Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (147285)	10/7/2004 4:24:45 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<Edwards twice accused the administration of having "lobbied the Congress" to cut the combat pay of troops in Iraq, when in fact the White House never supported such a plan.>> How the hell would Edwards know? He never showed up in Congress.

To: Neocon who wrote (147285)	10/11/2004 6:41:54 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I agree that the combat pay cut issue, as it relates specifically to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, is a red herring. I am surprised that Edwards repeated it. If the democrats were smart they would be asking why the administration is cutting the pay of troops anywhere, while at the same time promoting tax cuts for far more wealthy individuals. Should not people in the service be treated well, period? Given the staffing issues any of them might be at the front at the drop of a hat. I am always in favor of fair treatment for the backbone of the military. Being a tax cut friendly sort (when and where it makes sense) I wouldn't make that argument myself although I would fight for better pay and conditions for those protecting the country regardless of where they serve, and doubly so for those stuck in harms way.