Why does Bush & McCain Hate their soldiers?

[SteveGrenard]

....not only is the President threatening to veto these benefits for returning vets, McCain has also opposed them. Why? For two figures who claim to support our troops can anyone offer a valid rationale for their paradoxical position?



“Sadly, President Bush has threatened to veto the (GI) bill. Senator John McCain, who hopes to take his place, not only opposed it, but when given the opportunity to support his fellow veterans on the eve of Memorial Day weekend, didn’t even show up to vote nor express his concerns,” Boccieri says. ” … vetoing this measure will send a clear message that politics has defeated patriotism.”

The address was released after Barack Obama chided McCain Thursday during a Senate debate on the GI bill.

“I respect Senator John McCain’s service to our country. … but I can’t understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI bill. I can’t believe he believes it is too generous to our veterans,” Obama said Thursday. “I could not disagree with him and the president more on this issue. There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them.”


http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/23/dems-turn-up-heat-on-mccain-over-military-commitment/

[liverleef]

I was reading about this earlier. Bush claims to have rejected the bill because it did not allow GI bill benefits to transfer to family members of the soldiers.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358225,00.html

[Puppycow]

Because the GI bill is a benefit that you get after you leave military service. It is therefore an economic incentive not to reenlist.

McCain was in favor of a more modest upgrade of the GI Bill.

BTW, I went to college on the GI Bill. I also got other forms of tuition assistance.

[SteveGrenard]

I was reading about this earlier. Bush claims to have rejected the bill because it did not allow GI bill benefits to transfer to family members of the soldiers.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358225,00.html

You forgot to mention that McCain wants the size of the benefit tied to length of service:

Adding, there are many other proposals before the House and Senate and the President “specifically supports” one “proposed by Senators Graham, Burr, and McCain because it allows for the transferability of education benefits and calibrates an increase in education benefits to time in the service.”

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358225,00.html

You forgot to mention the objection to providing college benefits to vets based on one enlistment. And what family memebers are we talking about? Children and spouses or all members of a family? And what about housing? Medical care beyond what the VA can provide?

So if someone will translate enlistments for each branch into years and the size of the benefit related to those years we could figure out how long a length of service a soldier would have to serve to come home and be able to go college on the GI Bill. Conceivably it could be five years to each year of college or 20 years of service for a four year degree. What's the proposed ratio? In years?

And then there's the stop-loss program which doesn't involve re-enlistment at all. Someone could remain in long after their enlistment has expired based on stop-loss. Will there be credit for this? I read that McCain wanted multiple enlistments to qualify for benefits.

[JoeEllison]

Bush hates any reminder of his dishonorable service, and McCain is still suffering from PTSD?

[Puppycow]

You all know those "Rolling Thunder" biker dudes?

Apparantly they like Bush so much they made him an honorary member (http://thepage.time.com/2008/05/25/biker-in-chief/).

http://markhalperin.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/bushbiker.jpg?w=360&h=235

[corplinx]

The democrats are trying to gut the military by offering full ride scholarships after one enlistment. The McCain proposal is you get more tuition assistance the longer you serve (and is still an upgrade to the existing benefit).

I see no other reasoning for the democrat proposal that made it into the bill. Its a weird elephant in the room I don't see anywhere in the media.

[The Fool]

The democrats are trying to gut the military by offering full ride scholarships after one enlistment. The McCain proposal is you get more tuition assistance the longer you serve (and is still an upgrade to the existing benefit).

I see no other reasoning for the democrat proposal that made it into the bill. Its a weird elephant in the room I don't see anywhere in the media.
"the democrats" wish to "gut" the military? Isn't that treason? Does that mean McCain who also supports scholarships also wants to "gut" the military? Or just "gut" the military a little less?

[corplinx]

"the democrats" wish to "gut" the military? Isn't that treason? Does that mean McCain who also supports scholarships also wants to "gut" the military? Or just "gut" the military a little less?

You can read up on the original GI tuition benefit on wikipedia and learn its history. Giving people full rides to college after one short enlistment means less retention. The counter-argument might be that this would increase signups. I am not sure if the military wants more new people versus having less retention and experience.

I would like to propose that we give each military person 1 million dollars whenever their enlistment ends. What's the problem with that, don't you love our soldiers?

[JoeEllison]

"the democrats" wish to "gut" the military? Isn't that treason? Does that mean McCain who also supports scholarships also wants to "gut" the military? Or just "gut" the military a little less?

Neither... it is just a nonsense way to attack Democrats for actually supporting the troops, something Bush and McCain refuse to do in any meaningful way. Just look at the Republican support for the program.

[fuelair]

....not only is the President threatening to veto these benefits for returning vets, McCain has also opposed them. Why? For two figures who claim to support our troops can anyone offer a valid rationale for their paradoxical position?



http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/23/dems-turn-up-heat-on-mccain-over-military-commitment/In all fairness, I do not think they hate them - they just do not care about them either way (non-benign neglect).

[jj]

Neither... it is just a nonsense way to attack Democrats for actually supporting the troops, something Bush and McCain refuse to do in any meaningful way. Just look at the Republican support for the program.

It's amazing. When the Republicans support the troops, they're supporting the troops. When the Democrats support the troops, they're "trying to decrease retention".

Talk about doublespeak!

[JoeEllison]

It's amazing. When the Republicans support the troops, they're supporting the troops. When the Democrats support the troops, they're "trying to decrease retention".

Talk about doublespeak!

Worse... when the Republicans DON'T support the troops, they call it "supporting the troops".

[CaptainManacles]

Neither... it is just a nonsense way to attack Democrats for actually supporting the troops, something Bush and McCain refuse to do in any meaningful way. Just look at the Republican support for the program.

Is ignoring the thread and blurting out irrational nonsense instead of responding to anyone's points a skill you had to learn or were you just born that way?

[Fnord]

Why does Bush & McCain Hate their soldiers?


Because:

1) They're Americans, not Iraqis.
2) They don't own oil-producing real estate.
3) They're not wealthy enough to make significant campaign donations.
4) ... ?

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

... clip ...

... Medical care beyond what the VA can provide?

... clip ...


Ummm... no such thing, actually.

For all that the V.A.'s primary response is to cut off the problem and fit you with a wooden one (not too successful an approach with my spine and neck or my friend's heart) the care is broad and comprehensive in nature. I wouldn't suggest it as a model for a national health care system, right, but for an essentially free service, it's really pretty good.

Good: I go in with severe pain in my neck, lower back, lower legs, left shoulder, right collar bone and arm, and I get treatment.

Bad: The doctor requires me to decide which ONE I want to be treated.

Good: I get all my prescriptions for a $10 co-pay.

Bad: I do the $10 co-pay for prescriptions that would cost me $2 on the open market.

Good: The V.A. hospitals are frequently associated with the finest teaching hospitals in the country, swapping staff and personnel as well as facilities and other resources.

Bad: Often being treated like someone's term paper.

In my case, and in the cases of most of the X.G.I.s I know, the good far outweighs the bad, but you'd have to have been in the military to think so. A civilian would feel quite harshly put upon by the attitude of the whole thing, while soldiers and sailors are kind of used to being told where to go, what to do, and when to get there, only to discover that they're in the wrong place doing the incorrect thing a day late.

[corplinx]

It's amazing. When the Republicans support the troops, they're supporting the troops. When the Democrats support the troops, they're "trying to decrease retention".

Talk about doublespeak!

Come on JJ. You know that what they are doing is offering a big incentive to get out. Maybe its not intentional, but it seems to be an oversight of Everest proportions if so.

[SteveGrenard]

Ummm... no such thing, actually.

There is such a thing for military and military families. Its called Tricare and is administered by Health Net Federal Services....

https://www.hnfs.net/


My hospital has also treated disabled vets under the program which were referred by the nearest VA hospital.

Good: The V.A. hospitals are frequently associated with the finest teaching hospitals in the country, swapping staff and personnel as well as facilities and other resources.

Bad: Often being treated like someone's term paper.


Not only staff or personnel are sometimes swapped, but patients are also referred out to the
private nearby hospital when the VA does not have the facilities to diagnose or treat them.

Under Healthnet/TRICARE all military and vets are treated the same in my hospital -- like any other private, insured patient would be treated, Forgive me for being taken aback by your perception.

[Fnord]

Why does Bush & McCain Hate their soldiers?

Because:

1) The soldiers are Americans, not Iraqis.
2) The soldiers don't own oil-producing real estate.
3) Soldiers should not be paid enough to make significant campaign contributions to the opposition.
4) Education, housing, and health care are luxuries that should be reserved for only the very wealthy.
5) Providing health care to Iraqi citizens is sound policy.
6) Providing health care to disabled American veterans is socialism.
7) ... ?

[Bob Klase]

Good: I get all my prescriptions for a $10 co-pay.

Bad: I do the $10 co-pay for prescriptions that would cost me $2 on the open market.


Only 'bad' if you choose to pay $10 instead of $2. I've never had a problem getting the doctor to write me a prescription for things I can go buy cheaper than the cop-pay. If Walgreen's sells it for $2, I get it for $2.

[The Painter]

You people disgust me. If you want the truth you could look it up, but you won't bother. You'd rather believe the BS.

[jj]

Come on JJ. You know that what they are doing is offering a big incentive to get out. Maybe its not intentional, but it seems to be an oversight of Everest proportions if so.


I would be glad to see some service time limits installed. But I am not ever likely to argue against money for education.

[jj]

You people disgust me. If you want the truth you could look it up, but you won't bother. You'd rather believe the BS.

Somehow or other, we might all understand your disgust if you bothered to explain more than the fact that you hold everyone else in contempt.

[Daylight]

The democrats are trying to gut the military by offering full ride scholarships after one enlistment. The McCain proposal is you get more tuition assistance the longer you serve (and is still an upgrade to the existing benefit).

I see no other reasoning for the democrat proposal that made it into the bill. Its a weird elephant in the room I don't see anywhere in the media.

So lets see, I join for one enlistment. The Republicans than stop/loss me into serving 12 years with no way out except death. Since it's only one enlistment, I get nothing.

Don't you just love the republican way of thinking?

[Puppycow]

Corplinx is objectively correct. Neither side is saying it out loud, but a practical effect of this (not necessarily the intention, although I'm too cynical about politics to imagine that they didn't know it) is to incentivise the decision not to reenlist. A reenlistment bonus is an incentive to reenlist, but the GI bill is something you can't take full advantage of until you get out.

But! This is because Bush has been stubborn about the war. He didn't listen to the Baker Commission. So war opponents had to figure out this indirect way to force an exit. Bush is keeping this war going against the popular will.

[Puppycow]

Prediction: A lot of GIs are going to want to get out to take advantage of this new GI bill, but they won't be allowed to because they are going to be stoplossed.

[pgwenthold]

In all his time in the Senate, has John McCain ever supported a Veterans Benefits bill?

I know there is a long list of Vet bills that he has voted against.

[Darth Rotor]

"the democrats" wish to "gut" the military?
That is what the Clinton administration achieved, yes, but there was enough gut left to recover.

Whether or not current Democrats wish to "gut" the military depends upon whose district has the most defense bases, establishments, and industries. Joe Lieberman is remarkably hawkish for a Dem, but then, he represents the old Arsenal of Democracy, Connecticut. Lots of high tech defense industries there.

However, for the record, two of the biggest defense drawdowns and force reductions were undertaken by Ike and Nixon.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

So lets see, I join for one enlistment. The Republicans than stop/loss me into serving 12 years with no way out except death. Since it's only one enlistment, I get nothing.

Wrong. The idea is you don't get a full ride. They are not repealing the GI bill as it stands now, wherein after one enlistment you can pile up 30,000+ of tuition benefits.

That's not nothing, but it isn't a full ride.

On the other hand, the explosion of federally funded college loans in the past thirty years have done two things (not going to derail on the default rate, which made some of them "grants" in effect.)

1. It made the supply and demand relationship between tuition and ability to pay skew costs upward.

2. It made the GI bill "less special" in comparison to the time when federally backed student loans were available. The nice thing about GI Bill is it's not a loan. My dad went to college on the GI bill, but it didn't pay all his costs. He had to earn some more money elsewhere (he came from a poor family) to make up the difference. He worked.

DR

[Daylight]

Wrong. The idea is you don't get a full ride. They are not repealing the GI bill as it stands now, wherein after one enlistment you can pile up 30,000+ of tuition benefits.

That's not nothing, but it isn't a full ride.

DR

Just one stop/loss should qualify you for a full ride, at any school.

[jj]

Wrong. The idea is you don't get a full ride. They are not repealing the GI bill as it stands now, wherein after one enlistment you can pile up 30,000+ of tuition benefits.


So, if you're in for one enlistment, but you're stoplossed into 12 years, you should only get credit for one enlistment?

How about "years served, voluntarily or not", perhaps?


On the other hand, the explosion of federally funded college loans in the past thirty years have done two things (not going to derail on the default rate, which made some of them "grants" in effect.)


That's a different issue, and let's say that I have some problems with the way that "defaulted' loans were handled, too. I'm one of those whackos who fully paid off their student loans. But I paid off early, just because it was a pain sending that check in every month.

So I got a phone call "why didn't you make the last payment on your loan".

Yes, really. Their "standard" for "full payment" was "did the person make their last payment".

But be that as it may, people who are stoplossed should get GI bill credit for their whole service, not how many times they enlisted.

[Darth Rotor]

So, if you're in for one enlistment, but you're stoplossed into 12 years, you should only get credit for one enlistment?
The Montgomery GI Bill, as passed, had a cap. You can reach it in one enlistment, or multiple, or one with extensions, but there was a cap mandated by Congress.

That is how it works.
How about "years served, voluntarily or not", perhaps?
The stop loss issue was rare when it was signed back into law, after a number of years of
NO GI BILL (when I was in my fist 10 years). Congress simply got rid of it at one point.

Now, how should it work? Good questions, depends on a lot of things, but I'd like to see a cap increase of 10-20K for each combat tour, not each enlistment, (why give the REMFs a reward on the backs of the infantry?) or something similar.

The stop loss issue is reasonably old public law.

That's a different issue, and let's say that I have some problems with the way that "defaulted' loans were handled, too. I'm one of those whackos who fully paid off their student loans. But I paid off early, just because it was a pain sending that check in every month.
Tnank you, my fellow citizen, my brother did likewise with his college loans: paid off early.

But be that as it may, people who are stoplossed should get GI bill credit for their whole service, not how many times they enlisted.
You may be missing a few details on stop loss. Some is for a few months, some longer, but a reenlistment is typically four to six years. The stop loss happens at the end of an enlistment, intended to keep a unit together for an operational necessity.

I don't have all the answers, but to pretend that stop loss is the same as a full reenlistment is to misundertand what is going on.

The other issue is the stoploss of National Guard and Reserve personnel who were activated.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Just one stop/loss should qualify you for a full ride, at any school.
I see. One stoploss for one soldier, who had one tour in Iraq, should be more benefit to a guy with three tours who happened to get out between his unit's deployment cycle?

And "Any School?" screams of someone who little understands college tuition variance across the country. Congress writes appropriation laws with any eye to projected costs, and endowed the GI Bill funding line with a dollar value, back when Montgomery GI Bill was passed, for the usual good and sufficient reason: fiscal restraints.

I don't think you have thought this through. If there is to be a bonus to the GI Bill benefit, I'd suggest it be based on the number of combat tours to push up the cap. O

Focusing on stop loss rather misses the point.

DR

[Rolfe]

Good: I go in with severe pain in my neck, lower back, lower legs, left shoulder, right collar bone and arm, and I get treatment.

Bad: The doctor requires me to decide which ONE I want to be treated.

Good: I get all my prescriptions for a $10 co-pay.....


Oh, stop now. That last is good????

Our prescription charges for the general population have just been cut to £5 (about $10) on the way to being abolished. Prescriptions are already free for children, the elderly, pregnant women and certain other groups which I think include the chronically ill/disabled. They've been free in Wales for everyone for a couple of years already.

And they wouldn't even ask a homeless wino which one of his problems he wanted treated.

I know this isn't the thread to start talking about the NHS again, but almost every thread I open where our "special relations" are talking about healthcare has me thanking God fasting.

Rolfe.

[Aardvark422]

Now, how should it work? Good questions, depends on a lot of things, but I'd like to see a cap increase of 10-20K for each combat tour, not each enlistment, (why give the REMFs a reward on the backs of the infantry?) or something similar.

It seems incredibly unfair to tie tuition benefits together with combat deployments. If something like that were to happen, would my husband, in the service now for 9 years, signing up for another 3 next week, get less than someone else who has been in for less time, but more Iraq duty, just because my husband has been here in the states the last three years training helicopter pilots? Or does that qualify him as REMF, even though he is working longer, harder hours here than when he was deployed?

I would probably support benefits that were based on time in service, regardless of the number of enlistments, but to say here's something for this guy because I think his service was harder than that guy, is wrong.

[Bob Klase]

Now, how should it work? Good questions, depends on a lot of things, but I'd like to see a cap increase of 10-20K for each combat tour, not each enlistment, (why give the REMFs a reward on the backs of the infantry?) or something similar.

I'll agree that it depends on a lot of things. But many (if not most) REMFs are not in the rear because they want to be.

In my first deployment for Desert Shield I was part of a task force. I didn't volunteer to be part of the task force and a number of people who did volunteer were not sent. My second deployment for Desert Shield/Storm was in one company out of the battalion's 3. There were plenty of volunteers from the other 2, but they stayed in Germany simply because they happened to be in that company instead of mine.

Many stayed in Germany because they were needed there more than in the gulf (my sister's husband fought for weeks to be deployed and never was).

When the current war started a small task force was sent from my daughter's unit. She volunteered to go- her command wouldn't consider sending her because there were plenty of other people to pick from and she was a single mother.

And you know as well as me that most of the ones that deserve the term REMF are mid-high ranking in positions that have some control over whether they go. The majority of the rear echelon has no say in the matter and those are mostly the ones that will benefit the most from the GI bill after 4-8 years of service. And we both know how well the infantry would fare without a rear echelon.

ETA: An additional thought- most in a position to actually avoid a combat tour by choice are likely in for a career. Few that I knew would want to be the guy that spends the next 10-15 years as the one that's not wearing a combat patch.

[Darth Rotor]

I'll agree that it depends on a lot of things. But many (if not most) REMFs are not in the rear because they want to be.

In my first deployment for Desert Shield I was part of a task force. I didn't volunteer to be part of the task force and a number of people who did volunteer were not sent. My second deployment for Desert Shield/Storm was in one company out of the battalion's 3. There were plenty of volunteers from the other 2, but they stayed in Germany simply because they happened to be in that company instead of mine.

Many stayed in Germany because they were needed there more than in the gulf (my sister's husband fought for weeks to be deployed and never was).

When the current war started a small task force was sent from my daughter's unit. She volunteered to go- her command wouldn't consider sending her because there were plenty of other people to pick from and she was a single mother.

And you know as well as me that most of the ones that deserve the term REMF are mid-high ranking in positions that have some control over whether they go. The majority of the rear echelon has no say in the matter and those are mostly the ones that will benefit the most from the GI bill after 4-8 years of service. And we both know how well the infantry would fare without a rear echelon.

ETA: An additional thought- most in a position to actually avoid a combat tour by choice are likely in for a career. Few that I knew would want to be the guy that spends the next 10-15 years as the one that's not wearing a combat patch.
Good points all, Bob. The pretense that there is a perfectly fair way to handle this, as some of the posters above wish, needs to be exposed.

The statutory cap on GI Bill per head is a law that Congress can change. I suspect they'll override the veto, but we'll see.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

It seems incredibly unfair to tie tuition benefits together with combat deployments.
That is not what I am talking about. The base GI Bill benefit is still 30,000.
If something like that were to happen, would my husband, in the service now for 9 years, signing up for another 3 next week, get less than someone else who has been in for less time, but more Iraq duty, just because my husband has been here in the states the last three years training helicopter pilots? Or does that qualify him as REMF, even though he is working longer, harder hours here than when he was deployed?
A point well missed. Helicopter pilots in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, ARE NOT REMFS. I suspect you know that, via your husband. Pilots get flight pay, training pilots or otherwise engaged, whether we are in a war or not.
I would probably support benefits that were based on time in service, regardless of the number of enlistments, but to say here's something for this guy because I think his service was harder than that guy, is wrong.
The DoD and Congress disagree with you, and have for about fifty years.

Submariners get hazard pay and sub pay. Pilots get flight pay. EOD guys get pro pay. There are a whole series of reenlistment bonuses that are tied to an MOS/NEC, like SAR swimmer, that give greater incentive to reenlist than another MOS. Certain regions of the world get you hazardous duty pay. Here's one: was got a month's worth of hazardous pay for some time spent in Greece, in 1996, because I was sent to Athens and 17 November terror organization was still alive and well.

As to combat recompense, combat is harder than about anything else that happens in the military. What is going on in Iraq is combat, a very difficult kind, and more, much much more. There are marines and soldiers going back to Iraq for their fourth year long tours. It is apparent that the folks in Congress are trying to come up with a better way of saying "thank you" to those folks in this bill.

Maybe not. Might all be posturing.

Tell ya what. Let's go back about twenty years ago, when the GI Bill was no longer an option, and there was this thing called the VEAP, that if you put 2700 dollars into you'd be able to use 8100 worth of benefits after you got out. That was it. One enlistment, two, or three.

Where were you then with your formulae? Where was anyone?

Well, some folks went to work and tried to do something.

The Montgomery GI Bill, when it was passed after a lot of years of hard work, upped the benefit to 30,000. That was a nice change, but IIRC, one had a contribution to make to get the max.

If Congress wants to up the potential benefit to more than that, fine.

If it wants to boost the cap for certain factors, that is fine too. You get combat pay and hazardous duty pay when in combat, not when back in the States. You get a tax relief if in a combat zone, not if you are home in the states. The method and logic is already in place to support boosting a cap (again, a suggestion) based on the same sorts of factors the DoD already uses to boost pay or allowances.

If not, so be it, Congress controls the purse strings.

I remember when the GI Bill was discontinued. It didn't make any of my sailors happy, I can promise you.

DR

[Aardvark422]

That is not what I am talking about. The base GI Bill benefit is still 30,000.

My understanding of what you said earlier was that you would like an increase in the GI Bill per combat tour. How is that not tying tuition benefits with combat deployments?


A point well missed. Helicopter pilots in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, ARE NOT REMFS. I suspect you know that, via your husband. Pilots get flight pay, training pilots or otherwise engaged, whether we are in a war or not.

You're right, pilots in combat areas are NOT REMF's. That wasn't what I said.


If it wants to boost the cap for certain factors, that is fine too. You get combat pay and hazardous duty pay when in combat, not when back in the States. You get a tax relief if in a combat zone, not if you are home in the states. The method and logic is already in place to support boosting a cap (again, a suggestion) based on the same sorts of factors the DoD already uses to boost pay or allowances.

I guess my point was there are already many different incentives, and breaks, for military members in combat - tax relief, flight pay, separation pay, sea pay, hazardous duty pay - don't take tuition benefits and also base on it combat service. It's not fair to those serving that have no choice in whether they serve in Iraq/Afghanistan or not. Base the GI Bill on time in service, fine, but not on where that time was spent.

[Daylight]

I see. One stoploss for one soldier, who had one tour in Iraq, should be more benefit to a guy with three tours who happened to get out between his unit's deployment cycle?

And "Any School?" screams of someone who little understands college tuition variance across the country. Congress writes appropriation laws with any eye to projected costs, and endowed the GI Bill funding line with a dollar value, back when Montgomery GI Bill was passed, for the usual good and sufficient reason: fiscal restraints.

I don't think you have thought this through. If there is to be a bonus to the GI Bill benefit, I'd suggest it be based on the number of combat tours to push up the cap. O

Focusing on stop loss rather misses the point.

DR

To set you straight, my thoughts are anyone serving a single combat tour should get a full ride.

Yes Darth, any school. In fact, combat vets should get priority over other applicants. They earned it. If you want to go to Harvard, and you put your life on the line, you’re in. Fully paid by the government.

Projected costs? Fiscal Restraints? Isn’t it always funny how some Republicans (you know, the deferment types and the Mom where did I leave my F-102 types) can start a war on false pretenses, one that hemorrhages money out every orifice (remember the 9.8 billion they lost?), funnel money to friends (you have to love no-bid contracts) that when we get to the part about compensating the guys that do the job, the true heroes, we have to worry about Projected costs and Fiscal Restraints? Is it any wonder the Republicans are known as the “lie and die” party?

[CaptainManacles]

To set you straight, my thoughts are anyone serving a single combat tour should get a full ride.

Yes Darth, any school. In fact, combat vets should get priority over other applicants. They earned it. If you want to go to Harvard, and you put your life on the line, you’re in. Fully paid by the government.


So now government is not only in the business of financing their education, but making the school's entrance decisions for them? And they get to go even if they clearly won't pass or be able to understand the material, even if they push out other bright canidates who might have cured cancer or paralysis, but instead end up working at McDonalds for the rest of their lives, just because the soldier "deserved it" more? What about other dangerous proffessions? If laying your life on the line for any period of time should get you a full ride, then why not every profesion with such a risk?

You're entire worldview seems to be dominated by unrealistic platitudes. Yes, it would be cool if the world was fair and magic bags of money dumped out of mid-air for every person who deserved it, but it just doesn't work that way. Every time you force someone into a university you're forcing someone else out, besides destroying the basic concepts that those people are putting their life on the line for.

funnel money to friends (you have to love no-bid contracts)

No-bid contracts are often how things are done for such projects, and rightly so. You don't give the reconstruction of Iraq to the company willing to do it for the cheapest. You give it to whoever you know will do the job correctly. And these accusations reveal a gross ignorence of how these proccesses work. Haliburton wasn't the winner in that situation. Many other companies made much more money off of the Iraq project.

[Darth Rotor]

To set you straight, my thoughts are anyone serving a single combat tour should get a full ride.
Then write your Congressman and suggest just that. If you pull it off, I'll do more than buy you a beer. Telling me gets your idea nowhere. While my emotional feel is "yeah, what a great idea" it rather flies in the face of the original purpose of the GI Bill, and its resurrection.

I am fairly well versed in how the GI Bill works, and am a familiar with the matter of finite amounts of money and entitlements.

The GI Bill is one such.

See my comments for the idea on boosting the cap for a combat tour, or per tour. That might be within the realm of the fiscally possible.

The rest of your post is not worth commenting on, since I live in the real world.

For Aardvark: suggest you look up the GI Bill, the benefits, and the history behind it. Local Army educational office can help you there. My suggestion is just that, a suggestion based on trying to tip the dollars to those who ate the biggest turd sandwich. If you find that unfair, I don't know what to say to you.

DR

[SteveGrenard]

by Mark Silva

Sen. John McCain's campaign and allies rallied to the defense of McCain's televised comment today that an estimate for American troop withdrawals from Iraq is "not too important,'' and Democrats pounced on the Republican for displaying what they want to portray as little concern for the forces serving there.

"Appearing on NBC's Today show, McCain was asked if he has an estimate for when U.S. troops might leave Iraq.

"No, but that's not too important," McCain replied. "What's important is casualties in Iraq... Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. That's all fine. American casualties, and the ability to withdraw. We will be able to withdraw. ... But the key to it is we don't want any more Americans in harm's way."


http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/mccain_iraq_withdrawal_not_too.html


I wonder how McCain's kid feels about this?

McCain has proved again his total disregard for the troops. He also fails to understand the difference between Korea, Germany and Japan and being in Iraq. Incredible....

[CaptainManacles]

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/mccain_iraq_withdrawal_not_too.html


I wonder how McCain's kid feels about this?


McCain has proved again his total disregard for the troops.

What, that he wants soldiers to live? What he said was that stopping casualties is more important than withdrawing. We have bases all over the world. Being deployed outside the US isn't the problem, dying is the problem. The problem you seem to have is that McCain is a soldier, he understands the situation and you don't.

He also fails to understand the difference between Korea, Germany and Japan and being in Iraq. Incredible....

No, he was pointing out the difference. Learn to read.

[Sefarst]

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/mccain_iraq_withdrawal_not_too.html


I wonder how McCain's kid feels about this?

McCain has proved again his total disregard for the troops. He also fails to understand the difference between Korea, Germany and Japan and being in Iraq. Incredible....
So John McCain has not only total disregard for his sons (Doug McCain was a Navy Pilot in the 1980's and Jimmy McCain is serving in Iraq), but he has total disregard for himself (a former "troop"), his father (a four star Navy Admiral), his grandfather (another four star Admiral), his fellow veterans and all men and women currently in the military? Do you ever reread your posts and realize how ridiculous you sound?

As has been pointed out, you're irritated because John McCain understands the military and you don't.

The re-imaging campaign being attempted by the Democrats this cycle is staggering. John "locked in a cage and beaten for five years in a POW camp" McCain is being painted as a warmonger and someone who has "total disregard for our troops." John McCain, famous for breaking with fellow Republicans and working with Democrats on key legislation and criticizing the White House, is being painted as "Bush's third term."

I can't wait to see what you guys will cook up next.

[SteveGrenard]

So John McCain has not only total disregard for his sons (Doug McCain was a Navy Pilot in the 1980's and Jimmy McCain is serving in Iraq), but he has total disregard for himself (a former "troop"), his father (a four star Navy Admiral), his grandfather (another four star Admiral), his fellow veterans and all men and women currently in the military? Do you ever reread your posts and realize how ridiculous you sound?

Iraq has nothing to do with McCain's personal experience mainly because the war in which he was so tragically involved was lost to the guerilla fighters of VietNam. Ditto for his
family history. Insofar as his son is concerned, you should know that the Iraq vets and the active duty soldiers hang on to every word uttered by our leaders here at home. The mere fact that coming home is "not important" so long as they don't get hurt, believe me, really hurts. You will be hearing more on this from veterans as the day go on. Try Countdown tonight on MSNBC.


As has been pointed out, you're irritated because John McCain understands the military and you don't.

I am really irritated because McCain has said, already, we could be in Iraq for a hundred years, then backtracked and now is back tracking his backtrack. Americans in Iraq are
flypaper for alQueda and insurgents/AlQueda is attarcted to them like flies. They will not go away unless we do. This has been proven in Saudi Arabia. These paranoid fanatic extremist psychopaths are offended by anything you can think of including and especially the presence of American forces in their "soverign" muslim nations. They will not change no matter how many political solutions there are or locals we train.


The re-imaging campaign being attempted by the Democrats this cycle is staggering. John "locked in a cage and beaten for five years in a POW camp" McCain is being painted as a warmonger and someone who has "total disregard for our troops." John McCain, famous for breaking with fellow Republicans and working with Democrats on key legislation and criticizing the White House, is being painted as "Bush's third term."

Viet Nam was a holdover from the cold war, communists against Catholics, how could JFK turn the Catholics down? It was a different war and we lost it and we are no longer there. The conflicts with Germany, Japan and Korea were not based on the same sort of religious fanaticism we are enduring now in Iraq.

I think the handwriting is pretty clear on the wall ... McCain is talking more like Bush every day so this is why he's being painted as Bush's third term. As a republican I would like nothing better than to be able to vote for McCain ...I have plenty of problems with Obama
which you can well imagine but yet again, darn it, I am faced with no choice at all.

[Sefarst]

Iraq has nothing to do with McCain's personal experience mainly because the war in which he was so tragically involved was lost to the guerilla fighters of VietNam. Ditto for his
family history.

In case you hadn't noticed, many of the tactics being used in Iraq and Afghanistan right now are guerilla tactics. But this is really neither here nor there, we're talking combat experience. And I'm not saying Iraq has something to do with McCain's personal experience, I'm saying WAR has a lot to do with McCain's personal experiences. What you're telling me is that, if a general proves himself to be resourceful and a good leader fighting in one part of the world, it means nothing about his ability to fight in another part of the world, regardless if the tactics in both wars are similar.

Insofar as his son is concerned, you should know that the Iraq vets and the active duty soldiers hang on to every word uttered by our leaders here at home. The mere fact that coming home is "not important" so long as they don't get hurt, believe me, really hurts. You will be hearing more on this from veterans as the day go on. Try Countdown tonight on MSNBC.

Seeing as how John McCain has been to Iraq, spoken with many soldiers, his son included, I'm going to trust him to tell me what his words mean rather than a rant from Keith Olberman.

I am really irritated because McCain has said, already, we could be in Iraq for a hundred years, then backtracked and now is back tracking his backtrack.

Where did he backtrack? Do you honestly believe that a presidential candidate was going to try and win an election by telling the American people that he wants to fight a hundred year war? McCain explained his position and has explained it time and time again.

McCain has plainly stated that casualties are what matter, not presence in terms of public opinion. Guess what? He's right. Ask yourself why the American people have accepted a troop presence in Japan, Germany and Korea for the last 50-60 years. Tell me if Keith Olberman or Barack Obama are going to put together a rant to yell about our troop presence there. You've been accusing McCain of backtracking while, in the same breath, confirming everything he's been saying.

Americans in Iraq are
flypaper for alQueda and insurgents/AlQueda is attarcted to them like flies. They will not go away unless we do. This has been proven in Saudi Arabia. These paranoid fanatic extremist psychopaths are offended by anything you can think of including and especially the presence of American forces in their "soverign" muslim nations. They will not change no matter how many political solutions there are or locals we train.

Now who's fear mongering? Should Osama bin Ladin dictate whether or not our government and the government of Saudi Arabia agree to have military bases on Saudi soil? Am I suppose to support withdrawal of American interests in the Middle East because terrorist psychopaths might be offended and try to kill me?

I think the handwriting is pretty clear on the wall ... McCain is talking more like Bush every day so this is why he's being painted as Bush's third term. As a republican I would like nothing better than to be able to vote for McCain ...I have plenty of problems with Obama
which you can well imagine but yet again, darn it, I am faced with no choice at all.
Of course you have a choice. Obama is going to have to stay in Iraq, regardless of much anything else that happens. There are better issues to have at the core of your decision of who to vote for.

[SteveGrenard]

In case you hadn't noticed, many of the tactics being used in Iraq and Afghanistan right now are guerilla tactics. But this is really neither here nor there, we're talking combat experience. And I'm not saying Iraq has something to do with McCain's personal experience, I'm saying WAR has a lot to do with McCain's personal experiences. What you're telling me is that, if a general proves himself to be resourceful and a good leader fighting in one part of the world, it means nothing about his ability to fight in another part of the world, regardless if the tactics in both wars are similar.

Eisenhower ended hostilities in Korea within six months. In fact the wars with Japan and Germany ended in less time than we are presently been in Iraq.


Seeing as how John McCain has been to Iraq, spoken with many soldiers, his son included, I'm going to trust him to tell me what his words mean rather than a rant from Keith Olberman.

Not to Olbermann, to the vets he has spoken to about this remark. You and I both know that no active duty soldier could voice their true feelings without risking serious
repercussions.



Where did he backtrack? Do you honestly believe that a presidential candidate was going to try and win an election by telling the American people that he wants to fight a hundred year war? McCain explained his position and has explained it time and time again.

When he first said we'd be in Iraq a hundred years, er, right after he had a sit down with Bush at the White House. Then he backtracked on that time table but now seems to be saying how long the troops are in Iraq is really not important, it's the casualties that are important. I am sure McCain knows that if there are no hostilities, no combat casualties, no IEDs or sniper attacks, then whatever it is is not deserving of the term war. And if there are no casualties, and if there is no war, why are we going to stay in Iraq again? It's not our country. They didn't attack us. The really bad people in Iraq have been jailed and/or executed.


McCain has plainly stated that casualties are what matter, not presence in terms of public opinion. Guess what? He's right. Ask yourself why the American people have accepted a troop presence in Japan, Germany and Korea for the last 50-60 years. Tell me if Keith Olberman or Barack Obama are going to put together a rant to yell about our troop presence there. You've been accusing McCain of backtracking while, in the same breath, confirming everything he's been saying.

We accepted a troop presence in Japan, Germany and Korea because there were no hostilties, no combat deaths (to speak of...) ...we were just hanging out enforcing peace treaties ... which, by the way, we don't have with Iraq.



Now who's fear mongering? Should Osama bin Ladin dictate whether or not our government and the government of Saudi Arabia agree to have military bases on Saudi soil? Am I suppose to support withdrawal of American interests in the Middle East because terrorist psychopaths might be offended and try to kill me?

Regardless of whether this is OBL and alQueda dictating whether we should have bases in say, Saudi Arabia, the fact is we were asked to leave by the sovergein government there and have done so. The Saudis obviously felt it was in their best interests to ask us to vacate.

[JoeEllison]

So John McCain has not only total disregard for his sons (Doug McCain was a Navy Pilot in the 1980's and Jimmy McCain is serving in Iraq), but he has total disregard for himself (a former "troop"), his father (a four star Navy Admiral), his grandfather (another four star Admiral), his fellow veterans and all men and women currently in the military? Do you ever reread your posts and realize how ridiculous you sound?

As has been pointed out, you're irritated because John McCain understands the military and you don't.

The re-imaging campaign being attempted by the Democrats this cycle is staggering. John "locked in a cage and beaten for five years in a POW camp" McCain is being painted as a warmonger and someone who has "total disregard for our troops." John McCain, famous for breaking with fellow Republicans and working with Democrats on key legislation and criticizing the White House, is being painted as "Bush's third term."

I can't wait to see what you guys will cook up next.
Everything you're saying about McCain is absolutely true, based on unedited quotes of what he actually says. You can whine about how it is "cooked up", but the truth is that McCain is being hung with his own words and actions, and he can no longer hide behind his POW status to avoid legitimate criticism.

[Sefarst]

Eisenhower ended hostilities in Korea within six months. In fact the wars with Japan and Germany ended in less time than we are presently been in Iraq.

This is only a matter of degrees. Think of it this way: there is a business looking to hire a driver for a tractor trailer. You and I both apply for the job. Neither of us has ever driven a tractor trailer before, but you go into the interview and tell the employer that you have had a driver's license for 20 years, you've driven sedans, vans, trucks and construction equipment. I walk into the interview and tell the employer that I've never driven ANYTHING before, in fact, I don't even have a driver's license. Which of us do you think has the advantage in applying for this job?

The principle holds in the case of military experience. You keep saying that Iraq is the not the same as Vietnam or Japan or Germany or Korea. In the same way, a tractor trailer is not the same as a sedan or a truck or a van. Catch my drift?

Not to Olbermann, to the vets he has spoken to about this remark. You and I both know that no active duty soldier could voice their true feelings without risking serious
repercussions.

I don't know. This is merely speculation. However, you seem to be blending two different issues. The first is John McCain's "100 years" comment and the second is the feelings of the troops on staying in Iraq. The 100 years comment has to do with casualties. In other words, McCain is saying that he's willing to set up a similar situation as what we have in other countries after hostilities in war time end, where we keep a troop presence in the area. You are leaving out that the 100 years remark is in the context of no casualties in Iraq, not perpetual 100 year fighting. You are leaving out the context of no casualties and then trying to link that issue with your suspicion that the troops secretly want to leave. I think that's being disengenuous.

When he first said we'd be in Iraq a hundred years, er, right after he had a sit down with Bush at the White House. Then he backtracked on that time table but now seems to be saying how long the troops are in Iraq is really not important, it's the casualties that are important. I am sure McCain knows that if there are no hostilities, no combat casualties, no IEDs or sniper attacks, then whatever it is is not deserving of the term war.

Which is why I think he said "presence" and not "war." As far as I know, this is the first public reference he made on that point (though if you have an earlier quote or video, I'd be happy to see it):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

And if there are no casualties, and if there is no war, why are we going to stay in Iraq again? It's not our country. They didn't attack us. The really bad people in Iraq have been jailed and/or executed.

For training and to keep a military presence in a volatile part of the world.

We accepted a troop presence in Japan, Germany and Korea because there were no hostilties, no combat deaths (to speak of...) ...we were just hanging out enforcing peace treaties ... which, by the way, we don't have with Iraq.

Do you think we're hanging out in Germany, Korea and Japan today to enforce peace treaties? Do you think the Germans are just itching for us to leave so they can attack again?

Regardless of whether this is OBL and alQueda dictating whether we should have bases in say, Saudi Arabia, the fact is we were asked to leave by the sovergein government there and have done so. The Saudis obviously felt it was in their best interests to ask us to vacate.
But not, hopefully, at the behest of Al Qaeda. We make our own agreements on our own terms, independent of terrorists.

[thaiboxerken]

I figure that offering a bigger GI bill would encourage more people to initially enlist. Also, I think anyone who places their life on the line for 4+ years should get a full scholarship to college. Maybe I'm just weird that way.

[Sefarst]

Everything you're saying about McCain is absolutely true, based on unedited quotes of what he actually says. You can whine about how it is "cooked up", but the truth is that McCain is being hung with his own words and actions, and he can no longer hide behind his POW status to avoid legitimate criticism.
I don't think McCain has ever tried to hide behind his POW status to avoid criticism, as the 2000 primary campaign showed, as the current primary shows, etc.

And these issues are being cooked up. Case in point, the 100 years comment I was just discussing. McCain made a realistic assessment of the situation and now it's being used to try and make him look like he wants a century of perpetual warfare.

[Sefarst]

I figure that offering a bigger GI bill would encourage more people to initially enlist. Also, I think anyone who places their life on the line for 4+ years should get a full scholarship to college. Maybe I'm just weird that way.
I agree that they should, and in an ideal world they would. However, as has been stated elsewhere, it's a matter of finite resources and infinite demand.

[JoeEllison]

I don't think McCain has ever tried to hide behind his POW status to avoid criticism, as the 2000 primary campaign showed, as the current primary shows, etc.

And these issues are being cooked up. Case in point, the 100 years comment I was just discussing. McCain made a realistic assessment of the situation and now it's being used to try and make him look like he wants a century of perpetual warfare.

It is being used to show that he has no intention of ever withdrawing the troops. That's a fact. Pretty much whatever Bush says, McCain says. That's your "maverick"(are there still people deluded enough to believe that? Really?!?!)

[Sefarst]

It is being used to show that he has no intention of ever withdrawing the troops. That's a fact. Pretty much whatever Bush says, McCain says. That's your "maverick"(are there still people deluded enough to believe that? Really?!?!)
Then I'm confused. Why haven't I seen you making threads acting outraged over the fact that we have yet to withdraw troops from Germany, Japan and Korea?:rolleyes:

[thaiboxerken]

I agree that they should, and in an ideal world they would. However, as has been stated elsewhere, it's a matter of finite resources and infinite demand.

That never seemed to stop Bush before. How much have we spent on the war so far?

[thaiboxerken]

Then I'm confused. Why haven't I seen you making threads acting outraged over the fact that we have yet to withdraw troops from Germany, Japan and Korea?:rolleyes:

I didn't realize we were still at war with these countries. What's the casualty rate of our soldiers in these countries?:rolleyes:

[JoeEllison]

I didn't realize we were still at war with these countries. What's the casualty rate of our soldiers in these countries?:rolleyes:

Remember, Germany is EXACTLY LIKE Iraq... :rolleyes: Right-wingers believe any stupid talking point, don't they?

[Bob Klase]

"No, but that's not too important," McCain replied. "What's important is casualties in Iraq..."

I didn't realize we were still at war with these countries. What's the casualty rate of our soldiers in these countries?:rolleyes:

So you agree with McCain that what's important is casualties.

[INRM]

I don't think Bush or McCain actually hate their soldiers. I think, though, that they have no empathy for them.

Bush and McCain see soldiers as slaves who only exist for their aims of gaining territory through conquest. With such an attitude, they don't want to give them anything more than they absolutely have to, and as most people who have no empathy towards a group of people (or any at all period), they have no gratitude.

INRM

[Demigorgon]

Somehow or other, we might all understand your disgust if you bothered to explain more than the fact that you hold everyone else in contempt.

It wouldn't matter if he did. All threads in the political forum is 80% for Democrat and 20% for other. Facts don't ever matter here. GWB = evil. Republicans = evil. Democrats = infalable.

[Sefarst]

I didn't realize we were still at war with these countries. What's the casualty rate of our soldiers in these countries?:rolleyes:
It's becoming more and more obvious to me that you are deliberately trying to miss the point.

[JoeEllison]

It wouldn't matter if he did. All threads in the political forum is 80% for Democrat and 20% for other. Facts don't ever matter here. GWB = evil. Republicans = evil. Democrats = infalable.

Strawman. Facts don't seem to matter to you, clearly.

[pgwenthold]

It wouldn't matter if he did. All threads in the political forum is 80% for Democrat and 20% for other.

Actually, if you are considering anything "anti-Bush" to be democrat, given Bush's approval rating, this sounds about like what you'd expect if it reflected the US population. Given that there is a large fraction of non-US folk here, too, one could argue that 20% supportive is a pretty good accomplishment.

Why can't Bush supporters remember that they are in the 30% club?

[thaiboxerken]

It's becoming more and more obvious to me that you are deliberately trying to miss the point.

What is your point?

[thaiboxerken]

So you agree with McCain that what's important is casualties.

Not just casualties, but also morale and also having a clearly defined mission. So far, I don't think anyone knows what the mission in Iraq is. Bush certainly hasn't outlined one. Nobody has yet to state what constitutes a victory or when the mission has been fulfilled. Korea, Germany and Japan are just red-herrings in the discussion and have nothing to do with what is going on in Iraq, nor are the situations comparable.