Actually, according to the article, it appears Lyndon Johnson is the ONLY one who attended funerals, by attending two of them. All other Presidents attended MEMORIAL services, if anything at all, which are different from a funeral.

That may be, but buy not giving the
soldiers the armor or support they
needed in the beginning stages of
the war, the Walter Reed scandal
and others, he has shown callous
disregard for the the soldiers
and their families.

http://www.alternet.org/story/17079/

A quote from this article:

"From the cuts in the VA budget, reductions in various pays for soldiers deployed . . . to the most recent things like those we've seen at Fort Stewart, where soldiers who are wounded are not being treated well, the Administration has shown a blatant disregard for the needs of the soldiers."

Back on topic...Huckabee isn't really a serious candidate, and I like Colbert as a comedian...as a politician, not so much. He needs to stick to what he's better at, which is comedy. Jon Stewart would be much better as a politician, because not everything he utters is laced with satire. He actually can be serious.

It is not may be, it is fact, and I used your own source to show it to be true, the source you used in confidence.

Pinning everything of the military directly upon Bush is a huge stretch as well, as for anyone who knows the dealings of Washington know the buck of all failures lay on the hands of sooo many. But, yes, they do essentially come back to look badly on Bush as well and he should make good for it.

You are using a heavily biased source as well. Using a .org is a big no no when it comes to debate for the credibility and purpose of article comes under heavy question.

For one, pay and benefit has been on the rise under Bush. The military services met all recruitment goals in Dec 2007 and time and time again they have met the enlistment goals or just missed it barely, and re-enlistment is incredibly high despite how badly the press wishes to portray Iraq, Afghanistan, Bush's care for the troops and so on.

In June 2001, Rumsfeld sought to increase military budget by $33 Billion, dedicated to the personal well-being of soliders.

"The increases in the new budget request are mainly to improve pay and benefits, as well as maintenance and housing programs.

Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, said tonight that the budget request's "guiding principle is a commitment to quality of life issues, and that is people: pay, housing, health care." In a telephone interview, Mr. Daniels said Mr. Bush also wanted to "restore readiness."" - http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/23/politics/23MILI.html?ex=1200200400&en=4598e0350693c1b4&ei=5070

I suggest reading the full article, to show the importance the Bush administration had for the soldier's well-being.

It is the Congress that decides the final funds that go to the troops and we have seen time and time again they have played politics in it by overstepping their Constitutional powers by trying to play Commanders in Chiefs.

The military under Clinton's tenure had been broken down so greatly after the first President Bush left office and the Cold War was fully over.

During the '90s is when the VA went downhill in funding, the status of the military weak, and when military hospital upgrades and maintenance were put on the backburner. Bush inherited it all.

I can personnal attest to what starsailor said is true. Preach on brother.

Who was in control of
Congress during that time?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec02/results.html

Bush may have inherited it,
but what did he do with it?