So dire are his budget "cuts," that Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell took to the airwaves last month, both barrels loaded.

Of Bush's short-sheeting of veterans, he declared: "During this time of war, it is absolutely the wrong time for our federal government to step back from any of its commitments to our veterans. To do so would be penny wise but pound foolish.

“In today’s parlance, the cost of health care for these vets may be half a billion dollars but their sacrifice for our nation, priceless,” he said.

Rendell can't fathom the disconnect between Bush's rhetoric and reality (Like, who can?). "While we, the governors, do all we can for our vets and our returning soldiers, our federal government still has the primary responsibility for meeting the needs of our veterans. And that’s why I find the president’s budget cuts for critical veteran services to be unconscionable.”

He stated that our Patriotic Fighter Pilot's budget cuts include “a $350 million reduction in veterans' home funding, which wipes out at least 5,000 veterans’ nursing home beds.”

“If the president’s proposed budget cuts are enacted, nearly 60 percent of the 1,600 veterans (in PA.) will lose their daily stipend that allows them to stay in our state’s nursing homes, literally forcing them out into the cold.”

Vet co-payments for prescription drugs were tripled two years ago, Rendell said, and “now the president is proposing to again double those increased co-pays.”

“In the midst of a war, when many new men and women will join the legion of veterans, does it really make sense for the president to increase the cost of vets’ prescriptions by 100 percent?”

One of Bush's brainstorms (pretty much a drizzle) calls for middle income veterans to pay a $250 fee if they wish to participate in the Veterans Administration health care program. “There may well be some veterans who can afford to do so," said the governor, "but can all vets come up with an extra $250 a year to pay for health care? I doubt it.”

In fact, VFW Commander-in-Chief Edward Banas has noted, “The budget seeks to drive veterans from the system by realigning funding, charging enrollment fees for access and more than doubling the prescription drug copayment.” DAV and AMVETS estimate that more than 500,000 middle- and low-income veterans will be forced out of the VA medical system, leaving many without access to affordable health care.

So, let's get this straight. This Administration can hire Halliburton to do work in Iraq for billions, give them bonuses in the millions even as Pentagon auditors are now investigating a new round of hinky bills (to the tune of $122 million), but it can't afford proper body armor and properly armored vehicles for our troops in Iraq. Now, it's going after veterans?

Snifff. Makes you proud of this Christian-led nation, don't it?

Yes, we care about our men and women in uniform. Just ask Emiliano Santiago. He's a 27-year-old Oregon National Guardsman. He finished his eight-year enlistment last June.

Four months later the Army wanted to ship him to Afghanistan and reset his military termination date to Christmas Eve, 2031.

How could the government yank his chain like that? In November 2002, the Army implemented a stop-loss policy to ensure reserve units ordered to active duty would not lose key personnel.

Understandably annoyed, Santiago decided to take it to court. His lawsuit, entitled Santiago v. Secretary of Defense Donald ("oh, my goodness, Granpaw) Rumsfeld was immediately attacked.

Army attorneys stated the stop-loss law gives Bush the ability to “suspend any provision of the law relating to promotion, retirement or separation” of any soldier who is deemed essential to national security in times of crisis.

And what this pResident is good at is: making crises.

Santiago, whose unit refuels helicopters, was flummoxed at his extra 26 years. The date was selected for “administrative convenience,” according to court papers. Most guardsmen extend their commitment from three to six years. HEY, SANTIAGO? MERRY FUTURE CHRISTMAS, DUDE!

In legal briefs, Santiago’s legal team blasted the Pentagon’s policy. “Conscription for decades or life is the work of despots. … It has no place in a free and democratic society,” the team wrote.

“If the government can break its promises to young men and women like Santiago, then the bedrock of our all-volunteer army -- trust in the government’s promises -- will crumble.”

As it is crumbling, right now.

Last week, Santiago got the bad news. Say good-bye to your life.

Twice in two days, a federal appeals court declined to halt the Oregon National Guardsman from being deployed to Afghanistan on last Friday. His lawyers told the court Santiago was the victim of a “backdoor draft.” Last Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in Seattle, declined to halt his looming departure. On Thursday, the court declined to rehear the case with 11 judges.

In court briefs, the government told the appeals court Thursday that “soldiers are essential to the national security, and their service in the face of hardship is a crucial source of the strength of our nation.”

On the plus side, if Santiago isn't killed or maimed, he can come home with the honor he deserves.

No job when he returns, though.

Bush's delusional approach to the armed forces also includes tackling former POWs of the first Gulf War, due to the lawsuit: Acree v. Republic of Iraq.

Marine Corps Lt. Col. Clifford Acree was shot down on Jan. 17, 1991, the first day of the Gulf war. He was taken prisoner and tortured for most of the 47 days of his captivity. He and some fellow POWs were video-taped. The tapes were broadcast worldwide. They were to be used as "human shields" against American attacks on Iraqi targets.

Acree and 16 other former POWs, most of them aviators, all of them subjected to savage torture at the hands of the Iraqis, filed their suit under the terms of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act, in which Congress authorized US courts to award “money damages ... against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage [or] hostage taking.” In July 2003, a federal judge awarded the former POWs nearly one billion dollars in punitive and compensatory damages. It would come from Iraqi assets frozen by the U.S. government.

By the way, most of them were tortured in a prison in Iraq called Abu Ghraib.

Acree suffered a neck injury while ejecting from his plane. Taken prisoner, he was blindfolded and handcuffed and beaten until he lost consciousness. His nose was broken, his skull was fractured and he was threatened with having his fingers cut off. He lost 30 pounds during his 47 days of captivity.

Another pilot, Air Force Col. David W. Eberly, was shot down two days later and lost 45 pounds during his captivity. He and several other U.S. service members were near starvation when they were freed. Other POWs had their eardrums ruptured and were urinated on during their stay at Abu Ghraib.

Of course, the former POWs were elated at their judicial victory. Then BushCo. stepped in. The former POWs' claims against Iraq were successfully contested by the Bush Administration, which immediately intervened in the case and argued before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that any and all such claims against the Saddam regime were voided by the US invasion of Iraq. Iraq was a swell place, now. Democracy was on the march. The judges ruled unanimously in favor of the President and against the American former POWs. The Administration then killed a congressional resolution supporting the POWs.

“U.S. courts no longer have jurisdiction to hear cases such as those filed by the Gulf War POWs,” then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said in a letter to lawmakers. “Moreover, the president has ordered the vesting of blocked Iraqi assets for use by the Iraqi people and for reconstruction.”

You want irony? Last year Donald Rumsfeld told a Senate committee that he favored monetary compensation to those Iraqis who were tortured in Abu Ghraib by the United States. Rumsfeld said it would be “the right thing to do.” However, similar compensation to American victims of Iraqi torture were deemed inappropriate because, “These resources are required for the urgent national security needs of rebuilding Iraq,” according to Scott McClellan. Because, as we all know, Halliburton needs more money.

"It seems so strange to have our own country fighting us on this," said now retired Eberly.

The case also tests a key provision of the Geneva Convention, the international law that governs the treatment of prisoners of war. The United States and other signers pledged never to “absolve” a state of “any liability” for the torture of POWs. But, since, we're basically, blowing off the Geneva Convention? Fuggedabouddit.

So, the former POWs have decided to take their case to the Supreme Court. Recently, the Administration jumped in….BIG TIME. Bush administration lawyers urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the lawsuit against Iraq brought by these U.S. pilots and soldiers who were captured and tortured, saying the pResident believes it could hurt the rebuilding effort in Iraq.

Courts must defer to the pResident’s determination that a nearly $1 billion damage award won by the former prisoners of war “would seriously undermine funding for the essential tasks of the new Iraqi government,” Paul Clement, acting U.S. solicitor general, told the justices.

The Supremes may weigh in later this month.

The POWs' lawsuit's name has been changed.

It is now known as "Acree v. Iraq AND THE UNITED STATES."

Remember, folks.

We have to support our troops.

Because the government sure doesn't.