JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:10:34 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...eed/print.html

Jan. 27, 2005 | WASHINGTON -- Most patients at the Walter Reed
Army
Medical Center in Washington have a lot on their minds: the war they

just fought, the injuries they came home with, the future that lies
ahead. The last thing a wounded soldier needs to worry about is
where
the next meal is coming from. But for hundreds of Walter Reed
patients,
that's a real concern. Starting this month, the Army has started
making
some wounded soldiers pay for the food they eat at the hospital.


I spent three months in Walter Reed. During that time, I paid for my
meals. At the same time I was drawing a Subsistence Allowance. I did
not expect that the Army should give me money to buy my food, and
then
also give me the food I was supposed to buy.

But hey, liberal whining makes a good story for the anti-Bush crowd.
When Clinton was in office, the rules were the same.

Now, I really wonder why the names were withheld.

I was not in a hospital, but I was on BAS, a.k.a. separate rations,
when I was in the military. If I ate in a chow hall I had to pay for
my meals while others ate free.

I was reveiving an extra allowance in my paycheck (IIRC it was about
$150/mo) instead of getting free meals at the chow hall. And the cost
of those meals I ate in a chow hall was still subsidized.

When I went to Gulf War #1 I lost my BAS. They fed me on base, so they
didn't need to pay me a hundred-something bucks a month for food. The
left-wing hysterics would have called that a slap in the face, wouldn't
they? Taking away the poor soldier's food allowance when he is sent to
war. But they either feed you, or pay you to get your own food. But
not both.

And the way the article is written is typical. Create an image in the
reader's head of a paralyzed amputee getting his dinner check while he
lies in a hospital bed. Don't explain that this doesn't apply to
inpatients until the reader is frothing at the mouth and blind with
rage.

Then there's that $7.50 a day "combat pay," or whatever it's called
now. I listened to Randi Rhodes (one of the Air America crowd)
yesterday try to pass that off as what soldier's get paid...period.
She did not attempt to clarify that it was additional pay. She was
implying that soldiers are only paid $7.50 a day. And a good portion
of her audience will think just that. If she is ever called on it, I
can predict the way she will weasel out of it.... "I never said that
was their total pay... I just said that is was we pay them for getting
shot at... if the audience didn't understand that, they need to listen
more carefully..."

Why would I listen to Randi Rhodes? Why would I listen to Limbaugh?
Mostly for the entertainment value. But also because two halves make a
hole. Since right wing radio only gives you the half of the truth that
suits them, and left wing radio only gives you the other half tha suits
them, your only *chance* of of getting close to the whole story is to
listen to both.