just so our facts our straight, i bring you factcheck.org. they are similar to spinsanity.com.
John Edwards:
Quote:
|
Edwards: They sent 40,000 American troops into Iraq without the body armor they needed. They sent them without the armored vehicles they needed. While they were on the ground fighting, they lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay. This is the height of hypocrisy.
|
and the reality
Cutting Combat Pay?
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.
Rather, the Defense Department proposed allowing a temporary pay increase for all troops worldwide (even those not in Iraq or Afghanistan) to expire, and promised to maintain current pay levels for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with separate pay raises if necessary.
Army Times reported in its issue for the week ending Aug. 18, 2003 that a Pentagon budget assessment sent to Congress in July called for letting a temporary combat pay raise enacted earlier that year for troops worldwide expire at the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. The result would have been a cut of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances."
But according to an Aug. 15 American Forces Press Service report, David S.C. Chu, defense undersecretary for personnel and readiness, said the department could raise hardship duty pay or incentive pay. The bottom line: "We are not going to reduce their compensation," Chu said. The Pentagon also said in an Aug. 14 news release : "This is an issue of targeting those most deserving, and certainly people serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are in these categories."
so it would appear that the white house hasn't cut any combat pay. so are the troops paid enough? absolutely not. but the white house didn't cut any combat pay packages.
edit: one other note. where do the white junior enlisted live? they are paid the exact same amount as the soldiers belonging to minority groups.