Has the Pentagon Denied Iraq War Veterans Disability Compensation?

Zucchino explained:
"In a little noticed regulation change in March, the military's definition of combat-related disabilities was narrowed, costing some injured veterans thousands of dollars in lost benefits and triggering outrage from veteran-advocacy groups.
"Pentagon officials said the change was consistent with Congress' intent when it passed a 'wounded warrior' law in January. Narrowing the combat-related definition was necessary to preserve the 'special distinction for those who incur disabilities while participating in combat, in contrast for those injured otherwise,' William Carr, deputy under-secretary of defense, wrote in a letter to 1.3 million disabled American veterans."
Zucchino cited some cases of Iraq War vets that makes this absurdly narrow definition of a disability for being in Iraq's war-torn country ridiculous.
For example, Marine Corporal James Dixon was wounded in Iraq twice; once by a roadside bomb, and wounded a second time by a land mine.
Dixon suffered a brain concussion, hearing loss and a dislocated hip.
Army Sergeant Lori Meshell suffered a shattered hip, and also crushed her back and knees, while she was diving for cover during an Iraq mortar attack. She has had to have a hip replacement, knee-reconstruction, and as if that isn't enough, three more surgeries.
David Zucchino succinctly explains the Pentagon's response to the injuries vets Dixon and Meshell received from the Pentagon:
"In each case the Pentagon ruled their disabilities were not combat related."
Zucchino goes on to explain how wounded vet Army Sergeant Lori Mershell is coping with the Pentagon's response to her injuries and disabilities sustained in Iraq.
"Mershell, who is appealing her status, estimated she is losing at least $1,200 a month in benefits. Despite being injured in a combat zone, during an enemy attack, she said her wounds would be considered combat related only if she had been struck by shrapnel."
Concerning Iraq vet James Dixon, David Zucchino explained Dixon's response to the Pentagon's new, narrow ruling defining disability.
"James Dixon said he was denied at least $16,000 in benefits before he fought the Pentagon and won a reversal of his non-combat related designation.
""I was blown up twice in Iraq, and my injuries weren't combat-related?' Dixon said. 'It's the most imbecile thing I've ever seen.'"
Congress, which went along with the Pentagon in narrowing the definition of vets eligible for disability benefits, isn't cutting down on lobbyist benefits its members enjoy.
There were 2,000 lobbyists in Washington in 2000. In 2005 the number of lobbyists had jumped to 34,750.
The average member of Congress needs more than a million dollars to run campaigns for office.
Of course, the number of lobbyists chasing around the U.S. Capitol is an economic bonanza which Congress has no intention of eliminating.
As a matter of fact, many congressional members often become lobbyists themselves when they leave office.
Tragically, it has come to light, lobbyists are often tantamount to bribe-artists. So-called important business seminars are conducted at plush hotels in lavish resort settings.
This same Congress agreed to a $700 billion bank and business bailout. Obama suggests an $800 billion credit assistance measure.
Meanwhile the longest war in U.S. history rages on in Iraq, costing $10 billion a month. All this occurs while in January 2008 this Congress voted to narrowly define combat-related injuries.
As the courageous, wounded vets suffer, this Congress shows how little it appreciates congressional cutting of benefits for their injured ranks while bailing out banks with billions!
KEYWORDS: Cutting Veteran Benefits, Congress' Denial of Veteran Disability Compensation
Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!
| < Productivity Not Gimmickry Generates Great Economies | O'Reilly's Twisted Words Exposed by Donahue > |



