On 10/27/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...and the budget for 2007 is back to 7M, which would be 6.35M in 2001 dollars. So a very modest cut in real terms from the 2001 levels. I'd have to say John's points on questions of how much it was using, what it has used it for, and how effective it has been are all good ones.
In 2001, we weren't at war. We didn't have 10,000 troops who had been injured in combat, many of whom suffered traumatic brain injury -- and more every day. In previous wars, traumatic brain injuries accounted for about 20 percent of all injuries. In Iraq, it is estimated at 40 to 70 percent... and the reason the number is uncertain is that medical science is unsure about the effects on the brain of the kind of explosions our troops are being exposed to. And that's why the research is important. If you want to justify the vote, it would be very convenient to presume that the research is ineffective. But that's not even what the Republicans who voted against it said. They said there wasn't room in the budget. And then they boast about how they cut taxes and how the economy is doing so well under their leadership. And $20 million for a victory party. And that's just one out of 154 votes against veterans since 9/11. What does "support the troops" mean as a member of Congress? Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
