dubbya bush you really know how to support war vets...

[STEED]

Bush may be king of the gaffs but he has made the effort to these wounded men unlike my former Prime Minister Tony Blair and my present one Gordon Brown who have made no effort to see are wounded men.

[Dowly]

BUSH: "Look soldier, I got you a brand new T-shirt! Isnt it cool?"
SOLDIER: "You gotta be *******ing kidding me!?"

EDIT:

Oh wait! Elite_hunter didnt mention that it is Bush who is given the shirt by the Veteran, not Bush giving the shirt to the Veteran.

"President Bush is presented a T-shirt from Lcpl. Isaac Gallegos during a visit to the Center for the Intrepid at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, November 8, 2007."

[Brag]

Fasten your seat belts before clicking on the link. Once you enter the world of the Space Hamzters you may fall off your chairs laughing.
http://www.freewebs.com/mesopopo/

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by STEED

Bush may be king of the gaffs but he has made the effort to these wounded men unlike my former Prime Minister Tony Blair and my present one Gordon Brown who have made no effort to see are wounded men.

As far as I know there's a Bill on armed forces care going through the Commons during this Parliamentary session. Blair may have done shag-all, but Brown may yet.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

As far as I know there's a Bill on armed forces care going through the Commons during this Parliamentary session. Blair may have done shag-all, but Brown may yet.

That's a start but I feel our PM should visit our wounded and pay his respects at the airport to those who died.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by STEED

That's a start but I feel our PM should visit our wounded and pay his respects at the airport to those who died.

I'd definitely prefer being left alone with quality support for my health & family, than a visit and nothing more.
But I do see what you're saying, image is important. I'm just relieved that there's legislation in the works to improve the lot of UK servicemen.

[bradclark1]

That photo shows a soldier giving Bush a tee shirt not the other way around. I don't think Bush was in the 3rd Recon (Wolfpack).

most of them are too awful to look at

**** you, then don't!

[RickC Sniper]

most of them are too awful to look at

You would really be an asset to a squad of soldiers if you had to administer first aid to one who got injured.

Do your country a favor.......NEVER join their military.




Did I say to you yet?

[Biggles]

Man....you don't see pictures like these in Sweden....makes me unwillingly wonder what hell they walked through..... God, war is a horrible thing!

For the record, I haven't heard anything good about Bush here in Sweden since....well, 2003 I think.....

[SteminDemon13]

Well, I usually don't post on the politics board. To say Bush should be hung and all that is your opinion that I do not agree upon, however you have a right to it because many others and myself have fought to defend that right. After years of just sweeping foreign policy under the rug, and a false sense of "we are at peace" during the Clinton presidency and don't forget downgrading our miitary, has contributed to the problems we now face.

Did Sadam have nothing to hide? Was he so honest about what his intentions were when he kicked the weapons inspectors out in 98. Was it cool for him to just downplay the UN and violate all those UN resolutions that were failing? How can you come up with laws and the likes if no one is willing to enforce them? The United States of America decided to do something about it and believe it or not, has countries that supported it, while some choose to remain silent in their support.

Sadam had a lot to hide, i he didn't he wouldn't have sent that bogus report to show "everything" he had. The planes that were uncovered in Iraq were not on that report, nor a plethora of other things. When was the last time you heard of Bush or Clinton Killing hundeds of thousands of their own people? Sadam....well he has.

So the question boils down to, when were we going to deal with Sadam? Were we going to just sweep it under the rug again and do nothing?,write more UN resolutions so that Sadam can just blow them off and show the uselessness of those resolutions?, wait till the civilian death toll rises to Hollocaust status?, wait until he deploys chemical weapons on people that oppose him or gas other countries?, shall we have waited until he invades another country, go in and atack and then be told to go home because our job is done and watch numerous supporters of freedom get killed again?

I do not agree with every policy Bush has put forth, but our country has stood up to terrorism and is dealing with it. When during the Clinton years have you seen so many people speak out against their Government and want freedom and democracy, equal rights, and so on? It has been happening a lot because many people want the freedoms we share and have a right to them.

There are many policies I disagree with, sure the Military funding has gone up, but those dollars are being wasted. All this money that has funded the "cost plus fee way", pork barrel projects and the likes is one thing I am strongly against. How many years are we going to leave a NSFS (Naval Surface Fire Support) gap for our troops? They say, oh we are coming up with ERGM, and this and that since forever now and have either nothing to show for it or it will be 2040 until it comes around.

One effective, low cost near and mid term and even long term solution to the problem, which many have (marines, the underspoken army and many others) been asking for was to reactivate the battleships. Due to disgusting politics this has not come to fruition. If they would have reactivated them in 2001 the EX-148 Darpa round would have been fielded along with numerous other low cost projectiles even including 400+NM Scram Jet rounds, which would still be a cheaper yet a viably effective alternative to the Missile.
If you'll notice there is a key word up there...."Low Cost". That word doesn't fly around well like it did in the 80's when Lehman was secretary of the navy. Kind of a cuss word nowadays, as is fixed price incentive and firm fixed price. Say those words and people will look at you like to told them off.
You see the Battleships don't require the ammount of O&M costs that the carriers bear. Also DDX...multi Billion Dollars spent, but nothing to show for it which litton, raytheon, General Dynamics and other corporations are involved in make it okay to be anti battleship because they (the battleships) are a lower cost solution and won't fill their pockets . Well hell, it wouldn't fill their pockets, but it would fill a gap that could save lives, save money and bring prior tried and true capabilities along with new ones.

So no, I do not agree with a lot of things that are going on in this administration, but at least we are doing something about many of the situations at hand, instead of waiting for another catastrophic event to take place.