it does not win more political converts.
Insurgencies that have prevailed in history--Algeria, China, Cuba--have all had a large base of popular support. That more of the bombers seem to be coming from outside Iraq is cause for worry, since it means there will be a continuing supply of suicide bombers. But it also means that the insurgency is becoming an invasion force against Iraq itself, which means it lacks the native roots to sustain it.
The trend is in fact toward more civilian cooperation with Iraqi and U.S. security forces. Calls to the military hotline have climbed to 1,700 from 50 in January, according to U.S. commanders, and better intelligence has led to the recent capture of key insurgent leaders, including a top deputy to Musab al-Zarqawi. An Iraqi TV show profiling captured jihadists--"Terrorism in the Hands of Justice"--is a popular hit.
Everyone wishes that Iraqi security forces could be trained faster to replace U.S. troops, and to secure areas from which terrorists have been ousted. But here, too, there has been progress. About 100 Iraqi units are now able to conduct special operations on their own. General George Casey, the Iraq theater commander, says there has not been a single failure of an Iraqi military unit since the election. And new recruits continue to volunteer, even though this makes them terrorist targets.
Regarding Mr. Kennedy's "quagmire" claim, General Casey had this response: "I thought I was fairly clear in what I laid out in my testimony about what's going on in Iraq, that you have an insurgency with no vision, no base, limited popular support, an elected government, committed Iraqis to the democratic process, and you have Iraqi security forces that are fighting and dying for their country every day. Senator, that is not a quagmire."
So why the Washington panic? A large part of it is political. As Democrats see support for the war falling in the polls, the most cynical smell an opening for election gains in 2006. The Republican Hagels, who voted for the war only reluctantly, see another opening to assail the "neo-cons" and get Donald Rumsfeld fired. Still others are merely looking for political cover. Rather than fret (for the TV cameras) about "the "public going south" on the war, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham could do more for the cause by trying to educate Americans and rally their support.
It isn't as if the critics are offering any better strategy for victory. At last week's Senate hearing, Carl Levin's (D., Mich.) brainstorm was that the U.S. set a withdrawal schedule if Iraqis miss their deadline in writing a constitution. But U.S. officials have all stressed to Iraqis how important that deadline is. Mr. Biden delivered a lecture last week that boiled down to letting France train 1,500 Iraqi "gendarmes" and pressing for 5,000 NATO troops to patrol the Syrian border. Both are fine with us, assuming Mr. Biden gets to negotiate with the French, but neither is going to turn the tide of war.
The proposal to fix a date certain for U.S. withdrawal is especially destructive, inviting the terrorists to wait us out and Iraqi ethnic groups to start arming themselves. The only important idea we've heard from Congress is John McCain's suggestion that if Damascus keeps abetting the insurgency, the U.S. is under no obligation to honor Syria's territorial integrity when pursuing terrorists seeking sanctuary in that country.
President Bush plans to speak about Iraq tomorrow, and we hope he points out that this Beltway panic is hurting the war effort. General John Abizaid of the U.S. Central Command stressed this point last week. Troop morale, he said, has never been better. But "when I look back here at what I see is happening in Washington, within the Beltway, I've never seen the lack of confidence greater."
He added that, "When my soldiers say to me and ask me the question whether or not they've got support from the American people or not, that worries me. And they're starting to do that." Mr. Bush will no doubt remind Americans of the stakes in Iraq, but he also needs to point out that defeatism can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
From the online edition of the Wall Street Journal editorial page--
Repubs need to stop equating supporting war plan with supporting troops.
There is a huge difference in my mind. I did not support the rationale for this war, nor do I support Pres. Bush, Rummy, Wolfowitz planning for this war. They should have heeded the adivce from those in the military and not their own stupid war game "Planning".
That being said, I fully support our troops who fight for freedom and put their lives on the line for that ideal no matter how misused it is by Bush, Rummy, etc.
Our troops are brave and fight for us even though they have been lied to.
Its funny how Bush & Co. are always screaming, "Supporth the troop, Support the troops," yet him and repubs cut veterans benefits and severely under fund Veteren's programs and now they are going to have to cut $30 million for VA hospitals around the country.
Bush's real slogan : "Support our Troops...until they come home."
Repubs need to stop equating supporting war plan with supporting troops.
There is a huge difference in my mind. I did not support the rationale for this war, nor do I support Pres. Bush, Rummy, Wolfowitz planning for this war. They should have heeded the adivce from those in the military and not their own stupid war game "Planning".
That being said, I fully support our troops who fight for freedom and put their lives on the line for that ideal no matter how misused it is by Bush, Rummy, etc.
Our troops are brave and fight for us even though they have been lied to.
Its funny how Bush & Co. are always screaming, "Supporth the troop, Support the troops," yet him and repubs cut veterans benefits and severely under fund Veteren's programs and now they are going to have to cut $30 million for VA hospitals around the country.
Bush's real slogan : "Support our Troops...until they come home."
Not to nitpick, but I think you've missed the point of the article entirely. I understand you and many others think W lied and we should never have gone in, and pointing that out isn't unpatriotic and etc..., but the article's about how Democratic leaders are resonding publicly to the insurgency, as it exists today.
Not to nitpick, but I think you've missed the point of the article entirely. I understand you and many others think W lied and we should never have gone in, and pointing that out isn't unpatriotic and etc..., but the article's about how Democratic leaders are resonding publicly to the insurgency, as it exists today.
I get it completely, the article that is.
It too easily brushes aside certain facts as less important than they are.
One example would be the insurgents coming from other countries, that isn't very much accounted for throughout history so saying it's basically a good thing is a giant leap the author just makes rather effortlessly.
You can make valid cases for it's base arguement that the Senators are bailing for political purposes and that we should stick it out at least a while longer, because in essence we really have no choice.
I would predict that people will blow up rather regularly as long as we are there period.
We can't leave until the Iraqi's can take care of themselves. Once we leave it should begin to calm down slowly over time.
This guy nor anyone else can know the future, it's a pretty poor article with a few good points IMO that really adds little to what we already knew.
__________________
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
The proposal to fix a date certain for U.S. withdrawal is especially destructive, inviting the terrorists to wait us out and Iraqi ethnic groups to start arming themselves. The only important idea we've heard from Congress is John McCain's suggestion that if Damascus keeps abetting the insurgency, the U.S. is under no obligation to honor Syria's territorial integrity when pursuing terrorists seeking sanctuary in that country.--
Even w/o date certain the insurgency can "wait it out" regardless. The administration does not need to give exact date, but they certainly need to have a withdrawl plan as far as scaling back American presence. Wiating for the Iraqis to defend themselves is going to be a long wait, but US needs bring our boys home at some poit, at least for a rest.
Does it present any thing we didn't already know, not really; but it well states the alterior motives of those crying about the need to "withdraw at any cost" from Iraq.
I was against the premise of the war with Iraq from before it began, that position has been documented within the forums of ASFN. But we are committed now and are obligated to see it through to conclusion. To cut bait and run at this juncture would be wrong politcally and ethically.
__________________
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Repubs need to stop equating supporting war plan with supporting troops.
There is a huge difference in my mind. I did not support the rationale for this war, nor do I support Pres. Bush, Rummy, Wolfowitz planning for this war. They should have heeded the adivce from those in the military and not their own stupid war game "Planning".
That being said, I fully support our troops who fight for freedom and put their lives on the line for that ideal no matter how misused it is by Bush, Rummy, etc.
Our troops are brave and fight for us even though they have been lied to.
Its funny how Bush & Co. are always screaming, "Supporth the troop, Support the troops," yet him and repubs cut veterans benefits and severely under fund Veteren's programs and now they are going to have to cut $30 million for VA hospitals around the country.
Bush's real slogan : "Support our Troops...until they come home."
Repubs need to stop equating supporting war plan with supporting troops.
There is a huge difference in my mind. I did not support the rationale for this war, nor do I support Pres. Bush, Rummy, Wolfowitz planning for this war. They should have heeded the adivce from those in the military and not their own stupid war game "Planning".
That being said, I fully support our troops who fight for freedom and put their lives on the line for that ideal no matter how misused it is by Bush, Rummy, etc.
Our troops are brave and fight for us even though they have been lied to.
Its funny how Bush & Co. are always screaming, "Supporth the troop, Support the troops," yet him and repubs cut veterans benefits and severely under fund Veteren's programs and now they are going to have to cut $30 million for VA hospitals around the country.
Bush's real slogan : "Support our Troops...until they come home."
So what about the Congressman who are saying we're in a quagmire and we're losing the war? Do you think they are helping this effort? Is that what you call supporting our troops?
BTW, do you have any facts to back up your statements about the veteran's programs?
__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain
BTW, do you have any facts to back up your statements about the veteran's programs?
Press Release Source: American Federation of Government Employees
AFGE Responds to VA Admission of $1 Billion Shortfall
Friday June 24, 5:17 pm ET
WASHINGTON, June 24 /PRNewswire/ -- The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) was not surprised by the recent admission by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) of a $1 billion shortfall. In its advocacy on behalf of veterans and the workers that care for them, AFGE has worked to shed light on the fact that the VA is severely under funded and our veterans who were promised quality healthcare after serving their time in the military are suffering as a result.
"The chronic under funding of the VA isn't a new problem," says AFGE National President John Gage. "Budget cuts and the resulting staffing shortages have plagued the VA for quite some time. As result of these cuts, veterans must endure long waits for appointments, equipment rigged for purposes other than its original intent and surgeries cancelled for budgetary reasons. Earlier this year Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) urged lawmakers to give the VA an extra $2 billion but her efforts were unsuccessful. However, despite the dire situation at the VA, the Bush Administration continues to turn away low-earning vets and forbids VA personnel from promoting its health care services to veterans not yet enrolled in the system."
"In addition to budget cuts, the VA is taking money from its own health care services and using it to take jobs from loyal VA workers and handing them over to private contractors. In determining whether specific functions or jobs can be contracted out, the VA conducts cost-comparison studies. However, as the law stands right now, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the entity that operates the VA medical system, is prohibited from using its funds for conducting cost-comparison studies.
Even though these illegal cost comparison studies can costs millions of dollars, dollars that would be better spent properly funding the VA medical system, the VA won't let a little thing like a federal law get in its way," continued Gage.
"To add insult to injury, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs is actually considering helping the VA further drain its shallow pool of resources by taking up legislation that will earmark funding for cost-comparison studies," says Alma Lee, president, AFGE National VA Council. "If this happens, the already weakened VA medical system will be crippled at a time when an influx of new veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will desperately need the high-quality mental and physical health care the VA usually provides."
"This is no way to treat the men and women who have pledged to protect and serve our country. Our veterans deserve better and our government can do better by our veterans," Lee added.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is the largest federal employee union representing 600,000 workers in the federal government and the government of the District of Columbia.
So I post an editorial taking certain Democrats to task for sounding defeatist and talking openly about cutting our losses--and citing a General worried that his troops are starting to question whether they have support back home--and it turns into a thread ripping W for cutting veterans' benefits. What a surprise.
This is nothing new, GOP had vote on cutting Vet benefits in 2003 around 3 or 4 in AM to slash funding for our vets:
Veterans Benefits Cut by David Smith
The U.S. House of Representatives approved billions of dollars in cuts to veterans’ programs over the next 10 years—on the same day it unani-mously passed a resolution of “unequivocal support” for the nation’s troops overseas.Proposed by President Bush as part of his 2004 budget plan, the reductions—estimated at $28 billion—would erode health-care benefits already stretched by other budget shortfalls, raise costs, and decrease veterans’ access to medical care.
Voicing the dismay of representatives opposed to the measure, who narrowly lost the 215-212 vote in the Republican-controlled House, Rep. Joseph Hoeffel (D-PA) said, “These cuts to veterans’ programs are indefensible. We are at war and our current troops will be our future veterans and this funding is inadequate, it’s wrong, and it’s an insult.”
Republican congressmen claim that Veterans Affairs spending will actually increase, but Democratic lawmakers say that would be true only if one ignores rising health care costs.
According to Ashley Decker, writing in an article at Commondreams.org, the cuts could cause approximately half of all veterans to lose their only source of medical care and might prevent them from receiving their disability pensions. VA hospitals treated 4.2 million veterans in 2001, and 70 million Americans are potentially eligible for VA benefits.
The VA reductions were one of the ways that President Bush hopes to pay for his proposed $726 billion 10-year tax cut. This is the first time that any modern president has called for a decrease in taxes during wartime.
A recent Associated Press poll found that 61 percent of Americans—including 56 percent of Republicans—thinks tax cuts should be delayed in the face of growing deficits and the cost of war in Iraq.
The House was thinking similarly when it recently trimmed Bush’s tax cuts to $550 billion. In an unusual setback for a president at war, the Senate voted to cap the tax breaks at $350 billion.
Bush’s budget proposal contained cuts in funding for other social ser-vices, including education, state funding, poverty relief, public housing, and law enforcement.
Although the plan raises overall education spending, 47 programs would be dropped, and funding is insufficient to support the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which President Bush signed into law last year.
Among the cuts is a $400 million decrease in before- and after-school programs that would affect 500,000 children, despite a report produced for the national organization Fight Crime: Invest in Kids that estimates the cuts would result in 41,000 crimes and cost taxpayers $2.4 billion.
Further stretching law-enforcement resources, the Bush budget proposal would slash funding for the Community Oriented Policing Services program, credited with reducing crime nationwide, from $1.4 billion to $164 million—a cut of 88 percent.
—David Smith
__________________ Goin' "Double Maverick!"
Last edited by LoyaltyisaCurse; June 27th, 2005 at 06:08 PM.
So I post an editorial taking certain Democrats to task for sounding defeatist and talking openly about cutting our losses--and citing a General worried that his troops are starting to question whether they have support back home--and it turns into a thread ripping W for cutting veterans' benefits. What a surprise.
I adressed your point and brough up the other point to show Bush and adminstration hypocracy on this issue.
He should be ripped for it since he protrays himself as so toop supportive.
Criticizing the administration for bad planning is okay and calling it a quamire is far from denegrating the troops. The plan has led to a quagmire not the troops.
That is point I am making.
__________________ Goin' "Double Maverick!"
Last edited by LoyaltyisaCurse; June 27th, 2005 at 06:12 PM.
I adressed your point and brough up the other point to show Bush and adminstration hypocracy on this issue.
He should be ripped for it since he protrays himself as so toop supportive.
Criticizing the administration for bad planning is okay and calling it a quamire is far from denegrating the troops. The plan has led to a quagmire not the troops.
That is point I am making.
I honestly don't think you addressed the point of the editorial. The Democrats noted above aren't criticizing the troops, and the editorial has nothing to do with whether we should have gone to war in the first place. The point of it is that some Democrats are calling "quagmire" (while ignoring evidence to the contrary) and talking about bailing out to score political points--despite the fact that such talk hurts the war effort. Al-Jazeera played Dick Durbin's "U.S. Prison Guards = Khmer Rouge Foot Soldiers" speech ad nauseam last week, and I really don't think Durbin believes what he said--which is even worse than if he thought so, because he's willing to castigate American soldiers (yes, that is exactly what he did) to score political points.
Funding for Veterans up 27%, But Democrats Call It A Cut
Money for Veterans goes up faster under Bush than under Clinton, yet Kerry accuses Bush of an unpatriotic breach of faith.
February 18, 2004
Modified: February 18, 2004
eMail to a friend Printer Friendly Version
Summary
In the Feb. 15 Democratic debate, Kerry suggested that Bush was being unpatriotic: “He’s cut the VA (Veterans Administration) budget and not kept faith with veterans across this country. And one of the first definitions of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform of our country.”
It is true that Bush is not seeking as big an increase for next year as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs wanted. It is also true that the administration has tried to slow the growth of spending for veterans by not giving new benefits to some middle-income vets.
Yet even so, funding for veterans is going up twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. And the number of veterans getting health benefits is going up 25% under Bush's budgets. That's hardly a cut.
Analysis
Funding for veterans benefits has accelerated in the Bush administration, as seen in the following table.
Fiscal years ending Sept. 30
Source: US Budget: Table 5.2 - Budget Authority by Agency
In Bush’s first three years funding for the Veterans Administration increased 27%. And if Bush's 2005 budget is approved, funding for his full four-year term will amount to an increase of 37.6%.
In the eight years of the Clinton administration the increase was 31.7%
Those figures include mandatory spending for such things as payments to veterans for service-connected disabilities, over which Congress and presidents have little control. But Bush has increased the discretionary portion of veterans funding even more than the mandatory portion has increased. Discretionary funding under Bush is up 30.2%.
By any measure, veterans funding is going up faster under Bush than under Clinton.
One reason: the number of veterans getting benefits is increasing rapidly as middle-income veterans turn for health care to the expanding network of VA clinics and its generous prescription drug benefit.
According to the VA, the number of veterans signed up to get health benefits increased by 1.1 million, or 18%, during the first two fiscal years for which Bush signed the VA appropriations bills. And the numbers continue to grow. By the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30, the VA estimates that the total increase under Bush's budgets will reach nearly 1.6 million veterans, an increase of 25.6 percent.
And according to the VA, the number of community health clinics has increased 40% during Bush's three years, with accompanying increases in the numbers of outpatient visits (to 51 million last year) and prescriptions filled (to 108 million).
But They Keep Repeating: "It's a Cut"
That's just the opposite of the impression one might get from listening to Democratic presidential candidates debate each other over the past several months. One thing they seem to agree on is the false idea that Bush is cutting funding for veterans.
Examples:
Oct 9, 2003:
Sharpton: As this president waved the flag, he cut the budget for veterans, which dishonored people that had given their lives to this country, while he sent people like you to war.
October 27:
Dean: I've made it very clear that we need to support our troops . . . unlike President Bush who tried to cut -- who successfully cut 164,000 veterans off their health-care benefits.
Jan 4, 2004:
Kucinich: Look what's happened with this budget the administration has just submitted. They're cutting funds for job programs, for veterans . . .
Jan 22, 2004 :
Kerry: And while we're at it, this president is breaking faith with veterans all across the country. They've cut the VA budget by $1.8 billion.
Feb 15, 2004 :
Kerry: And most importantly, I think he's cut the VA budget and not kept faith with veterans across this country. And one of the first definitions of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform of our country.
And even the Democratic National Committee website proclaims, "Bush Cuts Funds for Veterans' Health Care," despite what the numbers show.
Veterans Groups Want More
While it's false to say the veterans budget has been cut, and false to say that any veteran getting benefits has been cut off, it is true that funding is not growing as rapidly as demand for benefits, or as rapidly as veterans groups would like.
Veterans groups are unanimous in calling for more money than the administration or Congress have provided. Four groups -- AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States -- have joined to ask for $3.7 billion more than the administration is requesting for next year.
Even Bush's own Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi -- in a rare break with administration protocol -- told a House committee Feb. 4 that had asked for more money than Bush was willing to seek from Congress. "I asked OMB for $1.2 billion more than I received," he said, referring to the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Some Denied Benefits; A Cut Proposed
In January, 2003 the Veterans Administration announced that -- because the increase in funds couldn't meet the rising demand -- it would start turning away many middle-income applicants applying for new medical benefits.
That led to accusations that Bush was denying benefits to veterans. " We have 400,000 veterans in this country who have been denied access in a whole category to the VA," Kerry declared during a debate Oct. 9, 2003. The VA's estimates of the number who might be denied benefits is much lower, and in fact nobody can say with certainty how many middle-income veterans might have signed up for medical benefits if they had been allowed.
Meanwhile the VA continues to add hundreds of thousands of disabled and lower-income veterans to those already receiving benefits, and has kept paying benefits to all veterans who were already receiving them.
The middle-income veterans who currently aren't being allowed to sign up are those generally with incomes above 80% of the mid-point for their locality. The means test cut-off for benefits ranges up to $40,000 a year in many cities. And any veteran with income less than $25,162 still qualifies no matter where they live. Those figures are for single veterans. The income cut-off is higher for those with a spouse or children.
Veterans groups have called for "mandatory funding" of medical benefits, which would automatically appropriate whatever funds are required to meet demand. Kerry has endorsed mandatory funding, which would allow middle-income veterans with no service-connected disability to resume signing up.
The administration also has proposed to make the VA's prescription drug benefit less generous. Currently many veterans pay $7 for each one-month supply of medication. The administration proposes to increase that to $15, and require a $250 annual fee as well. Congress rejected a similar proposal last year. The proposal wouldn't affect those -- such as veterans with a disability rated at 50% or more -- who currently aren't required to make any co-payments.
And it should be noted that the administration is proposing to increase some benefits, including ending pharmacy co-payments for some very low-income veterans, and paying for emergency-room care for veterans in non-VA hospitals.
All this means Bush can fairly be accused of trying to hold down the rapid growth in spending for veterans benefits -- particularly those sought by middle-income vets with no service-connected disability. But saying he cut the budget is contrary to fact.
(Note: FactCheck.org twice contacted the Kerry campaign asking how he justified his claim that the VA budget is being cut, but we've received no response.)
Sources
Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 "Table 5.2 -- Budget Authority by Agency" (Washington, Government Printing Office) 3 Feb 2004.
US House of Representatives, Committee on Veterans Affairs, “ Statement of Anthony J. Principi , Secretary Of Veterans Affairs” 4 Feb 2004.
US House of Representqatives, Committee on Veterans Affairs, “ Statement of Peter S. Gaytan, Principal Deputy Director, Veterans Affairs And Rehabilitation Division, The American Legion” 4 Feb 2004.
US House of Representqatives, Committee on Veterans Affairs “ Statement Of Joseph A. Violante , National Legislative Director, The Disabled American Veterans” 4 Feb. 2004.
US House of Representatives, Committee on Veterans Affairs “ Statement of Vietnam Veterans of America , Presented by Richard F. Weidman, Director, Government Relations” 4 Feb 2004.
Press Release , Rep. Lane Evans (D IL)"Bush administration ’05 VA budget reflects misplaced priorities, places greater burden on some veterans" 2 Feb. 2004.
Suzanne Bamboa, “Principi Wanted $1.2B More for VA Budget,” Associated Press 4 Feb. 2004.
![](http://javascript<img%20src="images/smilies/tongue.gif"%20border="0"%20alt=""%20title="Stick%20Out%20Tongue"%20smilieid="6"%20class="inlineimg"%20/>rint_article('613');)
