Webb: McCain Refuses To Co-Sponsor GI Bill For Post-9/11 Veterans
Webb: McCain Refuses To Co-Sponsor GI Bill For Post-9/11 Veterans
On his first day in office in January 2007, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) introduced the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007, intended to be “a mirror image of the WW II G.I. Bill.” A new version with broad bipartisan support was introduced in February to help fund education for service members who had served in active duty since Sept. 11, 2001. Veterans would receive education benefits equaling the highest tuition rate of the most expensive in-state public college or university and a monthly stipend for housing.
The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America hailed Webb’s bill, calling educational benefits “the military’s single most effective recruitment tool” and emphasizing that “an expanded GI Bill will play a crucial role in ensuring that our military remains the strongest and most advanced in the world.”
Today, The Hill reports that Webb is still waiting for an important co-sponsor who could help push other Republicans to approve the bill: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ):
“McCain needs to get on the bill,” Webb told reporters after a Christian Science Monitor breakfast meeting on Wednesday. He said legislation mirroring the post-World War II GI bill should not be considered a “political issue.” [...]
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.
McCain prides himself on being “a tireless advocate of our military.” Yet this is hardly the first time that Webb has taken McCain to task when it comes to veterans’ advocacy. In September, McCain refused to support Webb’s bill to ensure service members get adequate time at home between deployments. McCain castigated the effort, declaring he “hoped” Congress would reject the bill because it “would create chaos.”
McCain boasts on his website that he “fought to extend the availability of G.I. bill education benefits for Vietnam veterans.” Yet he has been notably silent on extending those same benefits to today’s veterans. Perhaps, like the Pentagon, he is resisting the bill “out of fear that too many will use it.”
McCain has repeatedly voted to funnel billions of dollars to fund the war in Iraq, whose costs along with the war in Afghanistan, according to some experts, have already totaled more than $3 trillion. By contrast, the cost of the new G.I. bill is projected to be about $2.5 billion a year — roughly the cost of U.S. operations in Iraq for one week.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
53 Responses to “Webb: McCain Refuses To Co-Sponsor GI Bill For Post-9/11 Veterans”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
.
Now, why would McTORTURE actually care about troop safety and vets rights?
.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:15 pmMcHypocrite.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:21 pmWhy does Ol' Warmonger hate the troops...?
March 20th, 2008 at 1:23 pmYou beat me to it Annie! thats what I was thinking. But beyond the snarking, why won't McCain support this Bill? Is it because the only Military expenses that matter to him are those for operations over their? Or is it because like Chimpy and Darth Cheney, he really doesn't give a flying f**k about the troops and the condition of our Military?
March 20th, 2008 at 1:29 pmSo will anybody in the media ask McCurmudgeon why he doesn't support this bill?
March 20th, 2008 at 1:30 pmMcCruel
March 20th, 2008 at 1:30 pmThe media will take the best of his corrected statements and use it to energetically support him after Obama is nominated.
NBC: Take 1
March 20th, 2008 at 1:35 pmCBS: Take 2
MSNBC: Take 3
ABC: Take 4
Geeze, All McCain, All the time.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:40 pmObama/Webb...2008
March 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pm> The entire bill is just partisan trick
Giving soldiers money for school is a partisan trick? Please explain?
>How can we have a man with friends like that as our >President?
You mean friends that advocate using american military might to kick start some apocalcyptic chapter of a book of fairy tales?
March 20th, 2008 at 1:48 pmHey Frankie, STFU!!!
March 20th, 2008 at 1:51 pmFrank M Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
This is a bill that has been in the works for some time now. The loose ends of this bill are now tied, and this bill now enjoys bipartisan support. Why won't McCain drop by the Senate sometime and add his name?
Is it unpatriotic for Republicans to support the troops, other than to pep talk them into combat?
March 20th, 2008 at 1:53 pm#9 Frank M Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Obama's preacher said "God Damn America" and that is what matters...
TROLL!
This thread is about McTORTURE not Obama... K?
STAY ON TOPIC!
---------------------------------
Hea everyone,
Frankentroll the attention whore is alive and well today seeking our company. Shall we give him it? I say ignore and flag, what say you?
.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:53 pmFrank M Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Perfectly understandable, unlike Obama’s friendship with the “God DAMN America” preacher. How can we have a man with friends like that as our President? We can’t.
What was wrong with what Reverend Wright said? Nothing! So get over it.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:56 pmWebb was just on Ed Schultz radio show.
Jim Webb told Ed that the Iraq war never should've been launched due to "Strategic" reasons.
Senator Webb is wrong. The Iraq war never should've been launched for legal/moral reasons.
Ed missed the obvious question...He should've asked Webb if Iraq HAD been a strategic "success" would you be a supporter?
I emailed Ed this question but no reply.
He could've also asked Senator Webb about voting for the Protect America Act in 2007 and not voting at all on it last month,
Our radio personalities are becoming clones of the tools on the right.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:56 pmI would recommend that Mr. McCain adjust his vest so it covers his entire chest.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:56 pmIt's a worthy trap, then. It's the price you pay if you're a Senator running for president. If you have the chance to vote for the bill while a Senator, and choose not to, how could the people have confidence in you to sign it as president?
We want this out in the open.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pmOk...So McSame has a real handle on national security, but he can't keep Shites, Sunni's and Al queda straight. (Or perhaps we'll have a co-presidency with Lieberman as his caretaker, feeding him the correct lines.)
He's an advocate for the troops, but fails when it actually comes to supporting them.
He doesn't know squat about the economy.
He changed his positions to pander to the religious righties - many of whom are as inflammatory as Rev Wright was seen to be on occasion.
Tell me again, what is it that makes him a good candidate for president?
March 20th, 2008 at 1:59 pm>#11: Giving money to the GIs is welcome,
>but the motives should be right.
why? your saying we shouldnt support the troops any chance we get? will we have to cut a little money out the budget we have allocated for halliburton to serve our troops rotting food at premium prices?
March 20th, 2008 at 2:01 pmyou think the kids getting the money for school give 2 sh1ts about whether YOU think the politicans motives are "pure" or not? we can pay for iraqis to go to school but we cant do the same for our soldiers?
Frank M Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
#11: Giving money to the GIs is welcome, but the motives should be right. The intentions of this bill seem to be ok, but it’s clearly a trap for McCain.
So Frank seems to believe he is running interference for McInsane? Franky, buddy - he don't need you. McInsane will crash and burn just like the rest of the dead enders hanging onto the glory that is the Bush Administration. It does seem fitting that the eternal panderer is disavowing his support for the very troops he expect to be in Iraq for 100 years. Yeah, franky...that does sound like a trap for McCain. The trap that most human beings call HONESTY!
March 20th, 2008 at 2:02 pmIf McCain truly supports the troops, then he needs to get on board with Webb's bill. Otherwise the "Straight Talk Express" is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Oh.....Wait!
March 20th, 2008 at 2:04 pmMcCain can't remember to take his medication. Now if Cheney tells him to sign the bill he will sign it if Cheney doesn't tell him he will not sign it. McCain is just the front man as Bush is in the Oval Office. Cheney wants McCain because McCain has Alzheimer's and it's easy to direct him because he doesn't know one minute from the next. Notice how Republicans and Obama demanded Hillary release her White House records now that they show she has the experience she said she had nothing is said. McCain will not release his medical records because they will show he's unfit to serve as President. Obama knows he's not ready but is how ruled by the Power and has put the interest of American behind his own greed. McCain will be President because the GOP will use race and hate with the help of the KKK.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:05 pm#21 - TXProgressive Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
"Tell me again, what is it that makes him a good candidate for president?"
Sen. McCain's delusions of adequacy? ;-)
March 20th, 2008 at 2:09 pmChocolate Jesus Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
This neocon obsession with Iraq, they're one country on this entire planet suddenly worthy of prolonged U.S. intervention. We're slowly signing away our assets to a country that never asked for our help in the first place.
We wrecked the teens car, "Iraqi Invasia 2003", bought him a new one and co-signed the loan, then when the payment is burdening the teen (understandably) and he can't make the payment, our credit goes to shit.
"We" as in "The U.S."
March 20th, 2008 at 2:13 pmTo McPain, supporting the troops involves donations of stockings...
March 20th, 2008 at 2:13 pmMcCain has repeatedly voted to funnel billions of dollars to fund the war in Iraq...
And for that investment we have gotten a zero return on investment. At least if we invest in the education of our current veterans, we will get a return on that investments. Many economists say that the middle class came to being because of the generous GI Bill after World War II.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:14 pmFrank M Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
"McCain won’t do that and rightly so."
-- Ah, so you think giving our troops college tuition is a bad idea. Since recruitment is down, what do you propose to entice more young people to enlist so we can fight all the wars we get into? If you want to reinstate the draft, just say so.
"The entire bill is just partisan trick to make him look weak (compromising with the dems)."
-- You're claiming a couple of bizarre things here. One, you claim that this bill is just an elaborately staged stunt to pull a 'gotcha' on McCain, and has nothing to do with increasing military recruitment. Don't you think that if 'getting' McCain was the only objective, a resolution honoring America's mothers would be the way to go? Two, you claim that compromising with the opposition party is a sign of weakness. Um...McCain already has a record of bipartisanship in the Senate, so you're a little late.
"Perfectly understandable, unlike Obama’s friendship with the “God DAMN America” preacher.
-- What in the world does one have to do with the other? This is just randomly flung poo.
"How can we have a man with friends like that as our President? We can’t."
-- Then I guess you won't be voting for McCain, either. His friends (Hagee, Parsley, etc.) have a list of inflammatory statements of their own. You can't very well judge one candidate by the company he keeps without judging them all the same way.
Once again, you completely miss the topic -- but I realize your goal is to derail. The subject here is the new G.I. Bill. Are you for it? Against it? Support it with modifications? Would your mindset be different if a Republican introduced it?
March 20th, 2008 at 2:17 pmPerfectly understandable, unlike Obama’s friendship with the “God DAMN America” preacher. How can we have a man with friends like that as our President? We can’t.
McCain is friends with Reverend Hagee. So that must disqualify him from being President. Here's some of his hate speech:
March 20th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I USED to believe that McBombBomb was honorable.
But he stayed SILENT during the swiftboating of Kerry.
As well as the AWOL coward Bush starting an ILLEGAL WAR based upon LIES, which he STILL SUPPORTS.
McCain is just another TRAITOR, just like MURDERER Bush the COXUCKER punk TRAITOR to the USA.
“WHO’S ’sane’, HUSSEIN?
March 20th, 2008 at 2:21 pmNOT ‘Bomb Bomb Iran’ McCain!!”
#11: Giving money to the GIs is welcome, but the motives should be right. The intentions of this bill seem to be ok, but it’s clearly a trap for McCain.
McCain was given plenty of time to become a sponsor of the bill. But he has chosen not to. So now that Webb is publishing the fact that McCain has chosen not to support the bill, it becomes a "trick"? Only in the mind of a mindless troll.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:22 pmLet's not forget that Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America are calling for McCain's support on this bill too. What the hell would they know, right Franky? You are a ridiculous coward who doesn't deserve the freedom that each and every Soldier, Airman, and Marine, past and present has gladly sacrificed sweat, tears, and blood to give you. They will continue to fight for EVERY citizen, even ones like you who disgrace every ideal and principle they stand for.
The least you can do is start opening your eyes and objectively look at the facts so that we can start putting this country on the right track again! So we can stop abusing the trust that those in the military give "we the people". They are doing their job, it is time that WE AS AMERICAN CITIZENS start doing ours.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:38 pmWhy would McCain give $2.5 billion to the troops when he could give it to Halliburton, instead? More bang for the buck (no pun intended).
Never just listen to what a politician says, but always watch what they do. That is the true evidence of who they are and what is important to them.
Thank you, Jim Webb. Screw you, John McCain.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:43 pm#11: Giving money to the GIs is welcome, but the motives should be right. The intentions of this bill seem to be ok, but it’s clearly a trap for McCain.
And he fell right into it, by proving to all that he doesn't care about the veterans. And, as ggoebbels points out above, this would be a great way to save the lives of soldiers who could get an education and support their families, rather than dying in the sand for oil profits. So, McStain naturally comes out against it, as he enjoys the deaths of American troops, and doesn't think that those that sacrifice everything should ge anything in return, just like our own spin-whore ggoebbels.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:03 pmgoofy_goony and Frankie...I just LOVE how you neocon reichwing trolls "support" the troops - by bashing the very people who are fighting to give them a square deal!
WTF is wrong with you morons? Down is up, right? War is peace, right? Freedom is slavery, right?
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, right?
STFU.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:08 pmWe all know that repugs only love the troops in public. McCain won't co-sponsor the bill because passage would give Democrats a victory and they won't have any of that. Even when it comes to giving the troops the benefits they not only earned but deserve. Does anyone else think McCain looks like he might need some stool softeners? He looks like he hasn't had a decent bowel movement in a decade.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:17 pmGood_Golly,
Your two arguments have both been used and aren't even proper straw men. First, if you don't want to pursue higher education, you don't have to. That is the way the GI bill has always been. The new bill is just providing more since many vets can not afford college that do want to go - even with the GI Bill.
Second, using the fact that some people may choose college over re-enlistment is infuriating at best. If this occupation is essential then institute a draft. If it is necessary to our survival, that is what the draft is for. Keeping benefits because you are worried those that EARNED THEM might USE them is wrong and ignorant.
As you said, "Given the current manpower needs of the military," we should be forcing more than 1% of the population to sacrifice for the good of the nation. I don't hear you clamoring for a draft. I hate to tell you, but not a single Veteran gives two Sh_ts whether you have a "support the troops" bumper sticker. You could have supported us by signing up so we could get some combat replacements (which we never saw) when our company was working at 74% (considered combat ineffective by the books).
Since cowards like you and the rest of the college republicans can't stand up and fight for something that ONLY YOU feel is this important, then sign up or get the hell out of the way. While the real patriots attempt to fix this country, you and all the "we are right because we are the USA" crowd close their eyes grab the wheel and shout "full speed ahead" as they drive this bus right off a cliff.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:24 pmHey Good_Golly,
I got another idea, along the same logic as your argument. Why don't we just stop paying the Military? I mean they get free food and shelter. If we don't pay them, they wouldn't be able to have a family, and have less distractions to convince them to get out. It would also save us a TON of money. They would also NEVER have enough saved up to retire. They would be in the military for LIFE.
I think you are on to something. Great idea. Let's just take away EVERYTHING we GIVE those ungrateful veterans. All they do is want more. I mean after giving them food, water, clothing, and shelter, they have the nerve to ask for things like health care and education.
Good_Golly, I really don't anger easily, but you do a great job of ticking me off. Congratulations.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:36 pm40 - Dan - well said. VERY well said.
~A
March 20th, 2008 at 3:39 pmUmmm. The trolls miss the point. Reenlistment bonuses have already been expanded; concurrent with lowering standards. It's not likely that expanding educational opportunities would result in much of a net loss.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:42 pmOf course, after the 24/7 religious indoctrination, is there really much point in college? I mean, how much could it cost to teach them "God did it"?
March 20th, 2008 at 3:56 pmResponse to No. 44 good__golly: First, you idiot, the First Amendment applies to restriction on speech by the government. Where do you get the idea that the free speech rights of the rest of us must be curtailed because we decide to call maggot like yourself a bed wetting coward who will willingly allow others to die for a cause that you do not believe in enough to participate. Before you get so high and mighty about your rights, pick up a copy of the Bill of Rights and read the First Amendment. You may also want to consider your responsibilities as a citizen to this country. Obviously, you are all mouth and no action.
Second, you have problems with those who do not go to college receiving less benefits. Well, provide for education in other trade or professional schools. You are just looking for an excuse to deny any benefit for those brave US citizens who place their lives on the line to protect your worthless ***. I am sick an tired of your sanctimonious, narrow minded little turds. I hear your constant lame defenses of a Republican party and president who have nearly destroyed this country. You are no patriot. Now go to hell.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:59 pmSeveral republicans are already supporting this bill. It is an improvement over the current Montgomery GI Bill in that it provides much more and does not cost the soldiers anything, whereas MGIB costs $1200 that each soldier has to pay in. The amount of payment that this bill provides is directly tied to the amount of service the soldier has had on active duty since 9/11. I am a OIF veteran myself, and a member of several veterans groups. McCain is quickly losing support of the military. First he canceled the XM8 program, then he voted against funding outpatient VA care, and now this.
March 20th, 2008 at 4:10 pmGood_Golly,
First of all, don't thank me for my service. This is the first time I have said that, but it means nothing coming from you.
Second, this is the education bill. If you want to propose other bills that give other benefits, I am all for it. This is for eduction and to increase benefits of an already instituted and very popular program. In fact, it is only asking for similar benefits given after WWII. It was a valiant effort to make it sound as if you really care. Ask any veteran if they are against this bill, instead of making up nonsense reasons why it is bad. The fact is that we should give all of them the OPPORTUNITY to go to college IF they choose - PERIOD.
I never said you don't have a right to your viewpoint. This is not a 1st Amendment issue. I never said you couldn't talk, just that you have ZERO credibility. My point is simply that the government has reserved the right to institute a draft when NECESSARY. When this country needs more "manpower" (as you put it) than the volunteer force can provide, the correct way to fix it is not to enslave those that chose to sacrifice for their country, but spread the burden and sacrifice to the rest of the country who have a common goal in its success. The volunteer military is a luxury - not a right. You have every right to disagree, and I will and have fought for that right; however, you have absolutely no credibility when you spout rhetoric about how important this occupation is for our survival out of one side of your mouth, but shout that you don't have to fight for it out of the other side. You are telling me one of two things: either you are not willing to fight for your survival (in which case, why should I?) or that you really don't believe this is for our survival and just don't give a crap because you don't have to serve. It is all worth it as long as someone else fights it for you, right? I am perfectly willing to fight for your rights as well as mine, but I am not willing to fight and die for your cause,and so that contractors can rob this country blind while my friends are giving up their lives. I am NOT willing to stand idly by while the country I hoped would be the shining light of this world becomes everything we tried to fight against.
This isn't about who served and who didn't. It is about McCain's hypocrisy and lack of principle. This is a man that supports the military, but not better benefits. A man who ADAMANTLY denounced torture and specifically said that the CIA should be bound to the Army field manual, but when given the chance to vote for that EXACT POLICY voted against it. At the VERY LEAST, I would have thought he would stick to his principles on torture. Now he is backing off of them. That is a man that, even though I respect his service, I do not respect as a citizen. He may have served honorably, but has not been an honorable citizen.
Barack Obama has spoke out against this occupation. He believes it to be wrong and a great waste of our resources. I agree. This isn't about military service or not - it is about standing up for what you believe is right whether you might get elected or not. Something you obviously don't understand.
March 20th, 2008 at 4:15 pmDanCaveman Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Thank you Dan. I hope you don't mind if I send your comments to a few friends. Actually, I'll send it out, with credit, anyway, LOL.
March 20th, 2008 at 4:34 pmDanCaveman Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Give 'er hell Dan.
March 20th, 2008 at 4:36 pmGo Dan Go!!
You rock.
Thank you, and welcome home.
-Crazy Hussein Cat Lady
March 20th, 2008 at 4:50 pmThe military is at a loss as to why McCain is acting like this.
http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=810
"The new G.I. Bill has been endorsed by the VFW, IAVA and every major Veterans' organization in America. One organization, however, that does not endorse the bill is the Department of Defense.
Senator McCain has been mum on why he doesn't support legislation that has broad bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, and is even co-sponsored by Senator John Warner, ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee and avid McCain campaigner."
March 20th, 2008 at 4:57 pmOk, missed it again - it's about credibility and fighting for principles.
Don't tell me "We are all going to die YOU SHOULD GO FIGHT" - it sounds disingenuous, although you have every right to say it.
It is ok to say "We are all going to die unless you help me fight - and I will be by your side and watching your back.
It is also ok to say "This does not help our country so I will bring you home and work to make our country better" - still sticking to principle.
Is that concise - didn't mention Republican or Democrat, I was talking principles. You should open a scarecrow factory with all your straw men. You made the argument that those that have fought shouldn't get benefits because they might choose something else. Why should they get the same choice you have - it isn't like they already risked their life or anything -- errrr?
March 20th, 2008 at 5:42 pmLet me guess. We can't afford it. But there's plenty of money for Blackwater, KBR, Halliburton, Bechtel and the other corporate parasites.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:12 pmThe GI bill returned 8 times the amount invested when GIs used the money to get education, build a home, build a business.
Hang this around McCain's neck.
.
Dan,
Well said.
GiGi,
Go get laid!
.
March 21st, 2008 at 2:04 amGood_Golly,
I will try one more time because you OBVIOUSLY DON'T understand the argument. It is not about having to serve to be able to support military force. It is about being willing to sacrifice. Whether that is paying more taxes, having a victory garden, conserving, whatever it takes to support the "war" effort. If our country is at "war" then it shouldn't fall solely on 1% of the population to fight it.
Now, there are occasions when Military force is acceptable, as well as fully capable to be handled with our wonderfully trained and very experienced Military; however, those are not "wars". When the Military is in dire need, like it is now, it rings hollow for the people who most support this occupation to do everything possible to keep it out of the public consciousness. They (including the President) say, "go shopping", or deliberately keep it out of public view. Meanwhile, they increase tours from 12 months to 15 months, then from 15 - 18 months. Reserve units are called in less than 2 years after serving. Many individuals are on their 5th and some on 6th or more tours. 5 years at "war" and Bush is clamoring for tax cuts. Many have spent their children first few YEARS of life in daily combat far away - while you and many others sit comfortably and tell them they don't deserve more benefits because they might choose to get out.
Standing up for what you believe in does not always mean putting on a uniform. I would no more respect the opinion of someone who adamantly condemns all those who don't speak out, but refuses to speak out. This isn't about serving or not serving, it is about integrity, honesty, and leadership. EVERYONE SACRIFICED FOR WWII. Most didn't mind doing it because they thought (correctly) that it was worth it. People had a problem sacrificing for Vietnam, because many did not feel it was worth it and worked to end it. War is not a game or sport, but this administration not only treats it as such, it turned it into a spectator sport as our CIC sits on the sidelines and has the nerve to tell those fighting that he "envies them" and that it must be "romantic" out there. He had his chance in Vietnam.
Now back to the real point. This bill has nothing to do with home loans, business loans, or any other benefit. Those would be great additions. This is about education. One benefit it sounds like even you feel the veterans earned. Then the answer is simple give it to them. Work to add more benefits later. I don't know if you can see it, but your arguments ring more dishonest than ever because it seems like you are grasping at straws as to why this bill shouldn't be passed.
First, you say they shouldn't get this benefit because people might choose to get out of the Military (the whole reason we got into a discussion of community/country sacrifice). I argue that is not a valid reason not to give our veterans what they deserve. In addition, people like me didn't join for benefits. I took a pay cut when I got activated. We join because we believe in the ideals and principles this country stands for. Your argument is just as ludicrous as arguing that we should decrease their pay or eliminate it completely so they don't want to leave the military.
Then, you have the audacity to bring up some stupid argument about what the bill DOES NOT HAVE, like you actually give a crap about veterans. You obviously don't care about the veterans because all the veterans' organizations are for this bill - unless of course you think that we are just too stupid to know what is good for us, so we need you to tell us how bad it would be to get more money for education.
Try to honestly look at the arguments. Things might look different.
March 21st, 2008 at 8:25 amThe volunteer military is a luxury - not a right. You have every right to disagree, and I will and have fought for that right; however, you have absolutely no credibility when you spout rhetoric about how important this occupation is for our survival out of one side of your mouth, but shout that you don’t have to fight for it out of the other side. You are telling me one of two things: either you are not willing to fight for your survival (in which case, why should I?) or that you really don’t believe this is for our survival and just don’t give a crap because you don’t have to serve. It is all worth it as long as someone else fights it for you, right? I am perfectly willing to fight for your rights as well as mine, but I am not willing to fight and die for your cause,and so that contractors can rob this country blind while my friends are giving up their lives. I am NOT willing to stand idly by while the country I hoped would be the shining light of this world becomes everything we tried to fight against.
This isn’t about who served and who didn’t. It is about McCain’s hypocrisy and lack of principle. This is a man that supports the military, but not better benefits. A man who ADAMANTLY denounced torture and specifically said that the CIA should be bound to the Army field manual, but when given the chance to vote for that EXACT POLICY voted against it. At the VERY LEAST, I would have thought he would stick to his principles on torture. Now he hp nx6300 battery,hp nc6100 battery is backing off of them. That is a man that, even though I respect his service, I do not respect as a citizen. He may have served honorably, but has not been an honorable citizen.
October 15th, 2008 at 5:21 am“McCain needs to get on the bill,” Webb told reporters after a Christian Science Monitorsohbet
March 28th, 2009 at 9:43 pmBedava mp3 indir
cet
breakfast meeting on Wednesday. He said legislation mirroring the post-World War II GI bill should not be considered a “political issue.