Can cuts to veterans' benefits be criticized?

Posted: Tuesday, April 01, 2003

I am strongly dismayed by Rep. Bob Lynn's (R-Eagle River) claims that denouncing Bush is the same as denouncing the troops. ("Juneau rallies in support," March 30) Bush's choices have already directly led to the deaths of hundreds of innocent people, American and otherwise. Since I support life, I denounce Bush and the irreparable damage he has done to the principles that so many people before him have fought and died for.

The best way to support our troops is bring them home. Why? If we don't, our troops will foster hatred by also accidentally killing innocent Iraqis. Look at what we've done already in a week: Some of the disturbing images the rest of the world sees, unavailable in America, are on the Internet at

The rest of the world sees America acting unilaterally and causing the brutal deaths of children and for what? Most people outside America believe the Republicans who stand to gain much financially decided to start this war for non-humanitarian motives, i.e. oil, Bush's personal vendetta, the poor economy and Bush's failing domestic agenda. Lynn's claims that it is unpatriotic to suggest that education, health care, and law enforcement is more important than Bush's tax cut for those making over $250,000 a year simply because Bush started a war only proves the point that this war was begun to distract people from other serious issues facing our nation.

On a related note, the Bush administration and Republican leaders in Congress just chopped $9.7 billion out of a bill to provide compensation to disabled veterans. Would Lynn even claim that denouncing Bush for this action is the same as denouncing the troops? In this situation, I believe just the opposite is true.

Aaron M. Clemens

Washington, D.C.

Trending this week:


© 2018. All Rights Reserved.  | Contact Us