Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Supporting the Troops, Bush Style, Part Deux

This is almost too horrific to post, but people should know that when this administration says "support the troops" it's really saying "screw the troops." From the Boston Globe:

"The general public believes that when a vet comes home, he's well taken care of," [Jack]Downing said. "That's a horrible misunderstanding."
Jack Downing runs a homeless shelter in Boston where a number of homeless vets from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are staying. The problem is huge, with experts estimating hundreds of thousands vets requiring -- but not getting -- the care they need to recover.

As the wars continue, the number of homeless veterans is "going to radically swell," Downing said. Downing and others who work with homeless veterans said the government is not prepared to assist those troops; a recent report by the Government Accountability Office said there are some 200,000 homeless veterans and only 15,000 beds for them at shelters. At least 9,600 more beds are needed, the report said. No government agency provides permanent housing for homeless veterans...
No wonder Bush's approval ratings are at an all-time low. Only a monster would approve of what this sociopath is doing.

23 comments:

H Nicole said...

Keep 'em coming, Shoes.

Speaking of possible cover ups...

I've mentioned somewhere before, buried deep in the recesses of this wonderful blog, the highly questionable circumstances surrounding the murder of one of Dr. Judy Wood's students, Michael Zebuhr, in Minneapolis last year.

A 9/11 blogger named Spooked has done a fine job documenting all the facts surrounding the murder:

http://michaelzebuhr.blogspot.com/

When I revisited the site earlier tonight, I was shocked to discover (or rediscover, as the name meant nothing to me last time I was at that site) that the District Attorney in charge of the murder was none other than our recent focus of discussion and mouth-frothing frustration, newly elected Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota!

The evidence seems to show that the then "Hennepin County District Attorney Amy Klobuchar" was not being forthcoming with a lot of information about the case and that a cover-up was in the works -- and probably still is.

So I thinks our dear Senator Klobuchar is definitely up to her neck in it. Here she is blatantly covering up something about this murder, and six months later she is a US Senator who is ranked #49 in the Democratic Party power ranking -- and voting like a Republican.

The question is, what is "it," and is she an innocent trying to do her best under treacherous circumstances, or is she a bad egg?

H Nicole said...

You know, I hope I sound really ridiculous here and overly alarmed (I'd much prefer that than the alternative), but if there is anybody out there who has seen or heard from Dr. Judy Wood any time since Tuesday, July 31, please let me know. I have lost all communications with her. She was supposed to present at the Scholars for 9/11 Truth meeting in Madison, WI, last weekend, which I could not attend. It sure would be great to hear news of the meeting and news of Dr. Wood's talk in particular.

Anonymous said...

I love the irony in all this.

Now you get a taste of what it might be like, being silenced by a governing body that you might have supported but now have no control over.

Anonymous said...

I really would prefer not to see lifebegins@200 on here anymore. I actually think that he makes some good points, and I am still more than undecided on a lot of issues surround 9/11. But his use of foul language, his attempts to bait others, and his name-calling and general bitter disposition are a waste of his intellect. It's a pain to have to mine for his points from the pile of incendiary (and downright rude) insults that he buries them under. I think it's bizarre that he thinks it's his viewpoint that has caused him to be silenced, when it's simply the rude and trollish manner in which he delivers them.

And I agree with (or am at least open to) much of what he says. Young or old, he needs to learn better communications skills.

Jason

Shoes4Industry said...

Done and Done. It's not what you say here, it's how you say it...

Cocked45 said...

My guess is that LB200 was ex military. After having served in wartime, a person has very little tolerance for double talk and innuendos. In the military, you're taught that even though it may be a hard thing, the truth, no matter how blunt, is the best remedy. And weak excuses and hearsay are very irritating.

Shoes4Industry said...

Truth is what we're after here at S4I.

Anonymous said...

Truth and overt, conscious rudeness are two different things.

Jason

H Nicole said...

LB@200 is not military. Here is his web site:

http://www.lifebeginsat200mph.com/

Since this web site, and who he is and where he is coming from, is easily accessible every time he posts here, I hope he is not silenced on this blog, at least on the condition that there is no more name calling.

For somebody more military-minded, see Steven Warran:

http://stevenwarran.blogspot.com

He is not military, but his life partner for many years was upper brass in the military, and Steven Warran seems to have the inside scoop on a lot of stuff concerning the military and the Pentagon.

Shoes4Industry said...

Thank you Jason.

There's enough "hate-speech" elsewhere, we choose not to promote it here.

H Nicole said...

I agree to no hate speech, hands down. It's your blog, Shoes. I support whatever you decide...

Zack said...

Shoes: You choose not to promote "hate-speech"?

This site SCREAMS "hate-speech" to Republicans, Conseratives & specially to Pres. Bush & this administration.

shoes4industry said...

Thanks, Zack.

There is a difference between being vocally critical of public officials verus groups of people based on race, gender or economic status. That's the form of "hate speech" that should not be tolerated here or anywhere.

We hope you can see the difference.

Zack said...

To shoes4I. Difference: One can vocally be critical (now it's "critical" - not "hate-speech") of public officials (especially ones in a specific party & those that support them). That is tolerated. But don't dare question anyone of a certain race, gender or economic status.

No, I don't see the difference.

Everyone is open to some criticism.
I don't like hate-speech either. And, you can spin it anyway you like-but this site reeks of hatred.

shoes4industry said...

Zack- sorry you don't see the difference. Hate speech is speech directed a group based on generalizations and bigotry.

That's not the case with politicians or public figures, they, by definition are open to criticism.

shoes4industry said...

If you'd like to make bigoted, racists remarks, we're sure you can find other venues, please do.

Thanks!

shoes4industry said...

If you'd like to defend the current executive administration, please be our guest...

Anonymous said...

It's racist, not racists. You need to have mommy proofread your spelling.

shoes4industry said...

If you'd like to make bigoted, racist remarks, hop in the "Vette" find yourself some othere venues.

Thanks!

Anonymous said...

Calling people names, using profanity to incite emotions, and taunting people are hardly indicative of someone wanting to have reasonable dialogue. That's the kind of speech I object to on this site--and it's the ONLY speech on this site I would classify as "full of hatred."

Jason

shoes4industry said...

Thanks, Jason!

Anonymous said...

I'm still confused by the "vett" stuff. What's a vett?

Hernando

Shoes4Industry said...

it's a metaphor...