Wounded Vets

OK -- I thought bureaucratic screw-up on this story until I read this sentence:

At the forefront was a bill introduced last week and sent to committee that targets a Defense Department policy preventing eligible soldiers from receiving their full bonuses if discharged early because of combat-related injuries.

This is not a screw-up -- this is policy. And I thought the general negligence at Walter Reed was an atrocity.

How does a military like this expect to win a war? Oh, wait. . . .

Here's a story on the bill from Jason Altmire's website. He's the congressman who introduced the legislation, and -- he's a Democrat. Funny how that happens.

Update:

Thinking on this a bit more, have you noticed that the so-called "conservative" attitude toward "supporting the troops" translates into unquestioning obedience to foolish and misguided policies and complete disregard for the human beings involved? This story is of a piece with those about wounded vets receiving bills for their hospital care and those drummed out of the service under DADT being expected to repay any monies paid for school. Much as we might like to think so, no bureaucrat who is that stupid (and there are some -- I've met them) ever gets into a position with that kind of authority.

But then, what can you say about an institution that actually adopts policies like these? Consider, as I feel I must at this point, also the fact that the military is disproportionately composed of evangelical and conservative Christians (if we are to believe reports), and that the president, who keeps reminding us that he is the Commander-in-Chief professes himself to be a born-again Christian, and you really have to wonder what Christianity has become, at least in some parts of the population. Do you really want these people running the country?

That's a really scary picture of our future.

Update II:

I notice at GovTrack that Altmire's bill has 35 cosponsors -- of whom 4 are Republicans.

Let's see, now -- who was it who was supporting the troops?