NO to vets again.


Did you hear the one about a bunch of countries that got together and came to an agreement, that Iran accepted to go a long with, that would make sure that that country did not get nuclear weapons?

In exchange for co-operation with inspections and for not refining weapons grade uranium, the countries that Iran went along with would remove some, but not all of those sanctions that have been killing Iran.

If after 6 months Iran showed they were serious about co-operating, more sanctions would be removed. If after, or even during those 6 months if Iran went back on the agreement, the lifted sanctions would be re-imposed.

Then, did you hear the one about the politicians in Washington who claimed that Iran would not be good with its word, and began demanding more sanctions be imposed before the agreement was given a chance?

Apparently when it came to anyone not keeping their word, they think the United States should go first.

They don’t want to even see what Iran does.

A Democratic plan to provide $21 billion for medical, education, and job training benefits for our veterans, you know the veterans our “support the troops” wars have been producing, fell four votes short of 60 votes needed for passage because those in favor of the bill refused to add an amendment that would impose more sanctions on Iran.

Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, had complained during the discussion to attach the amendment to the bill, "I personally, I have to say this honestly, have a hard time understanding how anyone could vote for tax breaks for billionaires, for millionaires, for large corporations and then say we don't have the resources to protect our veterans”.

The pouting began.

More than two dozen veterans groups supported the legislation, but according to Republicans it came down to federal spending and those new Iran sanctions..

Besides wanting those sanctions, the Republicans' criticism was focused on how most of Sanders' bill was to be paid for.

It was proposed that funds left unspent from the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the winding down of American involvement in Afghanistan would support the bill.

The GOP claimed that that money is not real savings, because no one expected it to be used as those wars are ended.

If the wars continued, somehow the money would be there; without the wars, the money disappears.

The GOP also objected to the part of the bill that would let more veterans without service-connected injuries go for treatment at Department of Veterans Affairs facilities because that would swamp an already overburdened system.

So, even as they gave their youth, and perhaps had been deployed multiple times, if the veterans were lucky enough to survive unscathed, a mere “thank you” should suffice.

The other thing that got the GOP’s noses out of joint was Harry Reid’s refusal to allow votes on a GOP amendment slashing the bill's size and adding sanctions on Tehran for its nuclear program.

Our veterans are held hostage to sanctions on Iran.

The Vermont senators' legislation covered everything from making more veterans eligible for in-state college tuition to providing fertility or adoption services for some wounded troops left unable to conceive.

Also the VA would have been given more tools to deal with its backlog of 390,000 benefit claims awaiting action for more than 125 days, something that has been needing a solution, while programs to improve dental care, programs for veterans who suffered sexual abuse, and providing more alternative medicine would have been strengthened

The bill would have improved benefits for some spouses of deceased veterans, and would have increased aid to relatives caring for a wounded veteran, including those who served before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But as Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama said, "We're not going to be intimidated on this. We're going to do the right things for the veterans of America”.

I guess that’s where unnecessary additional sanctions on Iran come in. They are the right thing for the troops.

Interfering with diplomacy trumps the troops. welcomes thoughtful comments and the varied opinions of our readers. We are in no way obligated to post or allow comments that our moderators deem inappropriate. We reserve the right to delete comments we perceive as profane, vulgar, threatening, offensive, racially-biased, homophobic, slanderous, hateful or just plain rude. Commenters may not attack or insult other commenters, readers or writers. Commenters who persist in posting inappropriate comments will be banned from commenting on