Vietnam vets low priority
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Saturday, Jan. 12, 2013, 8:56 p.m.
Vietnam vets low priority
The new 113th Congress is now seated. The 112th Congress failed veterans of the Vietnam war. The bills to restore the Agent Orange Equity Act did not make it out of committee. They're dead and must be re-introduced.
Although there are 435 members of the House and 100 senators, only 126 representatives and 14 senators co-sponsored the bills. What does this say about those who didn't?
Vietnam veterans are a low priority. We've become a liability to the budget. Our quality of life means little to our Congress.
Every day, another veteran falls ill to a disease attributed to the deadly herbicide Agent Orange. Every week, approximately 500 Vietnam veterans die. Our government does not care.
We Vietnam veteran advocates will again try to convince our legislators to do what is right. We'll do the legwork and meet with members of Congress.
But we need help. We ask all Americans to urge our legislators to pass laws providing equitable VA health care and compensation for sick Vietnam vets so they can have a better quality of life.
John J. Bury
Media, Delaware County
The writer is retired from the U.S. Navy.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Lebo’s coyotes
- Drought answer?
- Fix icy hazard on Rt. 66
- Conspicuous by absence
- Saved her life
- Consistently unflattering
- Wildlife & humans
- We pay to keep poor warm
- Thanks to firefighters
- Corbett’s budget claim
- Beneficial, irreplaceable