Rumsfeld Denies Playing Politics With War on Terror Medal

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040106231629.4zeuncms.html

<snip>
WASHINGTON (AFP) Jan 07, 2004
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Tuesday denied that politics played a role in a controversial decision to not award troops separate campaign medals for service in Iraq or in Afghanistan but instead to have a single decoration for the global war on terrorism.
Rumsfeld said the decision to have a single Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal was "unanimously recommended" after debate and discussion by the chiefs of all the military services.

Asked whether there was a political agenda behind the action, Rumsfeld said, "Not that I can imagine, no. This department is not involved in politics."

General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, backed him up, saying that "we thought that this was the best for our forces."

Some servicemembers are privately seething, however.
"They're pissed," said one servicemember who asked not to be named. "They don't understand it."

As well they should be! This is such an outrage and if the Bush* Administration is allowed to get away with it, I truly hope it opens up the eyes of some of the blind followers.

nwo that it is official tiem to write some letters

If so, they could issue the GWTEM to all participating personnel
(preferably only the overseas elements to avoid chickenhawks in
Washington getting it) then supply whichever campaign bars are
appropriate (e.g., "Afghanistan", "Iraq", "Syria", ...)

Nihil

to try to make it look like we are not invading and making war on other countries. To make it look like we aren't slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people. We're just out there nobly figting evil and TERROR. To me this is another indication that there will surely be more countries on the list.

it is a way to screw the vets, no campaign ribbon, no benefits for
combat deployments, this means that if you are sent to Afghanistan this is one medal, but not a second one for Iraq...

Bush is trying to save us some money you see... after all these troops are good props, but once used up, time to throw them down the river.

So, seperate deployments means extra pay for each? (I really don't know squat about military pay) By making this one deployment, the shrubbies save a bundle, huh. This could get really interesting in our endless war on terra. Of course, once they put the draft back in, I guess it won't matter at all to them if the troops are happy.

These creeps must really feel very, VERY confident that the 2004 (s)election will go there way, since they are so willing to alienate the military vote.

With the Pentagon's new e-voting system for the military being implimented this year. Neat, huh?

:grr:

This administration has done more to destroy our security and weaken our armed forces than any good it has done.

Without their assistance, Bush would not have gotten this far. If we had a free media that wasn't in the back pocket of the Republicans, Bush would have been impeached 10 times over already.

then it looks like France, Germany and Canada were America's allies in Iraq after all, eh?

"It was approved by the under secretary for personnel and readiness that has jurisdiction over it. And it was signed off on it by Paul Wolfowitz."

So I presume Wolfowitz will be backtracking on the Iraqi contracts. Yeah, sure.

""Almost any decision you make, somebody's not going to be happy with the decision," said."

Who the hell would be unhappy with the decision to have two separate medals, one for Afghanistan and one for Iraq, except a bunch of goddamn REMFs?

This is complete bullshit.

There is no way we should be losing the military vote.

I have seen it---- it is an ugly medal (for an ugly criminal war)

I'll try to find the link

Thanks LC

http://www.gracoind.com/





2 of them no less

and outrageous! :grr:

Hope there aren't too many more who get this one