Marine bomb expert shaken but not deterred by IED
Photo taken after blast has become symbol of resolve

By Monte Morin, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Sunday, January 15, 2006
RAMADI, Iraq — For Marine Gunnery Sgt. Michael Burghardt, the business of hunting down and defusing roadside bombs is something of a deadly chess game.

Burghardt, 36, of Fountain Valley, Calif., is probably one of the best-known and most well-respected improvised bomb experts in Iraq, where his skills are in constant demand.

Last September, an embedded journalist snapped a photo of Burghardt moments after a roadside bomb exploded on him in a notoriously troubled corner of western Ramadi — a city that Burghardt describes as “the scariest place on Earth.” The image shows Burghardt with bloodied legs and shredded uniform, flipping the bird to an unseen insurgent who triggered the bomb.

The photo has circulated widely among military personnel in Iraq, who view it as a powerful symbol of resolve and fighting spirit.

“It’s one hell of a picture,” said Col. John L. Gronski, commander of U.S. troops in and around Ramadi.

The 2-28 Brigade Combat Team commander keeps an enlarged, autographed copy on his office wall.

Whether Burghardt is using a Mars rover-type robot or a knife blade to probe for bombs, or searching for them in a heavily armored Buffalo mine-clearing vehicle, his goal is to outmaneuver the fertile yet deadly imagination of the unseen bomb-maker and, he hopes, save the lives of fellow soldiers and Marines.

Now, with roughly two months remaining in his third Iraq tour, Burghardt shakes his head in wonder at the variety and evolution of the roadside bombs he has encountered and the relentlessness with which they’re planted.

Washing machine timers, cordless telephone docking stations, battery acid, shaped charges and artillery rounds seemingly scrounged from all corners of the globe are the insurgents’ currently preferred tools. Yet Burghardt said it’s only a matter of time before they move on to newer and deadlier devices.

“It’s a big game of chess,” Burghardt said. “They’re thinking their steps through on how to beat us, and we’re doing the same thing.”

In the hierarchy of roadside bombers, Burghardt said insurgents are divided into three groups: those who plant bombs; those who design them; and those who finance the process.

The lowest rungs, those who plant the improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, are most likely doing it for financial reasons as opposed to any ideology, he said.

“It’s almost like a drug habit,” Burghardt said. “There are the guys on the top who have the money and do the planning, and then there are the crack addicts down below. They make their living planting IED after IED until somebody puts a bullet in them.”

While roadside bombs remain the No. 1 killer of U.S. troops in Iraq, aggressive efforts at finding improvised explosive devices in and around Ramadi have reduced the number of attacks here from a September high of 45 a week to fewer than 15 currently, the U.S. military reports.

Burghardt earned the Bronze Star for disabling 64 roadside bombs and destroying more than 1,500 pieces of ordnance during his second Iraq tour.

But he and his fellow explosive ordnance disposal technicians do not always beat the bomb-makers and planters.

Already, five EOD technicians Burghardt has worked with have been killed, the most recent death occurring three weeks ago when the technician sunk his knife into a dirt berm and activated the pressure switch on a buried bomb.

“Pink mist,” Burghardt said gravely, using the term familiar to Marines to describe the aftermath of a person being blown up.

The day Burghardt found himself checkmated by a roadside bomber was Sept. 19. He was in Ramadi’s wild Tammim neighborhood as part of a team of bomb technicians responding to the scene of a chaotic ambush in which four U.S. personnel were killed.

Burghardt, who was looking to clear an evacuation route for the vehicles, hopped into what he thought was a recent bomb crater. He said he saw an interesting piece of shrapnel in the 4½-foot- deep hole and wanted to investigate. As he took a closer look, the shattered gravel beneath his foot suddenly shifted, revealing a package wrapped in orange plastic and a cordless telephone base station.

Realizing that he had just stumbled onto a primed explosive, Burghardt stuck his knife in the dirt and dredged up a red detonating cord that led to a pair of 122 mm artillery shells. He cut the cord with scissors and told the rest of his team to stay back.

“I thought I had done good,” Burghardt said.

But what he didn’t realize was that a second detonating cord ran from the base station to a third artillery shell buried behind him. The triggerman, figuring perhaps that he wouldn’t lure anyone else into the trap that day, placed a telephone call to the base station.

“That’s when I heard the distinct crack of that artillery shell,” Burghardt said.

The explosion sent Burghardt 10 feet into the air and dropped him in a heap on the road as his team watched in horror.

“All I remember is opening my eyes and hearing a ringing in my ears,” he said. “They all thought I was dead, but when I started to move I could hear them yell, ‘He’s alive!’”

Burghardt could not feel his legs. Trying not to look below his waist — afraid of what he might see — he was struck by an image of his father. The retired Marine spent three tours in Vietnam, earning three Bronze Stars and three Purple Hearts by the time he was shot by a sniper and paralyzed from the waist down.

“I didn’t want my dad to see me in a wheelchair next to him,” Burghardt said.

But relief came quickly. Burghardt was able to wiggle his toes.

Medics cut away his bloody pants to reveal that the backs of his legs had been studded with shrapnel and bruised from the top of his boots to his waist. As they prepared to place him in a stretcher, Burghardt shouted, “No.” He didn’t want his teammates or the insurgents to see him carried from the scene. He was going to walk.

As he was helped to his feet, Burghardt said, he felt a wave of anger and adrenaline flow through his system. He had just extended his Iraq tour that morning and he was livid that he had been bested by the bomber.

“I was really pissed off that they got me, that after all this time, they got me,” Burghardt said. “I figured the triggerman was still watching, so I flipped him off. I yelled, ‘[Expletive] you! I’ll be out here next week!’”

It was at this moment that photographer Jeff Bundy of the Omaha (Neb.) World-Herald snapped the photo that would be seen on office walls, refrigerators, screensavers, Web sites and newspapers throughout Iraq and the U.S.

Since then, Burghardt has had plenty of other experiences with exploding roadside bombs, but they’ve been from the relative safety of a heavily armored mine- clearing vehicle called a Buffalo.

The vehicle, which deactivates explosives using a long, hydraulic arm, is also outfitted with large ballistic glass windows that give occupants an up-close view of the explosives. Burghardt rides along with other technicians to give advice to the arm operator on how to deal with the explosives.

He describes the experience of riding in a Buffalo and getting close to bombs as something akin to visiting an “IED petting zoo.” The excitement of watching an explosive being dismantled — or of watching it explode in a fiery blast — from the protection of a Buffalo is beyond compare, Burghardt said.

“There will be no amusement park ride back in the States that can compare with the Buffalo,” he said. “You will never get a chance to get that close to an IED and feel all of those emotions, happiness, suspense, adrenaline.”

So far, Burghardt has seen at least 20 roadside bombs explode while riding in the Buffalo. Each time the vehicle rolls up to a suspected IED, Burghardt said, the emotions are the same. It’s back to the chess game.

“You’re in suspense — what’s gonna happen?” Burghardt said. “You have control, but you don’t know what the bomb builder has in store for you. You don’t know what else he’s put out there.

“That’s where it’s a chess game. You’re out there and you’re waiting for that queen to come sliding across the board.”

There is a time for war,
there is a time for peace...
I pray it's not too late.


VVAW - Miami Beach - GOP National Convention 1972
(I've never been prouder than that week in Miami Beach...Peace)

Tell me something Winston, how many stories do you see about "Charlie Anderson" and the "Iraq Veterans against the War", let's say over a week's time?  When I google the two before mentioned quoted items I got 9,280  hits.

Now, let's change the google to "Michael Burghardt" and "Iraq".  We get 380 hits on this google.

The vast majority of the American troops in Iraq will tell you the can related to Michael Burghardt much more readily than they can to Charlie Anderson.  From my experience of talking to folks who have been to Iraq the ratio would be at best less than 1 in 10 who would related to Charlie Anderson's views over Michael Burghardt's views.

So, have you wondered why someone who is less representative of the opinions gets so much more exposure, in this case by a tremendous amount?  Could it be the old axiom of propaganda that if something is repeated incessantantly it will be perceived as more true than something you hear only occassionaly?

I think every time someone mentions Charlie Anderson or somebody like him someone needs to point out what they are seeing is propaganda which does not represent the people Charlie Anderson purports to represent.

In order for communications to be propaganda, you must premise an argument based upon something approaching a lie.  Most bold-faced lies are obvious and therefore make for poor propaganda, but it's the ones with just an element of truth in them that become the subject of propaganda.  We know that Saddam had no WMD's, but there was an element of truth in its supposition: he'd had and used them in the past.  From that argument- clearly based upon something approaching a lie- a wellspring of propaganda would flow.  The truth is, there were no WMD's.  The propaganda is that intel was bad. 

But Marine, that is not what my post was about, nor is it the purpose of this thread.  Your argument is that the 9,280 Anderson/IVAW hits are based upon propaganda, while the 380 Burghardt hits are somehow based upon an assumed truth: that most of our armed forces in Iraq think it is right to be there.  I would argue that the 9,280 hits at IVAW signifies a matrix of greater, more forthright truths: people do not believe what they are hearing from this Administration; people believe we should not be there- that we should never have gone there; the war is not going well in spite of some substantial and significant successes.  While there may be some intentional and unintentional misstatements from IVAW, the purpose of the site is to address an immense matrix of known falsehoods told by the President and his key Cabinet members.  Truth repeated a thousand times is always the truth.

This does nothing to diminish or take away from the 380 hits on the Burghardt site.  It is not a condemnation of Anderson or the IVAW that most in-theater forces see Burghardt as representative of their beliefs.  One would expect as much; it is in their best interest to believe in their commander-in-chief and, until quite recently, it was the only position given a voice in the Iraq theater. 

The best example is that, until January, Armed Forces Radio refused to allow any liberal or progressive voices be heard, period.  It was only after Ed Shultz and nearly a million peititoners from AAR wrote to DoD, their senators, and their congressmen, that a liberal voice became part of the broadcast agenda.  Until that time, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh were the only political positions broadcast on AFR.  That, my friend, is propaganda: a captive audience, only one radio station with only one story, and all e-mails filtered by the DoD.  I'm not implying that our servicemen and women have been brainwashed, but they most certainly have not heard both sides of the story. 

It's not about either of them or about how they perceive the war.  The propaganda is not coming from them, it is coming from Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rove; I don't think this President is savvy or intelligent enough to be this duplicitous.

They neither want nor expect for their neighbors from back home telling them they are bad people for fighting at the orders of an evil regime.

Winston and Marine,

Given that I often avoid the military threads, due to their obstreperous nature, let me say that I think that this is the most civil of them that I've seen.

MARINE! NO ONE HAS SAID THAT!
If you listen to AAR, read Nation or New Republic, or just read the posts on this forum, I would be willing to wager that of the hundreds of thousands of hours broadcast and posts posted, you will not find more than a handful- if that- critical of our armed forces.  Well, with the exception of the folks who brought us Abu Grahib.  Let's qualify the term: serving honorably. 

Our soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen are not bad people.  They are, as you and I have discussed endlessly over the last many months, honest, giving, caring men and women who have chosen a noble profession and are doing their job who have done their job.  That the men who misused them, sent them into harms way, are evil is no reflection upon our men and women in uniform. 

If you listen to Ed Shultz on AAR, you will hear a compassionate man who truly respects and loves our military.  He also likes to hunt and fish- and he's a football freak!  And he's the only liberal voice they will hear.

Ask yourself the question, Marine.   If Rumsfeld is so sure he has done a good job, what is he so afraid of?

But when the antiwar movement uses a Veteran to deliver their message the Veteran's comments are seized upon and reiterated as to make it sound as if every Veteran is against the war.

I don't think you would find a soul serving in the Military who if given the choice between a nice safe garrison duty or having the necessity of going off to fight a war would want to go off to fight a war.  But when their Commander says it's necessary to go fight the vast majority will go fight and do their best to do a good job.  They will also not start second guessing the necessity or why the decision was made to go fight. 

A whole lot that has been set force on why it was necessary to go fight in Iraq has been purported to be a lie.  You know, "No WMDs, Bush lied".  Well, I'm here to tell you when I hear rhetoric like that I almost immediately discount it and the people who say it as pure political tripe. 

I don't know how many times I posted on this forum that I saw classified documents assessing what we believed to be Iraqi capabilities and aspirations.  They ended up being wrong but by in no form or fashion does that mean somebody lied.

I hear people saying evidence to the contrary was ignored that Saddam had WMDs.  I'd like to you to exercise a little logic with the following example.  Take 100 people with equal credibility; if 99 of them tell you that your neighbor has a machine gun then one person comes to you and says your neighbor is only trying to fool you that he has a machine gun who are you going to believe?  Now if your neighbor turns out not to have a machine gun does that make you a liar if you believed he did?

GySgt Michael Burghardt is probably pretty representative of an American Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine doing his job in Iraq.  Doing a professional job in a place he probabaly doesn't want to be.  But his story, his service, and his sacrifices are largely ignored or drowned out by folks like Charlie Anderson.  Charlie Anderson ain't going to get people like Michael Burghardt out of Iraq tomorrow, next week, or even next year.  But telling Michael Burghardt's story let's people just like Michael Burghardt know what they are doing is not for naught. 

Tell me what you think is more important, telling stories which causes doubt to a trooper in harms way or telling him you appreciate the fine job he is doing?

But when the antiwar movement uses a Veteran to deliver their message the Veteran's comments are seized upon and reiterated as to make it sound as if every Veteran is against the war.

Americans have a vast history of protesting wars, going all the way back to the beginning, we have always protested, in every war including the War for Independence.

I don't think you would find a soul serving in the Military who if given the choice between a nice safe garrison duty or having the necessity of going off to fight a war would want to go off to fight a war.  But when their Commander says it's necessary to go fight the vast majority will go fight and do their best to do a good job.  They will also not start second guessing the necessity or why the decision was made to go fight. 

A whole lot that has been set force on why it was necessary to go fight in Iraq has been purported to be a lie.  You know, "No WMDs, Bush lied".  Well, I'm here to tell you when I hear rhetoric like that I almost immediately discount it and the people who say it as pure political tripe.

I don't know how many times I posted on this forum that I saw classified documents assessing what we believed to be Iraqi capabilities and aspirations. They ended up being wrong but by in no form or fashion does that mean somebody lied.

I hear people saying ... liar if you believed he did?

GySgt Michael Burghardt is probably pretty representative of an American Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine doing his job in Iraq.

Doing a professional job in a place he probabaly doesn't want to be.  But his story, his service, and his sacrifices are largely ignored or drowned out by folks like Charlie Anderson.  Charlie Anderson ain't going to get people like Michael Burghardt out of Iraq tomorrow, next week, or even next year.  But telling Michael Burghardt's story let's people just like Michael Burghardt know what they are doing is not for naught.

Tell me what you think is more important, telling stories which causes doubt to a trooper in harms way or telling him you appreciate the fine job he is doing?

No one in this nation believes that every veteran is against the war; however nearly 60% of the general population is.

Methinks you may well be missin' a really important point. IMHO you've got to seperate the war from the post invasion occupation, eh? With the perception now bein' much different than 'twas before the invasion methinks there're more military folks now questionin' whether or not the war was really necessary. Just the same, based on many things includin' personal communications with friends, family and aquaintances that are over there now or just recently returned, probably close to 90% of our military folks are viewin' what they're doin' now favorably. Even some of those who've come back seriously wounded, includin' amputees, wanna go back to complete what they see as a necessary mission to let the Iraqi people form an effective government and get back on their feet, able to function on their own.

Military folks in theater have voiced dismay at what seems to be negative reportin', includin' what they see as cheap shots bein' taken at 'em by some, includin' politicians over here, eh? They're upset that most of the good and positive things they've done and are doin' they don't see bein' reported much 'tall. That seems to leave 'em with the perception that many here are as against the warrior as they were against the war.

Methinks the Master Guns (Marine) is correct when he says those vets who've returned and voice doubt are bein' touted and heard much more than those with the opposin' views. 'Twould seem that's the way of the world when a PR war's bein' fought, and our press just seems to be enablin' this.

To me folks here're tryin' to oversimplify a really complicated situation. At times methinks they're tryin' to make square pegs fit in round holes and the result is confusin', to say the least.

I'd have voted for Bush in '04

Tell me something Winston, how many stories do you see about "Charlie Anderson" and the "Iraq Veterans against the War", let's say over a week's time?  When I google the two before mentioned quoted items I got 9,280  hits.

The vast majority of the American troops in Iraq will tell you the can related to Michael Burghardt much more readily than they can to Charlie Anderson.  From my experience of talking to folks who have been to Iraq the ratio would be at best less than 1 in 10 who would related to Charlie Anderson's views over Michael Burghardt's views.

So, have you wondered why someone who is less representative of the opinions gets so much more exposure, in this case by a tremendous amount?  Could it be the old axiom of propaganda that if something is repeated incessantantly it will be perceived as more true than something you hear only occassionaly?

I think every time someone mentions Charlie Anderson or somebody like him someone needs to point out what they are seeing is propaganda which does not represent the people Charlie Anderson purports to represent.

I may be because we are in a different and more cynical age Winston.  Perhaps from prior experiences the command structure does not want their troops subjected to the abuse they suffered at the hands of a prior antiwar movement.

During WW2 the armed forces did not block out Lord HawHaw or Tokyo Rose.  They have essentally the same objective as the current antiwar movement; to demoralize our military and convince them not to fight.  The difference; Lord HawHaw and Tokyo Rose represented the enemy, the troops expected the enemy to propagandize to demoralize them, what the troops expect from their homefront is support in what they have been ordered to do.  They neither want nor expect for their neighbors from back home telling them they are bad people for fighting at the orders of an evil regime. 

I think a good deal has been learned since our experience in Vietnam, I don't think they will allow a vocal minority to influence foreign policy after what was learned from the motives of that antiwar movement.

Actually it's probably because Anderson is different that he
evokes interest. Dog bites man, not news. Man bites dog, news.
And, I don't think Anderson purports to represent anyone but himself
and like-minded troops. But I suppose Joe Wilson and former CIA
officer Pillar could have given the response to the 2003 State of the Union
pro-war propaganda...if propaganda exposure is the goal.
Tokyo Rose and the anti-war movement wanting the same things?
Pearl Harbor started one war, cherry-picking intelligence and
propaganda linking Iraq and 9/11 started the other. TR wanted
to help win the war for the Japanese, many peaceniks want to
end a war they believe is unjustified, some are against all war.

No one I knew in the anti-war movement resulting from
Vietnam wanted to demoralize troops, and the few I know
in the current anti-war movement don't want to demoralize
troops. In talking to some I believe they want to limit their
exposure to righteous causes, reduce the number of civilians
killed, restore the USA to an international position of respect
and save one heap of treasure being spent in Iraq. I don't
know any that argue with the invasion of Afghanistan.

I wonder what you consider "the motives of that (Vietnam-era)
antiwar movement"? I'd truly like to know, having taken part.

And, now perhaps the "vocal minority" are those who still calm
that there were good reasons to invade Iraq...at least most polls
show that to be the case. Most in government, excepting G.W.
Bush and his close administration pals, don't argue the invasion
was justified...just that we are here and where do we go now?

I think troops that believe in what is happening in Iraq
should have their positions heard. I will listen to their views,
but I don't always share them, any more than you share
Anderson's viewpoint.

IMO civilians, and former troops, who oppose the war don't
demoralize troops any more than repeatedly blown mission
statements, missed predictions of action, lack of planning for
occupation, and the overall mismanagement of the war by this
administration. They still don't have a concept of a
timetable to reach stated goals. Instead we see repeated tours,
stop-loss orders, and troops having their MOS changed to prop up
force strength.

That's why I'm against the war, but could still support a draft...
to support the troops...to spread out the sacrifice
across this country.

So far the mission statement is to stay in Iraq until Iraqis control
the ground to support the government we support. That sounds
a whole lot like the Vietnam mission statement I remember.
Yes, the enemy is different and the culture is different, but
the justification for the war is similarly questionable and the
open-ended committment is similarly vague. At least in
Vietnam troop strength was supported by a draft.

What I believe demoralizes troops, in the end, is telling them
their efforts will bring about a stable, western-style democracy
in Iraq, and that not happening. I hope a few years from now
a government led by Muslim clerics who are allied with Iran,
Syria and Palestine isn't the actual outcome of our troops' sacrifice.
If that happens then the question will return...what the hell were
we doing there...and how do we make sure it doesn't happen again?
Even if that happens I'll still support our troops and probably
counsel some, telling them they answered their country's call,
and in the end they fought for the troops beside them like we did.

I also pray that a secular, relatively free and peaceful society
emerges. Then our troops can justifiably claim victory in their war.
Nothing would please me more...and sadly...surprise me more.

BTW, I enjoy reading the give-and-take...it's what sets US apart. 

The vast majority of the American troops in Iraq will tell you they can relate to Michael Burghardt much more readily than they can to Charlie Anderson.  From my experience of talking to folks who have been to Iraq the ratio would be at best less than 1 in 10 who would related to Charlie Anderson's views over Michael Burghardt's views.

How well do you think our armed forces in Iraq will feel when Ed Shultz tells them something like this- something that O'Rielly, Limbaugh, or Hannity would either lie about or not mention at all.  Do you think the men and women in theater have a right to know what their C in C really thinks of their service and dedication?

From e Pluribus Meda blog:

Unemployment Rate Among Veterans Under Age Twenty-Five: 15%
That's "more than twice the rate for the same demographic in the general population." And 1/3 of our veterans under 25 doesn't have health insurance.

Annual Medical Budget Increase Needed by the VA to Cover Rising Medical Costs: 13%.  And the chances of them getting it: 0%. The VA got a paltry 1% increase in 2005; less than 3% in 2006. "In June of last year, the VA stated that due to greatly increased costs, its 2006 medical budget fell nearly $2 billion short of its immediate needs."

And you know who finally shamed the Republican Congress into giving the VA the money it needed? THE DEMOCRATS, LED BY KERRY!

Bush thinks they are all suckers, every one of them- you know that, don't you?  He has about as much compassion for those under his command as he did for the 300,000 people swimming up-river from Hurricane Katrina.

Remember this prediction?

Former Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee Richard Perle:

I believe, and I think there's a lot of evidence to suggest, that most Iraqis will regard us as liberators, and it will not take anything like that number of troops [several hundred thousand] to maintain peace and order in Iraq.

...It may not go smoothly as we all hope it will, but I don't believe you will get civil war. There is no indication from the people we talked to who are coming out of Iraq all the time and people who are talking to Iraqis. There are hundreds, thousands of such conversations. There are differences, to be sure, among these groups, but it's not like Bosnia. It's not as if they have been destroying each other for many years. They haven't, and I don't believe they  will. -- Hannity and Colmes, February 28, 2003

And this?

Former Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz:

The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but...we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. -- Testimony to the US House Appropriations Committee, March 27, 2003

Iraq hasn't pumped $50 billion since the invasion.

I think this is much closer to the reality they are facing in Iraq, in spite of the incredible amount of good works being done by our men and women in uniform.  IVAW has a voice no less valid than Michael Burghardt, but the IVAW is moreover a voice of realilty; Bubble Boy Bush and his Bumbling Bumpkins wouldn't know reality if it flew in on a rocket, and couldn't handle it if they caught it in the first place.

Follow-up on Soldier Charged for Armor
On Wednesday, I told you about the 25-year-old Army officer who had been forced by the military to fork over $700 for the blood-soaked armor taken from his body when he was wounded in Iraq and who was told he would not be discharged unless he paid the Army for the lost equipment.

I’m happy to report that bad publicity, coupled with pressure from the two Democratic Senators from the soldier’s native West Virginia, have resulted in the Army reimbursing First Lt. William "Eddie" Rebrook for money that, by his own admission, he had to borrow from his buddies to pay for the body armor and other gear he had lost in battle

Told of the refund, Rebrook said simply: "How kind of them," but added "I still love the Army, loved being a soldier and loved my unit.”

To add a little bit more about what this Administration thinks of its men-in-arms:

Let me ask you, Marine, do you think word will get back to Iraq about Lt. Rebrook's situation? Do you think some grunt pounding the sand in Anwar Province feels real good about the fact that his parents might have to cough up some dough for equipment abandoned while the medics tried to save his life- and lost?

To me, the best part of this article is the last sentence. It really proves your point: our soldiers and marines are a dedicated group who believe in each other to the death. It is really disheartening that their C in C does not have the same honor and dignity as those he commands. But how could he? He's a coward of the worst kind- afraid to go himself, but eager to send others. What a bastard!

Seems the last I heard his C.O. was cutting through the red tape on the lost armor.  It's not the first time somebody got screwed for not dotting an i or crossing a t.

Sometime's it works the other way too, I remember once checking out of one duty station I took my footlocker with all my gear inside it down to supply to get my chit signed, the Sergeant on duty checked off everything, signed it, and I returned back to the barracks to clean my personal stuff out of my wall locker only to discover I still had all my 782 gear, gas mask and field jacket still in my wall locker.

In another move I turn in everything and the fellow checking it off put one check between two items, I turned both items in but before the Sergeant Major would sign off on me I had to pay for a piss pot helmet.

I guess it sort of evened out because the field jacket I got to keep made a swell Christmas present to my Father in law.

I don't see how you come up with the idea it was Bush's fault, folks have been getting screwed over by supply for about as long as Armies have been in existence

Mr. President, I noticed earlier that our friend and colleague, the Chairman of the Finance Committee, referred to today's proceedings as akin to the movie “Groundhog Day.” He stated that this is the third time the Senate has debated this bill in one form or another. I appreciated his discussion. I certainly can understand his frustration. He has worked hard on this legislation and would like to see it move on to conference. In fact, I think his reference to that movie is an apt one. The movie “Groundhog Day” reminds us that sometimes in life we get another chance to get it right. That’s why we’re here today – to hopefully get it right when it comes to paying for urgent priorities like the health and safety of our troops and veterans.

Mr. President, our nation should have few higher priorities than taking care of our military veterans who have served in harm’s way to defend our freedom.

When this bill last came to the floor two weeks ago, I offered an amendment that would have provided crucial health funds—in a fiscally responsible manner—to our wounded troops returning home. Tax legislation passed in 2003 currently calls for spending $43 billion over the next five years on capital gains and dividends tax breaks for individuals making more than $1 million a year. Instead of spending this money on the wealthiest 0.2 percent of the population, my amendment would have used these resources to meet our veterans’ health needs—estimated by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz to be $18.9 billion over the next five years—establish a $1 billion trust fund for health facilities treating wounded and disabled veterans returning home, and reduce the deficit by approximately $23 billion.

Regrettably, this body did not approve my amendment. We did, however, unanimously approve a substitute offered by my colleague from Iowa that still provides these needed funds—just without paying for them, as I and many other of our colleagues would have preferred.

The motion I offer today offers my colleagues a chance to say, “Yes, we support the Grassley amendment—and we believe the health needs of our troops and veterans must be met in a responsible manner.”

The House of Representatives has proposed not only keeping in place the scheduled dividends and capital gains tax breaks enacted in 2003, but adding two more years of them. My motion makes no statement about these tax breaks for 99.8 percent of Americans. It deals with just a small—but costly—subset of the capital gains and dividends tax breaks the House bill has proposed extending.

My motion would put this body on record as saying the funds for veterans that we passed should not be sacrificed to pay for additional capital gains and dividends tax breaks for individuals making more than $1 million.

Under the tax breaks of 2001 and 2003 alone, individuals in this narrow segment of the population have received more than $125 billion in benefits so far. Meanwhile, our soldiers and veterans are being told to go without essential items—like body armor and the health care that they need and deserve.

The motion does not ask for any of that $125 billion back, Mr. President. It simply acknowledges the reality that in a time of record budget deficits, we need to make some choices. Do we provide more tax breaks to a small group that has already received so much since this Administration took office, as the House of Representatives proposes to do? Or do we meet the needs of a nation at war in properly taking care of our wounded and disabled veterans, as the funding approved by this body would do?

Over 2,200 men and women in uniform have been killed in Iraq and over 16,000 have been severely wounded. But instead of addressing their needs fully and adequately, this Administration has under-funded veterans’ medical care. In fact, last year, the Administration devised an FY 2006 VA budget that could only handle 23,000 veterans returning from Iraq. This number was drastically too low, and the VA had to scramble to meet the needs of over 103,000 Iraq veterans on top of its already existing patient-load.

Congress was forced to intervene in the middle of the year, and in June approved an emergency spending bill that provided an additional $1.3 billion to address shortfalls in the VA health budget. Now, I must stress that I have the greatest respect and admiration for former VA Secretary Anthony Principi and the current occupant of that post, James Nicholson. They have led their Department with great distinction and continue to do the best they can. But they have had a difficult task, since the current occupants of the White House have repeatedly provided them with very, very limited resources.

We cannot and should not address veterans’ needs on the cheap again. According to some experts, this year, the VA health system is likely to face another shortfall of $2.6 billion due to the Administration’s drastically low veterans’ budget. And for all of the President’s rhetoric about supporting our troops, I remain concerned that his Administration’s actions are not matching its deeds.

On the whole, I commend the President for finally proposing an increase of $1.9 billion in the VA budget for fiscal year 2007. But as in previous years, the Administration’s priorities are wholly misplaced. In spite of the proposed increase, the President’s 2007 request cuts the VA hospital construction budget by $576 million. To make matters worse, the Administration’s proposed budget would impose a doubling of veterans’ prescription drug co-pays and assess a new $250 enrollment fee for thousands of veterans.

As I have mentioned on this floor before, the situation has gotten so dire that now our military personnel and veterans are having to rely on the charity of private citizens to build critical health facilities to meet their needs. According to the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, our military personnel are suffering inordinate numbers of injuries resulting in brain damage, spinal injuries, and amputations. About 20 percent of those injured have suffered major head or spinal injuries and an additional 6 percent are amputees. And without financial support, our veterans are actually having to depend on the charity of private citizens to finance the construction of major rehabilitation centers for the most seriously wounded.

The Bush Administration is simply not meeting its obligations to those wounded in Iraq -- a war that has returned home amputees at twice the rate of Vietnam. And so, instead, the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund is raising $37 million to build the Intrepid Center at Fort Sam Houston next year. It will be manned and operated by VA and Army personnel, but is currently not expected to receive a dime from the U.S. Treasury for its construction, because the White House would rather dole out scarce resources to the wealthiest Americans who have already received so much.

I remind my colleagues that the funding approved by this body—which, without the support of this motion, I fear will be wiped out in conference—will allow critical facilities like this one to receive the investments they deserve from our nation’s government.

Moreover, it will create a trust fund to allow private and state facilities that provide medical treatment to veterans to receive federal funds as they meet our veterans’ critical health care needs— in addition to facilities such as the Intrepid Center, it will allow vital hospitals and veterans residences such as the Connecticut State Veterans home at Rocky Hill the opportunity to tap into vital federal resources as they strain to meet the increasing demands of caring for our veterans—young as well as old.

Mr. President, I cannot stress the importance of these programs enough— our veterans need the critical care provided at our state veterans’ nursing homes, and regrettably, this Administration is choosing to put scarce resources into more high-income tax breaks rather than address our veterans’ essential living needs.

As a matter of fact, last year, the President actually proposed cutting off states’ access to federal funds to build and maintain state veterans’ homes. It took an act of this Congress to reverse the President’s budget proposal.

And this year, although the Department has a list of 129 state veterans projects approved for receiving federal grants for new construction and improvements, 2006 allocations only provided enough for 13 of these 129 state projects throughout the country. The proposed 2007 budget would “flatline” this program at $85 million, providing funding for another 10-13 projects, and still leaving over a hundred state veterans’ facilities looking for additional resources.

The funding approved by this body— and supported by my motion— would address these shortfalls, allowing state homes to tap into a trust fund to provide more funding for construction that has already been approved by the VA.

In light of these facts, I urge my colleagues to consider the consequences of not acting today. This vote is about priorities. Do we meet the health needs of our veterans and our troops? Or do we continue to provide more tax breaks for those who neither need nor seek such largesse?

Supporting the Senate position on this issue is the least we can do to show our full backing of America’s men and women in uniform. We owe these heroes at least that much. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion to instruct conferees. Stand up for America’s heroes as they continue to defend our freedoms at home and abroad.

By the way, you can find literally hundreds of these types of stories: DoD not releasing bodies

Not releasin' bodies? Methinks I ain't seen one 'bout that yet, and I'm pretty sure it'd get my attention, eh?

Can you please point me in the general direction of any stories regardin' bodies not bein' released to the next of kin 'cause of payment problems? I looked, but couldn't find any.

my bad, dangler- I was thinking of the guy whose body was shipped out on a cargo plane to San Diego because the DoD didn't want to pay the cost of giving him military honors on a military flight from Dover to Miramar.

Just something else to add