ONCE AGAIN I ASK, "WHICH PARTY IS BETTER FOR THE MILITARY?"

Despite an enormous amount of evidence (some examples) that the criminal Bush regime doesn't care all that much for our troops, the meme that the GOP is somehow better for the military and national security is still alive. Here's a little more evidence:

Injured veterans engaged in new combat

In a little-noticed regulation change, the Pentagon's definition of combat-related disabilities is narrowed, costing some wounded veterans thousands of dollars in lost benefits.
By David Zucchino
November 25, 2008

Kerry Baker, associate legislative director of Disabled American Veterans, has accused the Pentagon of narrowing the definition of combat-related disabilities to save money. He said the change would reduce payments for tens of thousands of veterans -- those already wounded and those injured in the future.

"This is going to hurt a lot of people," Baker said. "It's one of those things that when you first look at it, you think: 'Wow. How can this be?' "

In a letter to members of Congress, the Disabled American Veterans accused the Pentagon of "mutilating" the statutory definitions of combat-related disabilities as part of a "deliberate manipulation of the law."

Even the pro-war milblog BLACKFIVE thinks this is a disgrace and points to one of the culprits, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel, David Chu. Chu has been working for GOP presidents since Reagan and can't be considered just another poor choice by Pres. Fredo because Chu is part of the GOP's national security establishment.