‘Support troops’? Bush sure doesn’t

Re “Injured vet faces battle of red tape,” March 21

When a 22-year-old California National Guard soldier is shot and now walks with a cane, suffers severe back problems and has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, I would say that constitutes not just one but several disabilities. The fact that there is even a question about his physical state and whether he will be accepted or rejected for a military disability pension is ridiculous.

Granted, the Department of Veterans Affairs might be overwhelmed with cases such as this, but perhaps that means that something should be done to change or improve the system for these brave soldiers who have fought for our freedom.

MELISSA POLLACK

Valencia

*

The hypocrisy of those who support President Bush’s war has few limits. Any criticism is met with cries of you must “support the troops.” Apparently that support extends only until servicemen and women are injured or killed. Then support seems to be limited, or even stops when it costs too much.

Rather than our society bearing the monetary costs of injured troops, the Bush administration tries to minimize the costs to the public treasury. In so doing, the costs of dealing with an injury are pushed onto those who are injured. President Bush, take care of these people. Tax us -- tax me if necessary -- for the money to do so, but take care of these people.

WILLIAM LOEHR

Ojai

*

I would like to send this article to all U.S. senators and representatives and ask how can they back Bush when they are not taking care of our servicemen when they return. I don’t know how they can live with this shame. We need some major change. How can Bush want to send more troops to Iraq and not take care of the wounded?

MERLE PETTIT

La Verne