McCain refuses to support new GI Bill

[ECW]

This bill has been before Congress for more than a year and it becomes pretty clear after a while that the Straight Talk Express has veered into the ditch. McCain's refusal to come front-and-center in support of this bill calls into question whether he means what he says about supporting our troops. This is a no-brainer. That Neocon virus he caught from George "Support The Troops In Words Not Deeds" Bush seems to be doing its job.

McCain must lead the charge

By Wesley K. Clark and Jon Soltz
April 10, 2008

Sen. John McCain served his nation with honor in Vietnam, and he is right to be proud of his service. But by hedging on whether he will support a "GI Bill for the 21st Century," he is casting doubt on his own commitment to the newest generation of American heroes.

The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act, sponsored by Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), will restore the promise of a cost-free education to those who serve in the military. The original GI Bill transformed American history, providing education for returning soldiers. The GI Bill not only recognized our nation's moral duty for the enormous sacrifices of our World War II veterans, but it helped create America's middle class and spurred decades of economic growth for our country. Economists estimate that the original bill returned anywhere between $5 and $13 for every dollar we spent on it. But the original GI Bill has become woefully outdated, to the point where the average benefit doesn't even cover half the cost of an in-state student's education at a public college.

The Post-9/11 Veterans Act, which has an estimated cost between $2.5 billion and $4 billion, is common-sense legislation. With 53 cosponsors, including nine Republicans, the three other Vietnam War veterans in the Senate and former Secretary of the Navy John Warner, the bill simply updates what the late historian Stephen Ambrose called "the best piece of legislation ever passed by the U.S. Congress." Yet, faced with unprecedented filibusters, it needs 60 cosponsors. As de facto leader of the party, McCain could signal to other Republicans to sign on to the bill and assure passage.

Instead, McCain has said he hasn't had time to read the bill and isn't sure if he could support it. It's hard to believe that neither he nor anyone on his staff has had time to read such an important bill, which has been around since before he started running for president. But, even if true, McCain must do the right thing now.

Our newest veterans are struggling. Jason Bensley, an Iraq war veteran from Southern California, receives $650 a month from the current GI Bill for his education. Bensley, who served in southern Iraq, Mosul and Diyala province, is in debt, trying to pay for college. "I wouldn't have the faintest idea why a member of Congress wouldn't want to support the GI Bill," he says. "Sen. McCain should know how hard it is for veterans to transition back into civilian life."

The White House has voiced concern on the bill, arguing that if returning troops are offered a good education, they will choose college over extending their service. This is as offensive as it is absurd.

First, it is morally reprehensible to fix the system so that civilian life is unappealing to service members, in an attempt to force them to re-up. Education assistance is not a handout, it is a sacred promise that we have made for generations in return for service.

Second, falling military recruitment numbers are just as serious as retention problems. To send the message that this nation will not help you make the most of your life will dissuade a large number of our best and brightest from choosing military service over other career options.

McCain has made it a point to remind audiences that service to one's nation is bigger than one's self. Indeed, there is nothing more noble than risking your life for your country. Every day, Americans are doing just that, as they serve longer and more frequent deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But just because our service members are selfless does not mean they deserve to be left to fend for themselves as they return home and try to make a better life. Indeed, as much as his service to America is responsible for making McCain who he is today, America's service to him played an invaluable role too. McCain should remember that and sign on to the "GI Bill for the 21st Century."

Wesley K. Clark, the former supreme commander of NATO, led alliance military forces in the Kosovo war in 1999. He is a senior fellow at the Ronald W. Burkle Center for International Relations at UCLA and author, most recently, of "A Time to Lead: For Duty, Honoto, and Country."Jon Soltz is an Iraq war veteran and chairman of VoteVets.org, an organization of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.


~link~ (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-clark10apr10,0,1791314.story)

[Wndrtch]

We call them "professionals, they should be paid as such.

I would say that we should compare GI compensation with say Law Enforcement compensation, given the two professions are similar. GI compensation should be similar to Police and Firefighter contracts.

It could be this bill exceeds the compensation for similar jobs in the marketplace, and that may be the reason for the dissent.

[Drocket]

The problem with that comparison is that military service is, except for a tiny number of people, a temporary position, whereas police or firefighters are lifetime careers. Police and firefighters don't need further education because most of them simply aren't going to be going anywhere, whereas military personnel are going to be needing help to find something to do once they hit 30 (or whatever.)

[Scribbler1]

Still, McCain's dodge that he hadn't read it is a lame excuse for not saying he's specifically for or against the bill.

[Wndrtch]

Still, McCain's dodge that he hadn't read it is a lame excuse for not saying he's specifically for or against the bill.

I'll give you that one. No acting Senator should ever say that he hasn't "read the bill". For crying out loud, that's like the only thing they have to do!

However, not reading Bills that have to be voted on, is something of a pasttime in Washington.

Who has time for reading, when you have all those bars & brothels in town!

[Scribbler1]

I'll give you that one. No acting Senator should ever say that he hasn't "read the bill". For crying out loud, that's like the only thing they have to do!

However, not reading Bills that have to be voted on, is something of a pasttime in Washington.Since they didn't read the Patriot Act before voting on it, I agree. But I would think a presidential candidate would at LEAST have that base covered. Have an assistant read thew thing and give him the synopsis, at least.Who has time for reading, when you have all those bars & brothels in town!Doesn't sound like McCain at all.

[PostmodernProphet]

interestingly, this bill is currently locked in committee.....the committee in control of it is the Veteran's Affairs Committee.....McCain is not a member of that committee......but Obama is.......who was it you were complaining about, ECW?......

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/committee.xpd?id=SSVA

[Easy90]

interestingly, this bill is currently locked in committee.....the committee in control of it is the Veteran's Affairs Committee.....McCain is not a member of that committee......but Obama is.......who was it you were complaining about, ECW?......

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/committee.xpd?id=SSVA

Ouch! LOL!

[BoogyMan]

I would like to see some substantiation for the following assertion before I make up my mind as to how I will respond to this article.

The White House has voiced concern on the bill, arguing that if returning troops are offered a good education, they will choose college over extending their service.

Can anyone substantiate this assertion?

[Scribbler1]

Ouch! LOL!So maybe then McCain should have said the bill wasn't available TO be read instead of lying about it. Obviously he didn't have a clue as to what the questioner was talking about and just gave a pat answer to deflect the question.

[Go Fish]

We call them "professionals, they should be paid as such.

I would say that we should compare GI compensation with say Law Enforcement compensation, given the two professions are similar. GI compensation should be similar to Police and Firefighter contracts.

It could be this bill exceeds the compensation for similar jobs in the marketplace, and that may be the reason for the dissent.

It could be.......that this bill, like every one the leftists float connected to the military, is so packed with bullshit that it will never pass. Consider the Supplemental Funding POS that President Bush vetoed. I haven't read this one yet. Has anyone here?

[ECW]

interestingly, this bill is currently locked in committee.....the committee in control of it is the Veteran's Affairs Committee.....McCain is not a member of that committee......but Obama is.......who was it you were complaining about, ECW?......

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/committee.xpd?id=SSVA

The bill is locked in committee because the GOP leadership has indicated that it would filibuster the bill if it came out to the floor of the Senate which would kill it for this session. Some Senators actually want this bill to pass and provide a level of opportunity for our troops and are not willing to let the GOP kill it for the sake of a few debating points on the campaign trail.

Senator McCain says he supports the troops and, if he is telling the truth, his support is vital to getting it passed. He is the standard bearer in the Senate and he is sitting on his hands. Without his backing, the rest of the GOP sheeple (except Chuck Hagel) won't do anything. What committee it is in and who is on the committee has nothing to do with how the bill progresses. Red herring.

The bill is a bi-partisan attempt to give to this generation what their fathers and grandfathers got after WW2 and Korea: a free education in grateful thanks for their service and sacrifice. I guess that's not enough for John McCain.

It could be.......that this bill, like every one the leftists float connected to the military, is so packed with bullshit that it will never pass.

Only a Neocon would say state that a bill that provides a free education to those who have honorably served our country is "packed with bullshit." Very few of them actually did serve their country. I would tell you to back the claim up that it's "packed with bullshit" but you haven't done that in any other thread you've posted in so I guess you won't here either. All we get is a lot of :sick: from you.

[Kyi Yo]

Well, in his defense, we really can't expect him to mount a 100 year war in the middle east AND increase benefits to soldiers. That was facetious, just in case anyone had any doubts.

Very few Senators or Congressmen read bills. They have staffers who read and synthesize most of the bills for them. It's very lame that he uses "I forgot to read my homework" as an excuse since he uses his service to country as one of his campaign strategies.

10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't):

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.1

2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."2

3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.3

4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."4

5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.5

6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.6

7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."7

8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.8

9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."9

10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.10


Sources:
1. "The Complicated History of John McCain and MLK Day," ABC News, April 3, 2008
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/the-complicated.html

"McCain Facts," ColorOfChange.org, April 4, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/mccain_facts/

2. "McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq," Bloomberg News, March 12, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aF28rSCtk0ZM&refer=us

"Buchanan: John McCain 'Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi,'" ThinkProgress, February 6, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/buchanan-gandhi-mccain/

3. "McCain Sides With Bush On Torture Again, Supports Veto Of Anti-Waterboarding Bill," ThinkProgress, February 20, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/

4. "McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned," MSNBC, February 18, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/

5. "2007 Children's Defense Fund Action Council® Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard," February 2008
http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_learn_scorecard2007

"McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion," CNN, October 3, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/mccain.interview/

6. "Beer Executive Could Be Next First Lady," Associated Press, April 3, 2008
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-S1sWHm0tchtdMP5LcLywg5ZtMgD8VQ86M80

"McCain Says Bank Bailout Should End `Systemic Risk,'" Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHMiDVYaXZFM&refer=home

7. "Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?," Associated Press, February 16, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4301022

"Famed McCain temper is tamed," Boston Globe, January 27, 2008
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_mccain_temper_is_tamed/

8. "Black Claims McCain's Campaign Is Above Lobbyist Influence: 'I Don't Know What The Criticism Is,'" ThinkProgress, April 2, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-black-lobbyist/

"McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man," ABC News, January 29, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4210251

9. "McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam," Mother Jones Magazine, March 12, 2008
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html

"Will McCain Specifically 'Repudiate' Hagee's Anti-Gay Comments?," ThinkProgress, March 12, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/mccain-hagee-anti-gay/

"McCain 'Very Honored' By Support Of Pastor Preaching 'End-Time Confrontation With Iran,'" ThinkProgress, February 28, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/hagee-mccain-endorsement/

10. "John McCain Gets a Zero Rating for His Environmental Record," Sierra Club, February 28, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/environment/77913/

[PostmodernProphet]

The bill is locked in committee because the GOP leadership has indicated that it would filibuster the bill if it came out to the floor of the Senate which would kill it for this session.

since this bit of info seems to be missing from the OP (and anything I got from Google) I assume you have a another valid source backing up the claim?......

The real McCain

thanks Kyi....ten good reasons to vote for him.....

[BoogyMan]

I have asked for some substantiation of the following OP assertion and as of yet have found nothing and been presented with nothing.

The White House has voiced concern on the bill, arguing that if returning troops are offered a good education, they will choose college over extending their service.

I also would like to see the request for substantiation that PMP has made above see some discussion.

[Drocket]

The White House's statement on the bill is:

This would remove critical incentive programs for recruiting and retention from the control of the Secretary of Defense and improperly place them with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Link (warning: PDF file) (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-1/hr1585sap-h.pdf)


And before you even attempt to jump on the red herring of 'improperly place them with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs', think about it: who should be in charge of veteran benefits, the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Veterans Affairs? The White House's stated objection is nonsensical. This is what the Secretary of Veterans Affairs' job *IS*. The key word there is "retention".

The DoD's statement on the matter skips the tapdancing bullshit and gets right to the heart of the matter:


No one disputes Webb's claim that his enhanced GI Bill would boost recruiting sharply. But a Defense official said it also would encourage thousands of young service members, trained at great expense, to separate after completing their initial service obligation to attend college fulltime.

----

"Why would anybody stay for another deployment when they can go out on a four-year free ride, with guaranteed rent and utilities at the E-5 standard, which by long-standing DoD policy is a two-bedroom townhouse?"

Given current conflicts, this official continued, even volunteers who like service life might decide "to sit out for a year or two, in a large rented townhouse, and come back when things are more hospitable."

Link (http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,163440,00.html)

[Go Fish]

The bill is locked in committee because the GOP leadership has indicated that it would filibuster the bill if it came out to the floor of the Senate which would kill it for this session. Some Senators actually want this bill to pass and provide a level of opportunity for our troops and are not willing to let the GOP kill it for the sake of a few debating points on the campaign trail.

Senator McCain says he supports the troops and, if he is telling the truth, his support is vital to getting it passed. He is the standard bearer in the Senate and he is sitting on his hands. Without his backing, the rest of the GOP sheeple (except Chuck Hagel) won't do anything. What committee it is in and who is on the committee has nothing to do with how the bill progresses. Red herring.

The bill is a bi-partisan attempt to give to this generation what their fathers and grandfathers got after WW2 and Korea: a free education in grateful thanks for their service and sacrifice. I guess that's not enough for John McCain.




Only a Neocon would say state that a bill that provides a free education to those who have honorably served our country is "packed with bullshit." Very few of them actually did serve their country. I would tell you to back the claim up that it's "packed with bullshit" but you haven't done that in any other thread you've posted in so I guess you won't here either. All we get is a lot of :sick: from you.

I take it that you have read it, then. AND that you support SCHIP. (Stick with me here. I'm finnah make you smarter than everybody you know.)

[ECW]

since this bit of info seems to be missing from the OP (and anything I got from Google) I assume you have a another valid source backing up the claim?......

I got the info from an interview that Webb did on TV but this is as close as I could come on your question...

Webb’s bill has 51 co-sponsors, including nine Republicans. Webb, a former secretary of the Navy, said he may have to get 60 co-sponsors to ensure Senate passage, but then added that many more Republicans could vote for the bill if McCain endorsed it.

The Bush administration so far has resisted Webb’s measure, and has said the new benefits may prompt active members of the military to leave for civilian life. The Pentagon is already struggling with re-enlistment, and some officials worry expanded educational benefits could whittle down the force.

~link~ (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/webb-urges-mccain-to-sign-onto-gi-bill-2008-03-19.html)

[ECW]

I take it that you have read it, then. AND that you support SCHIP. (Stick with me here. I'm finnah make you smarter than everybody you know.)

Now you can read it for yourself and report back to us what a pile of leftist shit it is to educate our military. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.22:)

[Sublimating]

The problem is that McCain needs to see some polling on this, once he can determine how it can help him get elected he come around,

[ViolaLee]

The goal of the surge was never just to reduce violence in Iraq.

George Bush and John McCain sold us the surge as a means to give the Iraqis the time they needed to achieve political accommodation. So where is that political accommodation now?
The surge hasn't succeeded in promoting political accommodation. Iraqi violence stems from a badly fractionated society stressed by tribal and sectarian rivalries and the struggle for political power, encouraged and supported by outside powers.

That's not the fault of our troops, who have performed admirably -- it's because of the flawed strategy from George Bush and John McCain. And now Bush and McCain continue to ask our soldiers to sacrifice in the pursuit of their failed strategy, while refusing to support the new GI Bill, legislation providing our returning troops with full educational benefits.

It's time for John McCain to do the right thing. Urge him to sign on now and signal to other Republican leaders that we should stand strongly behind our vets.

Sign the petition to John McCain today! (http://ga4.org/ct/612wNAE1MmGh/bill)
This week General Dave Petraeus is testifying before Congress with his latest report on Iraq. As I said last August, General Petraeus is doing his best to make the surge work. It's his duty, and I think you can see by the results that where you put American troops, they do their duty, and of course, they make a difference. Unfortunately, General Petraeus believes that the progress in Iraq is "fragile and reversible" -- and at what cost?

We can't succeed in Iraq with more troops, no matter how good they are, because we can't succeed in this war just by intimidating the opposition. The answer is and has always been politics. We have to work it at the diplomatic level, and that means we've got to stop isolating people we disagree with and start engaging those people.

Clearly, the Bush Administration still doesn't see it that way. They still think it's just about using military power -- and they don't even put a full effort into taking care of the troops they are using. That's why they're desperately fighting the new GI Bill -- because it will cost more and they believe "the new benefits may prompt active members of the military to leave for civilian life." [The Hill, 03/19/08]

This is outrageous. How long and how much must our troops suffer to support the failed strategy authored by Bush and McCain?

I don't believe John McCain will acknowledge the surge's failure to promoting political accommodation. But the least he can do is give the troops he's asking to sacrifice the benefits they deserve. That means supporting the new GI Bill.

Click here to tell John McCain to support our troops and support the new GI Bill. (http://ga4.org/ct/612wNAE1MmGh/bill)
Rather than do the tough political and diplomatic work that's required themselves, George Bush and John McCain have put all the responsibility for success in Iraq on the shoulders of our brave men and women in uniform.

That's not right. Now the least Bush and McCain can do is show our troops the respect they deserve.

Tell John McCain to support the new GI Bill. (http://ga4.org/ct/612wNAE1MmGh/bill)
Thank you.
http://img.getactivehub.com/an2/custom_images/wespac/wkcsig.gif
Wes Clark

[BoogyMan]

And before you even attempt to jump on the red herring of 'improperly place them with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs', think about it: who should be in charge of veteran benefits, the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Veterans Affairs? The White House's stated objection is nonsensical. This is what the Secretary of Veterans Affairs' job *IS*. The key word there is "retention".

This seems to be one of those 2+2=5 situations Drocket. I spent a great deal of time reading the .pdf you graciously posted (thanks, that was interesting reading) and have found nothing that makes the claim of the OP that the Whitehouse as pasted in below.


The White House has voiced concern on the bill, arguing that if returning troops are offered a good education, they will choose college over extending their service. This is as offensive as it is absurd.


The DoD's statement on the matter skips the tapdancing bullshit and gets right to the heart of the matter:

A "defense official" from the DoD seems to be where the claim came from as the whitehouse allegation in this regard still seems unsubstantiated.

[ECW]

The Bush administration so far has resisted Webb’s measure, and has said the new benefits may prompt active members of the military to leave for civilian life. The Pentagon is already struggling with re-enlistment, and some officials worry expanded educational benefits could whittle down the force.

This post came from the newspaper The HILL. You can split hairs all you want but this is an indictment of all of them.

If you are having a problem with the Bush administration and their intransigence towards our troops welfare after they finish their tours you are just waking up to what the rest of us have known for years.

[BoogyMan]

ECW, you have been right about some things you have posted claiming intransigence toward the welfare of the troops by the administration, but I don't know that I can see this as one of them. The documents that have been posted so far certainly don't support the claim of the OP and have actually pointed the finger at lower level DoD officials.

[Pookie]

I think that in this day and age, with the war and the need for troops there, anything that might keep a troop out of action would be frowned upon. The reason is, you're supposed to serve your country first, above all.
Bear with me. I am retired Army after 22 years, and this is my outlook.
It does not surprise me one bit that he didn't read the bill. This is an example of the slipshod way in which many of us veterans are treated.
I got two degrees from the military. Each time, I was asked about my loyalty to the Army and questioned as to my motives wanting education. My reply was "So I am not a burden to the country I am serving. Got a problem with that?"
The military has changed a lot. But that seems to be a constant. And I am not impressed by a senator not reading a bill.
The military does, in fact, put service over education. Ever try to apply for college under the present bill? Good luck. They put you through the ringer.
Purrs,
Pookie

[ECW]

ECW, you have been right about some things you have posted claiming intransigence toward the welfare of the troops by the administration, but I don't know that I can see this as one of them. The documents that have been posted so far certainly don't support the claim of the OP and have actually pointed the finger at lower level DoD officials.

After seven years of this retarded president and his one-size-fits-all policies, do you really think there is a lowor level DoD flunky that is going to state a policy that is contrary to what the WH wants/demands and still keep his job? Please.

This is WH policy. They are just not wanting to take heat about it and letting lower-downs be the messenger. That's why the WH isn't trumpeting this bill and why McCain isn't on board yet. He's Bush's clone and doesn't want to upset the apple cart with any of that old "maverick" talk.

[ViolaLee]

McCain gives the thumbs down on the GI bill. He won't be supporting it. He agrees with Bush that it would entice too many to leave the military after they've served their time instead of re-upping.

"We are working on proposals of our own," McCain said on his campaign plane, according to ABC News. "I'm a consistent supporter of educational benefits for the men and women of the military. I want to make sure that we have incentives for people to remain in the military, as well as for people to join the military."

McCain's new move comes as a blow to Webb, a freshman Democrat and former Navy secretary who had been quietly building bipartisan support for months. Webb's GI Bill, a centerpiece of his 2006 campaign, would pay the college tuition of many military veterans who have served since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The amount of tuition paid would not exceed the cost of the most expensive state school in a veteran's home state, in most cases.

The current Montgomery GI Bill pays only a small fraction of the cost of college today.
Just last week, Webb hailed the growing bipartisan support for his bill, which has attracted more than 170 co-sponsors in the House and 54 in the Senate.
Unlike last year, when he first introduced the measure, Webb now boasts at least 10 Republican senators as co-sponsors. Chief among them is his Virginia colleague, Sen. John Warner, a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and an early McCain backer.

"I think we have a very good shot at getting this bill done this year," Webb told reporters.

But McCain echoed the concern voiced by some in the Defense Department who worry that the promise of full college tuition could entice many troops to leave the military sooner than they otherwise might at a time of war.

Webb has bristled at that criticism, saying a college education should be viewed as "a cost of war" that is owed to veterans. Webb himself, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, used the GI bill to pay for his law school degree.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/nationworld/dp-now-webbmccain.0415,0,5616790.story

This and his vote against the ban on torture makes McCain the worst kind of hypocrite.

[BoogyMan]

After seven years of this retarded president and his one-size-fits-all policies, do you really think there is a lowor level DoD flunky that is going to state a policy that is contrary to what the WH wants/demands and still keep his job? Please.

This is WH policy. They are just not wanting to take heat about it and letting lower-downs be the messenger. That's why the WH isn't trumpeting this bill and why McCain isn't on board yet. He's Bush's clone and doesn't want to upset the apple cart with any of that old "maverick" talk.

You can certainly choose to believe that ECW, but nothing posted so far has even come close to substantiating the claim which leaves us with your opinion.

[Buck Laser]

You can certainly choose to believe that ECW, but nothing posted so far has even come close to substantiating the claim which leaves us with your opinion.
By "us," may I assume that you mean "you," or are you speaking for all of us?

[ECW]

You can certainly choose to believe that ECW, but nothing posted so far has even come close to substantiating the claim which leaves us with your opinion.

Which part do you want me to prove to you:

1) the lower level flunky part

2) the WH is against the new GI Bill and McCain has become Bush's lapdog as a result part

And if I do prove it, will you come back and admit or will you split hairs like you have in the past or just walk away and not answer? No sense wasting good time if you aren't really in the game to play.

[ViolaLee]

You can certainly choose to believe that ECW, but nothing posted so far has even come close to substantiating the claim which leaves us with your opinion.But can you vote for a candidate that doesn't want to give our troops something better after they've completed their service? Don't they deserve to have a chance to get a good education to better their lives? Do you think the attitude of - don't give them something better because they will leave the military - is a good idea? Is that supporting the troops?

The Bush admin/McCain campaign is desperate because it's hard to find people to join, and remain in, when they are sent to war that's based on lies.

[BoogyMan]

Which part do you want me to prove to you:

1) the lower level flunky part

2) the WH is against the new GI Bill and McCain has become Bush's lapdog as a result part

And if I do prove it, will you come back and admit or will you split hairs like you have in the past or just walk away and not answer? No sense wasting good time if you aren't really in the game to play.

Always time to try and make things personal. The thread is not about me, remember that.

The articles posted, to date, do little to implicate the Whitehouse as part of the "we can't have them leaving the military for higher education" commentary.

I am fully aware of and have pointed out clearly that the Whitehouse does have objection to the bill but it isn't the higher education objection that the biased OP author claims.

[Deadshot]

Can the White House afford to be against anything that supports the troops? Same with McCain? If the media and pundits are going nuts over Clinton supposedly dodging bullets in Bosnia (i.e. a lie or a "mis-remembered" moment) and Obama's comments about poor people (i.e. an elitist view or a harsh truth) what's going to happen to McCain and Bush when this is really covered? The Democrats can spin, at least for the faithful, that Clinton just didn't remember right and that Obama simply is telling a harsh truth, but what is the spin that McCain or the White House can use here?

There are those above who wish to attack the source, and that's fine. We all know that it's the perception that counts. Imagine you are a GOP spin doctor how do you spin this, even to the faithful?

[Wndrtch]

interestingly, this bill is currently locked in committee.....the committee in control of it is the Veteran's Affairs Committee.....McCain is not a member of that committee......but Obama is.......who was it you were complaining about, ECW?......

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/committee.xpd?id=SSVA

Good call!! :madlaugh:

[Wndrtch]

Only a Neocon would say state that a bill that provides a free education to those who have honorably served our country is "packed with bullshit." Very few of them actually did serve their country. I would tell you to back the claim up that it's "packed with bullshit" but you haven't done that in any other thread you've posted in so I guess you won't here either. All we get is a lot of :sick: from you.

Are you actualy suggesting that for some reason, this bill in particular, is imune from pork pile-up?

We are talking about the Congress, right? You know, the folks who spend our tax dollars, and tell us they need more and more every year? Did I miss something?

[Elrathin]

What's funny is the amount of pork Bush and others allowed with a Republican controlled congress and the amount he allows now.

Why weren't they as strict with the republican controlled congress when they were out of control?

Also wndrtch, I remember a lot of conservatives saying the reason that Bush didn't give vetoes to pork projects in the past (when the troops were concerned) was because that would hurt the troops so it was important to think of the troops first. So now all of a sudden it is caring about the pork more than the troops? Come on, that is about as partisan as someone can get there.

To be honest, I don't mind the veto or the hold up if it due to pork, but for crying out loud this administration needs to be consistent with vetoes and holdup of this bill with conservatives "Think of the troops before the pork" attitude that we have seen for the past almost 8 years.

[Wndrtch]

What's funny is the amount of pork Bush and others allowed with a Republican controlled congress and the amount he allows now.

Why weren't they as strict with the republican controlled congress when they were out of control?

It's called "priorities".

Also wndrtch, I remember a lot of conservatives saying the reason that Bush didn't give vetoes to pork projects in the past (when the troops were concerned) was because that would hurt the troops so it was important to think of the troops first. So now all of a sudden it is caring about the pork more than the troops? Come on, that is about as partisan as someone can get there.

At the outset, the military had been cut back so severly during the Clinton fiasco, that it needed to be brought back to descent, operational levels. Not "pork", but "priorities". Now that that has been achieved, you can be a little more cautious about your spending needs and practices.

To be honest, I don't mind the veto or the hold up if it due to pork, but for crying out loud this administration needs to be consistent with vetoes and holdup of this bill with conservatives "Think of the troops before the pork" attitude that we have seen for the past almost 8 years.

No, he has to "prioritise" according to what HE thinks is an important expenditure. If there are obscure expenses associated with building playgrounds so some hack-Senator can get his name on something, then I to support a veto on this particul version of the bill. Get the crap out of there, and I bet the Bill will pass just fine.

[Elrathin]

IGet the crap out of there, and I bet the Bill will pass just fine.

Conservatives and Republicans didn't seem to give a crap about "getting the crap out" with a Republican controlled congress. I wonder why?

[apdst]

This bill stipulates that the educational benifits expire fifteen years after seperation from the service. Based on that, I would vote against it to, so we could scrap it and write a new bill making the duration of benefits for life.

[Wndrtch]

Conservatives and Republicans didn't seem to give a crap about "getting the crap out" with a Republican controlled congress. I wonder why?

Dude, I already answered that. It's called "Priorities".

Republicans have sensible priorities, and Democrats have idealistic ones, IMHO. :nana:

[BoogyMan]

Conservatives and Republicans didn't seem to give a crap about "getting the crap out" with a Republican controlled congress. I wonder why?

You and I both know that this is politics El, it works the same way when things are reversed and the Democrats are the ones in the minority. Washington is a sinkhole of self aggrandizing sleaze.

[Deadshot]

Dude, I already answered that. It's called "Priorities".

Republicans have sensible priorities, and Democrats have idealistic ones, IMHO. :nana:

First let me agree with Boogy's post above, Washington D.C. is not the place of Truth and Honesty. It is politics.

But I just have to jump on Wnd's post, I quoted above. The Republicans priorities shouuld have been to help the troops and do everything they could for them. From 2000-2006 the GOP had the POTUS, both houses of Congress, the Governors of most States and the SCOTUS. Six years of total control when Boogy's assertions about D.C. and politics should have NEVER come into play.

What happen to their priorities, Wnd?

That's why more and more people will go for the Democrats and their idealism, because Republican sensibilty got us to the point in our economy, war and life we are right now. :nana:

[Wndrtch]

First let me agree with Boogy's post above, Washington D.C. is not the place of Truth and Honesty. It is politics.

But I just have to jump on Wnd's post, I quoted above. The Republicans priorities shouuld have been to help the troops and do everything they could for them. From 2000-2006 the GOP had the POTUS, both houses of Congress, the Governors of most States and the SCOTUS. Six years of total control when Boogy's assertions about D.C. and politics should have NEVER come into play.

What happen to their priorities, Wnd?

That's why more and more people will go for the Democrats and their idealism, because Republican sensibilty got us to the point in our economy, war and life we are right now. :nana:

How on the one-hand, can Dems complain about the cost of the war and running up the debt to pay for it, and yet still think Republicans didn't "do everything they could for them"? The fact that Dems are complaining about the money, should be a clear sign that Republicans ARE doing all they can for the troops, otherwise, there would be no complaints about the cost of the war!

The economy has one "down" economic indicator, yet the others are just fine. Yes we will most likely hit a slight ressesion, but it will be short lived and will have the effect of allowing more people enter home ownership, because home costs will be more reasonable.

The war has turned around in large part, and there are growing signs that the Iraqi Government is starting to step up to the plate. You have Maliki, a Shia, engaged in heavey-handed action against Shia militias. He has even begun to prosecute Shia military officers that have refused to engage in raids aganst the Shia militias, which the Left said would never happen. A Shia would never turn on a Shia, according to the "experts" of the Left. The Iraqis in large part see themselves as Iraqis, and not Shia, Sunni, or Kurd. Violence is down. The infrastructure is comming online steadily.

I don't know about you, but my life is ok for now. Could be better, could be worse too. Besides, you want some Politician to determine your happiness in your life for you? Why would you want that?

[PatrickHenry]

Well. I will bring a bit of consistency to this issue with my opinion.

I don't support the troops OR their mission.

And I sure don't believe in having the IRS stick a gun in my face and confiscate my money so a flag-waving soldier can go to college.

They should earn their tuition like anyone else.

No additional benefits for the fuckin troops!

[Elrathin]

Dude, I already answered that. It's called "Priorities".

Republicans have sensible priorities, and Democrats have idealistic ones, IMHO. :nana:

Yeah it's quite funny that those "priorities" you speak of were all taken care of after a Dem majority in congress happened isn't it?

Sorry, but you may be able to sell that to some Republican, but I am not buying that excuse.

[Elrathin]

You and I both know that this is politics El, it works the same way when things are reversed and the Democrats are the ones in the minority. Washington is a sinkhole of self aggrandizing sleaze.

It;'s not just Washington, but also members Boogy. I have seen conservatives and Republicans saying "Troops need to be taken care of" but since the Dems got a small majority, that has changed. Not just in Washington, but in the public as well with Republicans and conservatives.

I've said from the start, I don't mind the veto or hold up if it is due to pork, but the inconsistencies I am seeing from Conservatives and Republicans is astounding.

[BoogyMan]

It;'s not just Washington, but also members Boogy. I have seen conservatives and Republicans saying "Troops need to be taken care of" but since the Dems got a small majority, that has changed. Not just in Washington, but in the public as well with Republicans and conservatives.

I've said from the start, I don't mind the veto or hold up if it is due to pork, but the inconsistencies I am seeing from Conservatives and Republicans is astounding.

Your point assumes that anything done in the name of the troops is good on its face El. Your broader point I can see but as I said it assumes that any and all things done are good just because someone came up with them.

Just like in this thread there are many who are determined to take comments made outside the whitehouse and brand the occupants with them. The objection made to this bill by the whitehouse had nothing to do with the good work of providing higher education for troops returning home, that objection was actually made by someone in the DoD.

[ViolaLee]

The first GI bill after WWII was a Democratic invention. They did it because the horrible treatment of the vets from WWI was shameful. It's logical that the Democrats would again want a good and fair deal for our troops after a war.


The return of millions of veterans from World War II gave Congress a chance at redemption. But the GI Bill had far greater implications. It was seen as a genuine attempt to thwart a looming social and economic crisis. Some saw inaction as an invitation to another depression.


It's the reason our middle class grew so powerful. It's the reason our country surged ahead in industry and inventions and innovation. Only an educated population can do that. Now, our citizens enter the military because they can't afford college. If we don't give them a college education after serving our country, they have no hope. And our country suffers.

We need a new GI bill that will do what the one after WWII did for our country. History shows it worked.

http://www.gibill.va.gov/GI_Bill_Info/history.htm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/fr32.html

[Elrathin]

Your point assumes that anything done in the name of the troops is good on its face El. .

No Boggy, that is not MY point. That was most of the right's point for the past almost 7 years, especially when it was brought up that there is a lot of pork added to bills. The majority of the right's response was, it had to be done because the troops are a priority. So where are the cries for the support of the troops now that McCain's stalling? That is hypocrisy and I think you know it.

[BoogyMan]

No Boggy, that is not MY point. That was most of the right's point for the past almost 7 years, especially when it was brought up that there is a lot of pork added to bills. The majority of the right's response was, it had to be done because the troops are a priority. So where are the cries for the support of the troops now that McCain's stalling? That is hypocrisy and I think you know it.


You might have a point if ANY of my commentary were defending Senator McCain, but if you read back through it El you will find that it doesn't defend his actions at all. I am merely pointing out the attempt to tar the whitehouse with a comment that did not originate there.

[PatrickHenry]

...I am merely pointing out the attempt to tar the whitehouse with a comment that did not originate there.
What a weaselly comment...Who is in charge of the DoD?

[BoogyMan]

What a weaselly comment...Who is in charge of the DoD?

Why, thank you PH. :lmao:

The whitehoue and the DoD have made DIFFERENT statements and Wes Clark is the one who tried to wrongly attribute the DoD comment to the whitehouse.

[PatrickHenry]

Are you saying DoD policy is not Presidential policy?

[BoogyMan]

Are you saying DoD policy is not Presidential policy?


Are you saying that the whitehouse has to take up every position spoken by a lower level official?

[Elrathin]

You might have a point if ANY of my commentary were defending Senator McCain, but if you read back through it El you will find that it doesn't defend his actions at all. I am merely pointing out the attempt to tar the whitehouse with a comment that did not originate there.

LOL Boogy, my comment was in direct accusation of what you said here:

Your point assumes that anything done in the name of the troops is good on its face El.

It was not my point so I clarified that so yes, I have a point lol.

[BoogyMan]

OK, you have now officially lost me El. :D

[ECW]

If you are seriously going to assert that the DoD can opine differently than the WH then you have not been paying attention over the last 7 1/2 years. Now, it's YOU that have lost me.

And the fact remains that John McCain is not supporting the troops on this issue. Simple as that.

[PatrickHenry]

Are you saying that the whitehouse has to take up every position spoken by a lower level official?No, but if I were President, my positions would be the positions taken by my officials.

I would fire officials who contradicted me, and promote those who said what I told them to say.

[BoogyMan]

No, but if I were President, my positions would be the positions taken by my officials.

I would fire officials who contradicted me, and promote those who said what I told them to say.

PH, the point is that there have been two distinctly different positions taken and good ole Wes Clark has tried to claim that the position staked out by a DoD official is the one held by the whitehouse. A claim that cannot be substantiated by anything we have seen posted other than a desire to try and tar the whitehouse with it.

[ECW]

When is John McCain going to introduce HIS version of the New GI Bill? That's what he said he was crafting...

[BoogyMan]

When is John McCain going to introduce HIS version of the New GI Bill? That's what he said he was crafting...

Don't have a clue, I would like to see what he comes up with as well.

[ECW]

Of course, you know he backed out of supporting the one that Senator Webb proposed because the WH does not support it. He has no plans to introduce a New NEW GI bill because (1) it will never go anywhere in this legislative session, and (2) it would have to provide benefits on the cheap because that was the reason he gave for not supporting the Wbeb bill. In other words, he's selling you a bill of goods and you are buying into it. He truly is not very different from Bush in that he says one thing to the press and then does exactly the opposite when the cameras are off.

[BoogyMan]

ECW, show me where I bought into McCain's "selling me a bill of goods." Not a single comment in this thread by me has been supportive of Senator McCain, my comments have been about the difference in positions between the DoD and the whitehouse.

[ECW]

And I have asserted that there is no difference between the two and hasn't been for years. Dozens of news stories have declared WH opposition to this bill and that's why McCain fell into line: to suck up to the Bush policy.

But despite bipartisan support in Congress — three Republican members have signed on as co-sponsors — the veterans’ groups may face an uphill battle in the White House and Pentagon. So far the administration has resisted the new GI Bill, fearing that the new benefits may prompt soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen and -women to leave the military in favor of civilian life. Already struggling with re-enlistment, some Pentagon officials worry that expanded educational benefits could whittle down the force.

~link~ (http://thehill.com/business--lobby/veterans-groups-go-to-battle-for-new-gi-bill-2008-02-13.html)

Bush wants to make sure that he has enough raw meat to keep fighting this shitty war and that the troops don't go off and get themselves educated on Uncle Sam's dime for their trouble and sacrifice. Some frikken support of the troops that amounts to.

[BoogyMan]

You asserted that I have bought into McCain's story and have yet to prove that. I have not addressed McCain's comments or actions.

[ECW]

You asserted that I have bought into McCain's story and have yet to prove that. I have not addressed McCain's comments or actions.

Agreed. An overstatement on my part. Apologies. The rest of it stands.

[BoogyMan]

Agreed. An overstatement on my part. Apologies. The rest of it stands.

ECW, you are the man. I appreciate you saying that. :clapper: