"Supporing the Troops" or "Ignoring the maimed veterans?"

Here is the draft of a lette I wrote to "my" Senators and
Member of the House...

26 August 2005

We frequently hear politicians speak of ?Support The
Troops? and then castigate anyone they can for not
?Supporting The Troops?.

My paternal grandfather nearly died of mustard gas
exposure in World War I and may have been treated at
Walter Reed Hospital. Yesterday, CNN talked of the number
of maimed veterans of the Afgan and Iraq Wars who were
receiving treatment at Walter Reed. To me this is truly
?Supporting The Troops?.

Then, CNN confirmed that the Base Closure people want to
close Walter Reed and ship the walking wounded to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. I was in the Navy in the 1980s and
remember being told in 1985 that Bethesda was overly
crowded then; it must be worst now!

Several months ago, there were a number of news items
about reduction in VA funding. Other vets have told me
that VA co-payments have gone up. Is this ?Supporting The
Troops??

If Walter Reed is being closed, I have to wonder if
?Support The Troops? only applies to the combat ready
troops. Those who bleed for our country deserve to be
treated better.

Respectfully,

--------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a trend among big businesses (BB) to cut the
medical benefits and cost of living increases that were in
contracts BB signed with their then employees. I guess
that since the retirees don't come to work, BB doesn't
have to worry about "the old farts" going on strike!

It would seem the current administration is working from
that same playbook via-a-via my fellow veterans. I'll have
to ask my father-in-law (a retired USA Major) and my
brother (a retired USN Captain) iff'n the VA is sticking
it to them...