Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Public Records | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Who’s not looking out for veterans?

June 4, 2014

To the editor: Korie Langbehn's letter of May 28th suggests that "Obama has a war against veterans." Here's a refresher course — On Feb....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jun-05-14 9:55 AM

It's not only the Congress , but the responsibility , duty and what's morally right of the people working at these institutions. Doctoring the books (pun intended) to save your bonus, where is the outrage at the people that committed these crimes? Instead they should be the ones going to the media claiming that they have to make the veterans wait for appointments. I find these individuals that perpetrated this disgusting.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-05-14 9:26 AM

The truth is both sides use veterans as pawns to discredit their opposition party in an election year stunt to try and garner votes. It appears many here have taken the bait and are willing to be led by fools.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-05-14 6:38 AM

That was the point, he is free to act in other matters , why not here?

10 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-04-14 9:12 PM

Deerhunt you start by stating "same senseless banter as before, blaming Democrats or Republicans" then you go right into blaming Democrats for a totally separate and unrelated issue....seems a bit hypocritical.

6 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-04-14 4:46 PM

Same senseless banter as before, blaming Democrats or Republicans. If it is the Republicans why doesn't Obama use executive privilege? He was able to trade a deserter for 5 of the worst offenders at Gitmo without congressional approval. Six people died going out and looking for that idiot, he could have stayed there as far as I am concerned. The real issue here is that people were altering the books to protect their bonuses, that is criminal to me, I don't care what their political view is. Prosecute these people and send a message to government to be accountable for what they do.

11 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-04-14 4:27 PM

The real reason that the Republicans voted against this bill is because Democrats would not allow them to attach an amendment that included increased Iranian sanctions which have absolutely ZERO to do with the VA funding issue. They could not get there way so they voted down the entire bill which would have helped veterans. This bill also had strong support from the VFW, DAV, and American Legion but as they are not large corporations their voices are largely ignored.

5 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-04-14 3:12 PM

When 41 out of 45 Republicans voted against this bill, I would say they do have responsibility for blocking this much needed bill. Although the Republicans hid behind the budget to justify their no votes, the first cause of this Republican no vote was that they wanted to attach controversial legislation calling for possible new sanctions on Iran, that President Obama opposes. Sugar coat it all you want, it was the Republicans who stopped this bill.

8 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-04-14 1:47 PM

Although I don't agree with Korie Langbehn's claim of Obama going to war with veterans I also don't think the vote taken by Republicans is the chief cause of the secret lists being maintained by some VA medical facilities. Both of these letters are presenting a vast oversimplification of the issue.

A bipartisan agreement had previously been reached on curbing spending. The additional 24 billion for the VA wasn't in the already agreed to spending limits. So, in order for the 24 billion to go to the VA 24 billion would have to be cut from somewhere else. Nobody in Washington, meaning both sides of the aisle, were willing to come up with the 24 billion needed to fund our vets. The Republicans held to the previous spending limits whereas the Democrats were willing to throw the agreement out the door and just continue to spend. One can argue that the vets should have been included in the funding formulations in the first place and I would agree.

10 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 8 of 8 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web