From The SecVet: Wear Your Medals On Saturday
From the Department of Veterans Affairs website:
WASHINGTON – Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson called on veterans across the country to pin on their military medals Saturday as a show of patriotism on Veterans Day.They even have a poster publicizing the initiative (as a large PDF file; next year, they should make it a reasonably-sized .jpg to help us bloggers):
"On this holiday we honor the 24 million among us who once wore our nation’s uniforms to serve the cause of liberty," he said. "By displaying their medals, veterans can band together again by to show their pride in America and its Armed Forces on this special day."
Nicholson launched the "Veterans Pride Initiative” for Veterans Day 2006 to encourage the wearing of military medals as a gesture of patriotism. Veterans are urged to show their medals no matter what they are doing on Veterans Day, but especially when attending public events. Nicholson said he hopes to see the movement become a tradition.
Additional information about the initiative is featured at VA's Web site at http://www.va.gov/veteranspride/, where veterans can also learn how to replace mislaid medals or confirm the decorations to which they are entitled.
Nicholson said he hopes veterans will sustain the trend by wearing medals on Memorial Day and the Fourth of July, and continue to show pride in their military service on these patriotic holidays for years to come.
Major U.S. veterans organizations joined Nicholson at a recent kickoff to endorse the Veterans Pride Initiative.
Personally, I never updated my large medal rack after about 1999 (I never had occasion to wear them after the Connecticut's commissioning -- I did my retirement in summer whites) and I know I'm missing at least one miniature medal. Still, I think if I go out in public I might at least wear my dolphins on Saturday...
posted by Bubblehead at 9:58 PM
6 Comments:
Hope he cleared this with Pelosi/Murtha. They probably wouldn't approved such displays of militarism.
According to LGF Murtha said the following on NPR yesterday. NPR link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6455096
Regarding Iraq:
Winning is not a strategy, victory is not a strategy.
What the Dems will do:
We’re gonna say, here’s a plan that we have, and Speaker Pelosi has signed on to the plan I have, stability in the Middle East, stability in Iraq comes from redeployment of our troops, and that’s gonna be what we’ll work for.
On the Presidency:
Listen, this is not a dictatorship. The President can say all he wants to. The President has, has no power. The President is a, a perception of power. And he’s lost that power in this election.
11/10/2006 12:54 AM
Any plan to cut off funding would need the approval of at least 25 of the 40 or so "Blue Dog" Democrats who know that if they voted for that, they'll be tossed out on their ear in 2008. Plus, they'd have to get the Senate (including Lieberman) to go along with it. If not, and there is no budget bill, funding continues at the same level as the previous year.
Murtha can talk all he wants, but the reality is that he doesn't have near as much power as he thinks he does.
11/10/2006 1:02 AM
BH, There are likely proceedural methods that permit the dems to play games. As far as I recall, the Iraq war is funded largely by supplemental bills. If the appropriations committee fails to provide a supplemental bill, the house can't act on it. The appropriations committee is a way of bottling things up. And when the troops run out of money, that's it. The appropriations committee will be control of the dems. Murtha is #2 on the committe. This is the guy who will likely be #1. http://obey.house.gov/hor/wi07/
Remember how this tactic was used against federal judges? Their appointments were tied up in committee without allowing them to be voted on.
Even without the power, it is very hard on the men in the field to hear this kind of garbage. Was in Vietnam in '71 when my (now) senator was mouthing off about me in congress. It leaves a scar. I don't want the current team have to go through the same.
11/10/2006 2:02 AM
It still won't happen. If they try to block the supplemental, they know that the Republicans will only need to say "The Dems didn't fund our troops" and they'll lose in '08. That's the important election -- this one was good because hopefully it'll knock some sense into the GOP. It's already worked by getting rid of Rumsfeld in favor of a realist. The Republicans need to go back to being the party of competence, rather than the party of "If we pray for it hard enough, it'll all work out".
11/10/2006 7:51 AM
Agree the GOP needed to have sense knocked into it. But as you can see on drudge, this election will serve to give comfort to our enemies. The violence will only get worse, not better. We can also expect North Korea and Iran to only get worse as well.
11/10/2006 11:43 AM
In honest retrospect, it wasn't an election...it was a vote for surrender.
So get used to it -- we have surrendered. And it's all over except for the shouting.
Case in point:
McGovern to Meet With Congress on War
Nov 09 11:31 PM US/Eastern
By OSKAR GARCIA
Associated Press Writer
LINCOLN, Neb.
George McGovern, the former senator and Democratic presidential candidate, said Thursday that he will meet with more than 60 members of Congress next week to recommend a strategy to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by June.
If Democrats don't take steps to end the war in Iraq soon, they won't be in power very long, McGovern told reporters before a speech at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
"I think the Democratic leadership is wise enough to know that if they're going to follow the message that election sent, they're going to have to take steps to bring the war to a conclusion," he said.
McGovern will present his recommendations before the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a 62-member group led by Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee.
"The best way to reduce this insurgency is to get the American forces out of there," McGovern said. "That's what's driving this insurgency."
McGovern told the audience Thursday that the Iraq and Vietnam wars were equally "foolish enterprises" and that the current threat of terrorism developed because _ not before _ the United States went into Iraq.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/09/D8LA01L00.html
11/10/2006 3:10 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home