I try to stay away from politics here, but this just annoys me to no end. Last week the Joint Chiefs of Staff last week were upset about a newspaper cartoon which criticized Rumsfeld's treatment of the army. The Joint Chiefs clearly missed the point of the cartoon, and objected to the cartoon, which featured a limbless soldier (depicting the army) in a hospital bed. The Joint Chiefs objected to the 'callous depiction of those who have volunteered to defend this nation, and as a result, have suffered traumatic and life-altering wounds."
Perhaps they have a point, or maybe they should review the political cartoon and just "get" political cartoons. The original story is here. However, while objecting to the "callous depiction" of a soldier, we have an outrageous example of the armed forces' own callous treatment of those who have volunteered to defend this nation, and as a result have suffered traumatic and life-altering wounds.
The Charleston Gazette is reporting that a soldier in Iraq, who was honorably discharged last week because of an arm injury sustained in battle, was forced to pay $700 for body armor that was destroyed when he was hit by a roadside bomb in Iraq.
What? The Joint Chiefs are outraged at the depiction of a cartoon soldier yet have no concern for a real soldier who has suffered real wounds? And we are making him pay for their body armor that a medic pulled off of him in the field as part of the effort to save his life?
The outrage did hit the internet, and liberal blogger John Aravosis at Americablog ran with the story, and raised $5,000 for this soldier in 2 hours at his web site.
Kudos to Americablog and the Charleston Gazette.
