Conservatives Spend Memorial Day Weekend Explaining Their Opposition To GI Bill
Conservatives Spend Memorial Day Weekend Explaining Their Opposition To GI Bill
In an editorial this morning, the New York Times chides President Bush for his resistance to the GI Bill, which he has pledged to veto:
Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers’ lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. [...]
So lavish with other people’s sacrifices, so reckless in pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq, Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home.
White House Press Secretary Dana Perino quickly unleashed an attack on the editorial, claiming the editorial board “doesn’t let the facts get in the way of expressing its vitriolic opinions — no matter how misleading they may be.” Yet, Perino offered no facts of her own to substantiate her anger.
Two of the White House’s key Senate allies — Ted Stevens and John McCain — have been disingenuously spewing misinformation about the GI Bill this weekend. Stevens warned of a “mass exodus” from the military if the 21st Century GI Bill goes into law. Similarly, McCain said today that the Webb GI Bill “would hurt the military and our country very badly.”
As ThinkProgress has previously noted, these fear-mongering claims about the GI Bill have little basis in reality. A recent CBO report showed that any loss in reenlistment rates is entirely made up for by increased military recruits.
The NYT editorial correctly notes, “[A]s a long-term investment in human capital, in education and job training, there is no good argument against an expanded, generous G.I. Bill.” But that won’t stop far-right conservatives from offering bad excuses, even on Memorial Day.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The New York Times hit a raw, exposed nerve there, Dana?
May 26th, 2008 at 3:31 pmThe GOP and John McCain are WRONG for taking Obama to task for his lack of military service.
May 26th, 2008 at 3:33 pmTwo of the White House’s key Senate allies — Ted Stevens and John McCain — have been disingenuously spewing misinformation about the GI Bill this weekend. Stevens warned of a “mass exodus” from the military if the 21st Century GI Bill goes into law. Similarly, McCain said today that the Webb GI Bill “would hurt the military and our country very badly.”
Could they explain how our service members would ever get out of the military to use this benefit if they are being forced to stay in because of “Stop Loss”?
May 26th, 2008 at 3:37 pmThe mass exodus of personnel from the military has other causations.
Like intelligence, and the burgeoning awareness of their exploitation.
May 26th, 2008 at 3:41 pmDoes You-Tube have Dana’s blowup yet?
May 26th, 2008 at 3:43 pmJust because they chose to serve their country, doesn’t mean they want to be used as pawns of the military industrial complex.
May 26th, 2008 at 3:44 pmIt’s real easy to explain their opposition to the G.I. bill. For all their worthless flag waving and hiding under the banner of false patriotism, these assclowns could care less about our servicemen and women.
May 26th, 2008 at 3:44 pmMcCain thinks there will be a mass exodus if it is too enticing to leave the military. You mean getting killed isn’t enough?
He couldn’t give an extra .05 percent to their pay raise to bother to keep our brave men and women to stay in .
McCain believes our children should sacrifice, but pay Halliburton-KBR and mercenaries beyond top dollar. He is squandering the mileage out of his war record with every claim to the higher-ground with it.
May 26th, 2008 at 3:46 pmAs ThinkProgress has previously noted, these fear-mongering claims about the GI Bill have little basis in reality. A recent CBO report showed that any loss in reenlistment rates is entirely made up for by increased military recruits.
I love TP dearly, and the Webb GI bill deserves our full support, but I have a nit to pick regarding the statement above. It is not accurate to weigh the value of a new recruit as being equal with that of an experienced service member. I would much prefer that we honestly accept the fact that there IS a potential cost to the services from offering college benefits to those leaving the service. It is a cost that we should be happy to absorb in order to honor the sacrifices of those who serve and for the greater benefit to our society as a whole.
May 26th, 2008 at 3:48 pmThough readers of the New York Times editorial page wouldn’t know it, President Bush looks forward to signing a GI bill that supports our troops and their families, and preserves the experience and skill of our forces.
The bill that Bush is threatening to veto does “support our troops and their families.” Why does a benefits bill also have to preserve “the experience and skill of our forces”? The only way to do that is to not ever let them leave the military. But then, it would no longer be an “all-volunteer force” if you did that, would it?
Getting people to want to join the military is the role of Congress, and giving them incentives (such as education benefits is a great way to do that.) Getting people to want to stay in the military is the role of the Commander-in-Chief. That he is failing to do that is not the fault of Congress.
May 26th, 2008 at 3:54 pmThe New GI Bill was sponsored by (2 Democrats and 2 Republicans) Senators Jim Webb (D-VA), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and John Warner (R-VA), and that it passed in the Senate by a vote of 75-22, with ALL 22 “NAY” votes being cast by Republicans. Senator John McCain did not show up to vote because he decided to go on the Ellen DeGeneres Show and then attend a fund raiser for his own campaign at an event held by the San Diego Chargers owner. From the beginning, John McCain strongly argued against the Bill and refused to sign onto it.
I am a Vietnam Veteran and John McCain’s voting record on all veteran issues
is appalling.
John McCain’s position: We can send them to war, but we can’t send them to college . . . Shame on you John McCain, George Bush and ALL 22 of those Republican Senators who wouldn’t support our troops!
May 26th, 2008 at 3:55 pmFrom above, here’s the proper link to John McCain’s voting record on veteran issues:
John McCain’s voting record on all veteran issues
May 26th, 2008 at 3:59 pmWhy do our Commander Guy in Chief and the Republican nominee hate our troops?
May 26th, 2008 at 4:00 pmThey don’t call ‘em rePIGligcans for nothing.
May 26th, 2008 at 4:03 pmI, too, am a Vietnam vet and was able to finish my education on the old GI Bill. Not too much to ask from a country for risking your ass, is it?
Johnny Boy and all his anti-military buddies are disgusting and hypocritical scumbags. And I hope the truth will come out between now and November.
May 26th, 2008 at 4:19 pmI hate the president
do you hate the president?
I hate the president and you hate the president we can be friends
those are the lyrics to my big hit. crowd went nuts saturday at the Hellapop music festival I played at. I’m sure you liberals will get a kick out of it. I also debuted my song about Malcolm X that I wrote for Malcolm X day last week.
May 26th, 2008 at 4:20 pmhey troops. Wake the HELL up!!!!! The republicans are coawrds and don’t give two shits about you.
May 26th, 2008 at 4:23 pmupside 99 – your statement:
..is right on brother. I’m a regular joe, no military service. But I can tell you this my friend – anyone who puts their ass “on the line” for this country deserves 4 years of college free of cost. End of story.
And anyone who disagrees I have only one thing to say to you. _____________! (have to be civil)
May 26th, 2008 at 4:56 pmBush and McCain did not have to worry about the cost of college as both were born to well off and well connected families.
Both Bush and McCain should be ashamed of themselves. Our brave men and women deserve a chance at the education that both Bush and McCain would deny them.
I went to college on the old GI bill. If not for the GI bill, I would not have an education and would not have my current job. Current service members deserve this benefit. Some have paid with their lives.
Why do Bush and McCain hate our troops?????? And what about Bush and McCain not wanting to give our troops and extra half percent raise?
Anyone who cares about America will vote a straight Democratic ticket this year.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:01 pmSen. Webb has the real military leadership credentials McBush lacks (being a flyboy & POW just not quite the same as Jim Webb doing the actual command thing- 1st in Webb’s class v. near the bottom of McCain’s class, etc, etc.). Hence the non-support from McBush for Webb’s ‘08 version of the GI Bill:
“First in his class of 243 at the Marine Corps Officers’ Basic School in Quantico, Virginia, Webb served with the Fifth Marine Regiment in Vietnam, where as a rifle platoon and company commander in the infamous An Hoa Basin west of Danang he was awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star Medal, two Bronze Star Medals, and two Purple Hearts. He later served as a platoon commander and as an instructor in tactics and weapons at Marine Corps Officer Candidates School, and then as a member of the Secretary of the Navy’s immediate staff, before leaving the Marine Corps in 1972.
Webb received his J.D. at Georgetown University Law Center in 1975. He served in the U.S. Congress as counsel to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs from 1977 to 1981. In 1982, he first proposed, then led the fight for, including an African American soldier in the memorial statue that now graces the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on the National Mall. In 1984, he was appointed the inaugural Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. In 1987, he became the first Naval Academy graduate in history to serve in the military and then become Secretary of the Navy.”
http://webb.senate.gov/jim/
May 26th, 2008 at 5:02 pmRight. Jim Webb, former career combat Marine and Secretary of the Navy, knows less about what attracts people to the military and keeps them there than George Bush, Ted Stevens and John McCain. The only thing worse than a lying Republican is a heartless one. John McCain is a disgrace to the uniform he once wore in that he has sold his soul to Bush Republicans so that they will contribute to his presidential campaign. He has forsaken any loyalities he once had to the men and women who risk everything for our country. Thank god he and George W. Bush can’t hide behind our troops anymore since they’ve chosed to turn their backs on them.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:04 pmThe fact that the Republicans pander to the troops with their photo-ops and say how much they support the troops while pulling shit like this just proves how much contempt these ELITISTS have for the military. They just see the military as cannon fodder and lowly peons for their wars for profit.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:04 pmRe-PIG-lican two faced liar.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:09 pmblockquote>Louis Lemire Says:
Thanks Louis, I just wish the current vets could be tyreated AT LEAST as well as we were, benefits-wise. But they ared being used in this BushCo regime as pawns and as And yet says, above, Webb (and I will include Hagel) as the only real leadership in Congress with the sack to speak up and challenge these Chickenhawks.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:10 pmFeigned indignation at the NYT for telling the truth, unable to defend against the editorial with anything of substance —
May 26th, 2008 at 5:16 pmOh, that the Times would have told the truth 6,7,8 years ago when they and others might have changed the course that this cabal of insane warmongering profiteers have led the nation.
Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home.
This is not true.
Pres Bush has been quite generous with his cronies and loyalists. They are all making millions with the ‘reconstruction’ of Iraq, by leaving projects half-way done and overcharging the military for their ’services’.
Heckuvajob Georgie!
May 26th, 2008 at 5:17 pmmcbush got his college education before he served, and bush never got a college education period. He did”attend” college but he didn’t learn anything.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:17 pmOff topic,
Thank all of you who served in the military. I hope your Memorial Day was thoughtful (full of thought) for those who didn’t come home whole.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:19 pmBut KBR has come under fire from Congress and Pentagon auditors for complaints ranging from making more than $200 million in excessive charges, including meals never served to soldiers, to delivering unsafe water to American troops.
The Army has built into the deal the potential for larger profits for the contractors than existed under the prior contract, and it plans to outsource much of the management and oversight of the contractors to yet another company, Serco Inc., for $59 million.
After reading that John McCain can makes excuses why our soldiers don’t deserve better. All of this waste could be going to improve all the VA Hospitals across the country that have horrible conditions and still have money left over to give the soldiers a decent pay raise that they deserve.
Plus it would easily fund the new GI Bill, no problem. Stop awarding contracts for 10 years worth 150 billion dollars and there wouldn’t be an issue about money for the vets. They certainly deserve it more than KBR; get rid of the bums. There is no good reason to have mercenaries; they have proven time and time again to have extremely bad judgement.
If enlisted men were paid properly we wouldn’t have as many problems with recruiting. But no one can afford to have a family on what the military it paying. The stats prove it, food stamps are on the rise in military families. There is absolutely no excuse for the this, none. My God, we are asking them to lay down their lives and won’t even pay them enough to feed their children. That is a pretty big problem that should have been solved long ago. But it is okay that KBR is paying their mercenaries outrageous sums of money. Is it a wonder they don’t have problems finding people to work for them.
Sorry to rant. But if this country wants to keep good people you have to pay them, it shows you respect the job that they are doing. This country has a hell of a way of showing respect.
My family personally has a long line of members that have serviced in the Army and Navy. I have three great uncles that served under Patton. Two uncles that went to Vietnam. My father went to Japan for the Navy after we dropped the bombs, unfortunately I say pictures most people never want to see. My husband and his two brothers were in the Navy during the late 70’s and 80’s.
All the men and women who have served deserve the respect to be paid fairly and given a college education, if they so desire. To make excuses is saying that their sacrifices are inconsequential and trivial, not a good message coming from an administration that called us traitors for not supporting the war. They are the ones that have proven that they are the true traitors.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:23 pmToday, Bush remembered the troops whose deaths he helped facilitate.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:37 pmMarie Says:
Feigned indignation at the NYT for telling the truth, unable to defend against the editorial with anything of substance —
Oh, that the Times would have told the truth 6,7,8 years ago when they and others might have changed the course that this cabal of insane warmongering profiteers have led the nation.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Funny how they didn’t hate the New York Times when they were publishing Judy Miller’s propaganda on their behalf. But start publishing the truth asbout the Bush administration, and boy do they get upset. Obviously, the truth differs from the Bush adminstration’s view of the facts, and they do not like this pointed out. Liars, especially the habitual ones, do not like to be called on their lies.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:39 pmGood post, Freedom Rebel. One of the first things President Obama should do about the war in Iraq is cancel all no-bid, cost-plus contracts, and put them up for awarding again, but this time, not at “cost-plus”, and not as “no-bid”. Then, begin the un-privatization of our military forces and get rid of the mercenaries.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:44 pmStevens warned of a “mass exodus” from the military if the 21st Century GI Bill goes into law.
Ted Stevens’ excuse to oppose the bill is so lame it’s not even funny. I recommend clicking on the link and reading the article on VetVoice’s website, if you haven’t done so yet.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:45 pmAnd don’t forget: Pres Bush is also making sacrifices.
He has given up playing golf.
/sarc off
May 26th, 2008 at 5:46 pmHow Ted Stevens has not gone to jail yet for all his illegal dealings is beyond me. He has sold his soul to Big Oil and the Anti-climate change interests to the point most Alaskans feel he will destroy their fine state before he slithers off into the sunset.
And don’t forget, he is “Mr. Internets are a bunch of tubes”
May 26th, 2008 at 5:51 pmSunday on Face the Nation, Grahm was spouting just the opposit stating that the CBO said the Webb bill would result in re-enlistment losses of 16%. How come no one has caught that yet?
May 26th, 2008 at 5:54 pmGregor Samsa Says:
And don’t forget: Pres Bush is also making sacrifices.
He has given up playing golf.
/sarc off
May 26th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Ha-ha, except he didn’t really do that, either. He has told yet another lie.
May 26th, 2008 at 6:18 pmonly a sociopathic coward could get on stage and spew some junk about how he cares for the gi’s/vets when he vetoed a .5% raise, veto a gi bill, treat the wounded as chopped liver, left our bases in complete shambles and led us into one of the most agregious state sponsored terroism scandels in history all in the name of oil and israel.
May 26th, 2008 at 6:34 pmMike Gravel is officially out of the race. think progress should give him a political Eulogy
Mike made history
May 26th, 2008 at 6:35 pmonly a sociopathic coward
Nah, he’s just dumb. Dumber than all the trolls here combined. Hell even his father did everything he could to get Dumbya a real job, and all he ever did is embarrass his old man.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, loser idiot Shrub.
May 26th, 2008 at 6:37 pmI’ve always referred to the shrub as a narcissistic dry drunk but that’s not accurate since he’s probably still drinking.
The guy was kicked out of the TX Air Nat’l guard (for drugs, booze, you name it) and then went awol when they sent him to Alabama. W does not have the moral authority to send young men and women to die. What makes it pathetic is that he’s sending them off to an illegal war for profit.
History will surely paint W as the scumbag bottom feeder that he is.
May 26th, 2008 at 6:59 pm“Stevens warned of a “mass exodus” from the military if the 21st Century GI Bill goes into law. Similarly, McCain said today that the Webb GI Bill “would hurt the military and our country very badly.”
My two thoughts, my two cent’s worth: Stevens and McCain have done more to destroy this country than 100 of their fellow idiots in congress. The mass exodus would be the result of arrogance and incompetence of of our so-called leaders because they don’t give a shit.
May 26th, 2008 at 7:05 pmWhite House Press Secretary Dana Perino quickly unleashed an attack on the editorial, claiming the editorial board “doesn’t let the facts get in the way of expressing its vitriolic opinions — no matter how misleading they may be.”
Yeah , they truly need to follow your group’s stellar example(s) , right you empty headed bim ?
May 26th, 2008 at 7:20 pmIt’s not nice to attack the New York Times, Dana.
May 26th, 2008 at 7:24 pmYou’ll end up on the dung heap with Judith Miller.
Frankly, their opposition is inexplicable & indefensible. “Support the troops” — a Repub false slogan. They don’t support them at all, at least if money is involved. Repubs– no wonder you are going down– your top people do not support the troops, unless they are overseas & dying– back in the States, they are just liabilities! If any Repub ever- EVER– uses “support the troops” again, let’s all remind them of Bush & McCain & their blocking/vetoing of a bill that actually, really does support the troops.
May 26th, 2008 at 7:27 pmDo Bush and McCain believe that American soldiers have more than one life to give their country?
McCain is a pandering traitor to every man and woman risking their lives in Bush’s phony Iraq fiasco and in an undermanned Afghanistan. Evidently, McCain believes that a man and or woman who “survives” their first tour of duty in a war zone hasn’t risked “enough” to “deserve” maximum educational benefits. How much more can a human being risk before John McCain understands that it’s too late to reward them when they’re dead?
May 26th, 2008 at 7:43 pmI think most of the disagreement on this issue is military staffing in the short run.
I understand that with the Webb bill, the benefits may induce many veterans to leave the military and also induce more recruiting in the future. But, it sets up a near term shortage. For progressives that promote a near term withdrawal from Iraq, that scenario lines up with their perception or desire for staffing needs. And additionally, it accelerates the need to withdrawal which progressives want.
But the scenario doesn’t fit with the view of republicans that want to maintain a more robust short run presence in the middle east and especially Iraq. The near term shortages in military staffing may play into democrat plans, but they hamstring republican plans to continue to prosecute the war in Iraq.
This GI bill issue probably has more to do with the war in Iraq than it has to do with either parties goals for veterans benefits.
May 26th, 2008 at 7:58 pmNow, now. We can’t increase compensation for U.S. military personnel when Blackwater needs “troops”. Not to mention that educating all those fine young people is contrary to the neocon agenda.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:01 pmI guess the theory here is to keep them stupid as long as possible. making them more malleable and easily buffaloed. Guess what I’ve talked to several of these kids and they are on to the repugnant scam
May 26th, 2008 at 8:10 pmThis GI bill issue probably has more to do with the war in Iraq than it has to do with either parties goals for veterans benefits.
Yet another reason to call out the idiots in charge for POLITICIZING a non-partisan cause: VETERANS WELFARE.
But apologists like you will continue to beat the drum of “whatever the GOP wants”.
You shit-heels need to learn you can’t have it both ways.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:15 pmUm, backup, the “near term shortages” are already here. How else could one explain the lowering of standards for enlistment, the reckless deployment of reserves, and clearing 43,000 walking wounded for regular duty.
The single greatest threat to our international security isn’t in Iraq. The threat is an exhausted, demoralized, misled military. The only way to fix it is to end the mad Mideastern adventure. Since Bush would, conceivably, declare marshal law before he allows it to end “on his watch” about all that can be done is to make military service more desirable. Unless, of course, you want a military composed of rejects and psychopaths bent on killing Muslims for fun, revenge and Jesus?
May 26th, 2008 at 8:18 pmUnless, of course, you want a military composed of rejects and psychopaths bent on killing Muslims for fun, revenge and Jesus?
BINGO! We have a winner.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:24 pmThe Dumbya quote for the thread’s photo reads:
“Hey there little guy! You’re daddy died for a worthy cause, even though he was an immigrant, heh-heh. And maybe when you grow up, you can die for the benefit of my stock portfolio too!”
May 26th, 2008 at 8:27 pmpete. I’m not arguing for or against the war in Iraq. I’m just calling this debate about veteran’s benefits what it is; partisan politics.
It’s naive to believe that democrats want to help veterans and republicans don’t.
What’s going on here is a very savvy political move. Democrats want to induce veterans to leave the military to cause a more significant near term staffing problem that will accelerate the need for troop withdrawals in Iraq.
Republican’s don’t want a GI Bill that will induce veterans to leave soon, because of their concern to maintain sufficient staffing to follow thru on their commitment to Iraq. That is why their GI bill proposals phase in over a longer period.
If you disagree with Iraq, I understand. But, the attempt to paint this issue as ‘democrats care about veterans and republicans don’t’ is a disingenous dismissal of the politics being played out over the war in Iraq.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:37 pmStevens warned of a “mass exodus” from the military if the 21st Century GI Bill goes into law.
Yeah, well, we got us a “mass exodus” now – our soldiers are dying because they keep getting sent back to Iraq for 4, 5, 6 and even 7 combat tours. And then there are the soldiers who come back missing pieces of themselves thanks to Chimpy’s War of Choice.
Thanks, Chimpy. This is all on YOU.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:40 pmBackup: Shut up, you benighted idiot. You are just plain stupid if you believe that crap – and worse, you’re still apologizing and defending evil.
I had started to take you somewhat seriously, but man, when you lay it on so effing thick with your stupid “democrats did it too” crap – I just want to kick you in the teeth.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:43 pmDemocrats want to induce veterans to leave the military to cause a more significant near term staffing problem that will accelerate the need for troop withdrawals in Iraq.
Oh, please tell us more, you’re insight is enthralling, if not completely hilarious.
If Repukes want to maintain a presence in the Mid-East AND support the Veterans, they should find a better vehicle for “catapulting the propagana” than the clusterfcuk of Iraq.
You concern trolls are laugh out loud “as retarded as they come.”
May 26th, 2008 at 8:44 pmI had started to take you somewhat seriously,
Unfortunately, even Zooey took the bait and swallowed it.
This one’s a complete schizoid-water-carrying, boot-licking-pissed-on-the-head Booshbot.
And did I mention a lying sack of shit too?
May 26th, 2008 at 8:46 pmbackup Says:
It’s naive to believe that democrats want to help veterans and republicans don’t.
What’s going on here is a very savvy political move. Democrats want to induce veterans to leave the military to cause a more significant near term staffing problem that will accelerate the need for troop withdrawals in Iraq.
Republican’s don’t want a GI Bill that will induce veterans to leave soon, because of their concern to maintain sufficient staffing to follow thru on their commitment to Iraq. That is why their GI bill proposals phase in over a longer period.
Your assessment of the motives for those supporting this Bill are completely devoid of evidence and totally without merit. A bipartisan group supports the GI Bill and to suggest that they’re doing it to shrink the military is ridiculous. Take a look at the life and career of the primary sponsor and then get back to us.
The McCain/Bush proposal has nothing to do with Iraq, although it might have to do with their desire to launch more and more wars. The proposal doesn’t “phase” anything in, except that it denies benefits to military personnel who haven’t spent 12 years in service and denies benefits to non-active military in the Guard and Reserves.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:47 pmthe politics being played out over the war in Iraq.
And since you bought the lie of Irag hook, line and sinker, you’re still too dense to realize the WHOLE THING was a partisan-political move.
That’s why you can’t stop apologizing for Shrub, cause you can’t see the trees through the forest.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:48 pmWhy would anyone think that offering these fine men and women a benefit would make them leave the military? They are serving their country not looking for a buy in to a country club, for gods sake. If they get an enticement to serve, so be it and good for them! They deserve it.
That’s outrageously stupid.
They deserve not just this but much more. More healthcare. Less red tape. More REAL support…the support they are thus far not receiving.
You put your life on the line, this country owes you. Period. I am so against this war and all it stands for (which is just about everything anti-American) but those men and women deserve everything we can give to them. Anything less is absolutely scandalous.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:48 pmAnnie. you can’t see the politics in it? or you somehow believe that republicans are the only opportunists willing to use an issue for political reasons? Maybe, I’m not the one drinking the kool-aid.
And if Bush is responsible for the troop deaths, is he also responsible for the millions of Iraqis that have been able to vote for the first time? Does the Iraqis right to vote fall into you charge of my ‘defending evil’?
May 26th, 2008 at 8:49 pmDoes the Iraqis right to vote fall into you charge of my ‘defending evil’?
Keep it up. The stupider the better.
As if their elections have ANY merit, you stool-swallower.
What about all those great rugs for sale, hmmmmm???
Again, I wonder, why do little children come here to publicly suck Shrub’s dick?
May 26th, 2008 at 8:53 pmis he also responsible for the millions of Iraqis that have been able to vote for the first time?
Yea, Dumbya loves them, and all the refuges he REFUSES to allow to emigrate here.
Come on weasel, let’s hear some more of that wonderful GOP logic your SO full of!
May 26th, 2008 at 8:55 pmgummitch. Webb is a great veteran and patriot. And McCain isn’t?
These are two men with different visions for the future of Iraq. Their veterans bills are designed on the opposing visions. Too simplify it to ‘democrats support veterans and republicans don’t’ is disingenuous. McCains vision would require more short term staffing. Webb’s view benefits by near term shortages.
The issue is being used as a tool by both parties to accomplish opposing goals that each feel are in the best interest of the country.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:59 pmThen, of course, there’s the decades long process of bringing up a new generation of warrior generals to replace the political hacks who have survived the Bush purge.
And seriously, I would be fascinated to hear the reasoning that confirms the Webb bill is a partisan attempt to weaken the military. Especially in light of the wide Republican support it had before Georgie started puffing about a veto. I really can’t see the mechanism involved.
Military contracts are designed so that one can’t simply leave for greener pastures. As I, and apparently 72 Senators, see it, increasing the compensation would increase quality recruits while the existing rules would allow the military to retain essential personnel. Sure sounds like a win/win to me.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:00 pmNotwithstanding expert opinion who say the new GI Bill will encourage enlistments, when one argues “Stevens said…” or “McSame said…” you can discount those statements on their face.
Both pathetic excuses for humans are pathological liars and partisan neocon hacks. Their credibility is right up there with Herr Rove, Rice and others.
I see TP has their share of trolls – and strange ones at that. Poor bastards, if only time could heal them but one life would not be near enough.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:05 pmbackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
I think most of the disagreement on this issue is military staffing in the short run.
I understand that with the Webb bill, the benefits may induce many veterans to leave the military and also induce more recruiting in the future. But, it sets up a near term shortage. For progressives that promote a near term withdrawal from Iraq, that scenario lines up with their perception or desire for staffing needs. And additionally, it accelerates the need to withdrawal which progressives want.
But the scenario doesn’t fit with the view of republicans that want to maintain a more robust short run presence in the middle east and especially Iraq. The near term shortages in military staffing may play into democrat plans, but they hamstring republican plans to continue to prosecute the war in Iraq.
This GI bill issue probably has more to do with the war in Iraq than it has to do with either parties goals for veterans benefits.
May 26th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Then go get the imbeciles that make up the “Young Republicans” on all college campuses ; and if you’re still short , start enlisting ALL GOP family members who support McCain’s version of the GI bill, co-sponsored with Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and Richard Burr.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:06 pmbackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
Take a look at the life and career of the primary sponsor and then get back to us.
gummitch. Webb is a great veteran and patriot. And McCain isn’t?
These are two men with different visions for the future of Iraq. Their veterans bills are designed on the opposing visions. Too simplify it to ‘democrats support veterans and republicans don’t’ is disingenuous. McCains vision would require more short term staffing. Webb’s view benefits by near term shortages.
The issue is being used as a tool by both parties to accomplish opposing goals that each feel are in the best interest of the country.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Umm , wanna’ know what the difference is ?
Your party has been HORRIBLY WRONG about everything these last 8 years , and especially about Iraq ; you do not deserve to even be heard , much less more chances ………
May 26th, 2008 at 9:08 pmThe issue is being used as a tool by both parties to accomplish opposing goals that each feel are in the best interest of the country.
You’ll never disown the dead and dying from this war since you supported it from the get-go.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:11 pmMcMetal – exactly my point.
The GOP has been nothing but liars and propagandists for the betterment of corporations (facism).
Even listening to one of their arguments is like listening to Himler make a point in 1943. No difference.
The credibility of the GOP is worthless, non-existant. ANYTHING they say can be discounted, without question or argument. History will prove this to be the case (of course we already know). The GOP are nothing more then bottom feeders – they have not a single right to say anything – their days are numbered.
This time next year they will be relegated to the dust bin of history – and hopefully for the next 60 years.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:14 pmbackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
Backup: Shut up, you benighted idiot. You are just plain stupid if you believe that crap – and worse, you’re still apologizing and defending evil.
Annie. you can’t see the politics in it? or you somehow believe that republicans are the only opportunists willing to use an issue for political reasons? Maybe, I’m not the one drinking the kool-aid.
And if Bush is responsible for the troop deaths, is he also responsible for the millions of Iraqis that have been able to vote for the first time? Does the Iraqis right to vote fall into you charge of my ‘defending evil’?
May 26th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Getting individuals to vote in a joke of an election that would make a banana republic candidate cringe and over 1 million lives having been extinguished is logical in your mind and eyes ?
What the hell kind of a GOP tool-kissing moron are you ?
May 26th, 2008 at 9:14 pmbackup Says:
Take a look at the life and career of the primary sponsor and then get back to us.
gummitch. Webb is a great veteran and patriot. And McCain isn’t?
These are two men with different visions for the future of Iraq. Their veterans bills are designed on the opposing visions. Too simplify it to ‘democrats support veterans and republicans don’t’ is disingenuous. McCains vision would require more short term staffing. Webb’s view benefits by near term shortages.
You keep attaching this to the occupation of Iraq, without any evidence at all. The GI Bill is about restoring a promise made to our military after WWII and for many years after. As far as I can see, your attempts to couch it as a political football is part and parcel of your constant attempts to prove that there are always too equally good sides to any issue. The GI Bill is the right thing to do. Period.
Here’s the real dichotomy: people who support this Bill, regardless of party, are correct and those who are attempting to weaken it are incorrect. The latter just happen to be the Bush White House and their cohorts.
Congress passed this with a veto-proof margin in both houses. There’s nothing Republican/Democratic about it.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:17 pmgummitch. you have a good argument when you bring up the bipartisan support.
From what I believe about the bills, those that support McCains want to continue in Iraq and those that support Webb think we should withdrawal. That view would align with the level of bipartisan support, due to the declining support for the war, even among republicans.
Again, it is my believe that the reason for McCain’s opposition to Webb’s bill is not due to his disregard for veterans, but a concern that an exodus would jeopardize what he sees as necessary involvement in Iraq.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:31 pmStatement by the Press Secretary
Once again, the New York Times Editorial Board doesn’t let the facts get in the way of expressing its vitriolic opinions – no matter how misleading they may be.
In today’s editorial, “Mr. Bush and the GI Bill”, the New York Times irresponsibly distorts President Bush’s strong commitment to strengthening and expanding support for America’s service members and their families.
This editorial could not be farther from the truth about the President’s record of leadership on this issue. In his January 2008 State of the Union Address, while proposing a series of initiatives to support our military families, President Bush specifically called upon Congress to answer service members’ request that they be able to transfer their GI Bill benefits to their spouses and children. In April, he sent a legislative package to the Hill that would expand access to childcare, create new authorities to appoint qualified spouses into civil service jobs, provide education opportunities and job training for military spouses, and allow our troops to transfer their unused education benefits to their spouses or children.
As Congress debates the best way to expand the existing GI Bill, Secretary Gates has laid out important guidelines to ensure that legislation meets our service members’ needs and rewards military service. First, since our servicemen and women have regularly requested the ability to transfer their GI bill benefits to their family members, legislation should include transferability. Second, legislation should provide greater rewards for continued military service in the all volunteer force.
There are several GI bill proposals under consideration in both the House and Senate. The Department of Defense has specific concerns about legislation sponsored by Senator Webb because it lacks transferability and could negatively impact military retention.
The President specifically supports the GI Bill legislation expansion 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.
Though readers of the New York Times editorial page wouldn’t know it, President Bush looks forward to signing a GI bill that supports our troops and their families, and preserves the experience and skill of our forces.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080526-2.html
May 26th, 2008 at 9:39 pmbackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
gummitch. you have a good argument when you bring up the bipartisan support.
From what I believe about the bills, those that support McCains want to continue in Iraq and those that support Webb think we should withdrawal. That view would align with the level of bipartisan support, due to the declining support for the war, even among republicans.
Again, it is my believe that the reason for McCain’s opposition to Webb’s bill is not due to his disregard for veterans, but a concern that an exodus would jeopardize what he sees as necessary involvement in Iraq.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
The all-volunteer military of the US should be able to make their own judgement(s) , without the “aid” of McShitstain , as to the validity of being in Iraq and whether each member wants to remain ; it is they who are sacrificing , not Chimpy or McJowels.
Besides , who gives a damn what an absolutely piss-poor pilot believes , anyway ?
May 26th, 2008 at 9:42 pmMCMetal. Let’s assume that the mess in Iraq is all George Bush’s fault. That should be easy for you.
Now, let’s assume that you consider yourself progressive.
Here’s a clip from al jazeera that show what women are facing in the withdrawal of british troops from Basra. It is a circumstance that many women of the middle east are faced with and will be increasingly subject to in the absence of whatever deterence we provide to intolerant Islamic fundamentalism.
You could spend every minute of your day blaming Bush for the world’s problems. I get it.
But, do me a favor and watch the clip. And explain to me how you marry the ideas that you are a progressive and that your comfortable abandoning the women of Iraq to Islamic fundamentalism?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj3W-wHYBKA
Under the leadership of a progressive president (Obama), why would we abandon the women of the middle east to conditions that we would never tolerate here?
May 26th, 2008 at 9:43 pmscotth Says:
——————————————————————————–
Statement by the Press Secretary
Once again, the New York Times Editorial Board doesn’t let the facts get in the way of expressing its vitriolic opinions – no matter how misleading they may be.
In today’s editorial, “Mr. Bush and the GI Bill”, the New York Times irresponsibly distorts President Bush’s strong commitment to strengthening and expanding support for America’s service members and their families.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
The Chimpy administration being paragons of virtue and purveyors of the truth at all times ……………..
What a joke.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:44 pm“Under the leadership of a progressive president (Obama), why would we abandon the women of the middle east to conditions that we would never tolerate here?”
May 26th, 2008 at 9:43 pm Add Karma Recommend (0) |
Because it is not our place to rule the world.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:48 pmWhen the United States can clearly set an example of moral, peaceful and respectful consideration for the worlds peoples, starting with it’s own citizens, we might stand a chance of changing the way human beings are treated in the rest of the world.
backup Says:
——————————————————————————–
Getting individuals to vote in a joke of an election that would make a banana republic candidate cringe and over 1 million lives having been extinguished is logical in your mind and eyes ?
What the hell kind of a GOP tool-kissing moron are you ?
MCMetal. Let’s assume that the mess in Iraq is all George Bush’s fault. That should be easy for you.
Now, let’s assume that you consider yourself progressive.
Here’s a clip from al jazeera that show what women are facing in the withdrawal of british troops from Basra. It is a circumstance that many women of the middle east are faced with and will be increasingly subject to in the absence of whatever deterence we provide to intolerant Islamic fundamentalism.
You could spend every minute of your day blaming Bush for the world’s problems. I get it.
But, do me a favor and watch the clip. And explain to me how you marry the ideas that you are a progressive and that your comfortable abandoning the women of Iraq to Islamic fundamentalism?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj3W-wHYBKA
Under the leadership of a progressive president (Obama), why would we abandon the women of the middle east to conditions that we would never tolerate here?
May 26th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
You are such a d-bag.
Unlike you , and ALL OF THE GARBAGE GOP ESPECIALLY CHIMPY AND CO , I take responsibility for all of my actions and statements ; you , on the other hand , laughably fall for stupid slogans like the “Party of Personal Responsibility” nonsense , and then attempt to excuse-make for each one of these clowns , and then LIE OUTRIGHT about my “blaming Chimpy” for all the world’s problems.
And , if you are so worried about “Middle Eastern women” that are oppressed , you would be insisting that Saudi Arabia be rectified 1st ; as they are much more stringent and oppressive towards women and are the country that 90% of the terrorists on 9/11 came from.
Shut up about what will happen if and when our military leaves ; you haven’t been right about a goddamn thing there in 6 years and have no room to speak any further on the subject.
“Just another 6 months” is no longer acceptable , you GOP backing suckhole.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:51 pmif I may suggest…
May 26th, 2008 at 9:54 pm“…GOP sucking back-hole”
If these enlisted men and women go to college, imagine how their children will grow up! Buh-bye GOP for them!
If this is all about Iraq, what about those who have served and those in Afghanistan and other places? What about all those stationed domestically? Those serving in the Navy who aren’t involved in Iraq?
May 26th, 2008 at 9:55 pmThat d-bag is obviously both ……….
May 26th, 2008 at 9:55 pmbackup’s not so bad since he got rid of his ego-centric macho screen name, he has considerable points of view at times.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:00 pmNot to say that I don’t consider him to be a mere deluded wingtard.
Nevar. When my daughter grows up she will be able to vote. She’s be able to speak her mind. Wear what she wants to wear. Work whatever job she wants to work. If she decides to have sex out of wedlock, she won’t be killed for it.
She won’t live in fear of being beheaded for wanting or doing the same things as a man. That’s a circumstance that progressives should be championing for the women of the middle east.
I don’t know where you get you impression that United States lags in human rights, but comparatively, its citizens (especially women) enjoy relative freedom.
Apologizing for trumped American human rights abuses in light of whats happening within Islamic fundamentalism, seems naive.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:02 pmThere it is. The ultimate strawman. In the interest of fairness I want to get this straight.
The claim appears to be that passing, signing and enacting the Webb bill will “abandon the women of Iraq to Islamic fundamentalism”?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
My apologies, but, such an asinine statement deserves nothing but contempt and derision.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:02 pmbackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
When the United States can clearly set an example of moral, peaceful and respectful consideration for the worlds peoples, starting with it’s own citizens, we might stand a chance of changing the way human beings are treated in the rest of the world.
Nevar. When my daughter grows up she will be able to vote. She’s be able to speak her mind. Wear what she wants to wear. Work whatever job she wants to work. If she decides to have sex out of wedlock, she won’t be killed for it.
She won’t live in fear of being beheaded for wanting or doing the same things as a man. That’s a circumstance that progressives should be championing for the women of the middle east.
I don’t know where you get you impression that United States lags in human rights, but comparatively, its citizens (especially women) enjoy relative freedom.
Apologizing for trumped American human rights abuses in light of whats happening within Islamic fundamentalism, seems naive.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Oh , I get it , we’re now in Iraq for reason #417 ; to fight for the rights of Middle Eastern women.
How positively enlightening ……….You are such a pathetic GOP stoolie.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:09 pmAnd then it gets more stupid? This is rich.
The Bush administration has sacrificed our accountability on issues of human rights. Between “collateral damage”, rendition, prisoner abuse, abandoning the Geneva Conventions and the simple act of holding foreign nationals without charge or trial; OUR COMPLAINTS HAVE BECOME IRRELEVANT.
Maybe, after a few decades of impeccable behavior, the United States might regain the ears of the world. But, I don’t see us being restored to our former position of respect in the community of lawful nations in my lifetime.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:13 pmNevar. Thanks. I appreciate your putting up with me, although I disagree often. I initially thought the CaptainMantastic name was over the top and entertaining (for me, anyway) but, it made my often disageeable stands on issues, even more offputting. TP did me a favor by banning me and forcing me into a new moniker.
I know it’s difficult to listen to someone that believes the opposite of what you believe, but, I appreciate that you do.
And on this issue of veteran’s benefits, I have moderated my impression of who is the better steward. (Mostly thanks to some things that Wayne has said). I think Democrats are the better stewards.
I was only trying to raise the idea that there are other considerations involved in the latest GI bill proposals than helping veterans.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:17 pmbackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
backup’s not so bad since he got rid of his ego-centric macho screen name, he has considerable points of view at times.
Not to say that I don’t consider him to be a mere deluded wingtard.
Nevar. Thanks. I appreciate your putting up with me, although I disagree often. I initially thought the CaptainMantastic name was over the top and entertaining (for me, anyway) but, it made my often disageeable stands on issues, even more offputting. TP did me a favor by banning me and forcing me into a new moniker.
I know it’s difficult to listen to someone that believes the opposite of what you believe, but, I appreciate that you do.
And on this issue of veteran’s benefits, I have moderated my impression of who is the better steward. (Mostly thanks to some things that Wayne has said). I think Democrats are the better stewards.
I was only trying to raise the idea that there are other considerations involved in the latest GI bill proposals than helping veterans.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
NOW HERE THIS
Again , I cannot stress this enough ; you and your imbecilic ilk have nothing but a laundry list of failures over the last 7 + years.
An opposite opinion would be viable if there was credibility involved ; you and those whom you support have absolutely none.
How about attempting to raise your piss-poor IQ before trying to raise questions with-in those who are nowhere near as gullible nor as blindly loyal even with overwhelming evidence of their inabilities and motive(s)………
May 26th, 2008 at 10:24 pm“I was only trying to raise the idea that there are other considerations involved in the latest GI bill proposals than helping veterans.”
Such is the case with legislation in this day and age.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:24 pmCongress and the Executive are unable to address singular issues and resolve them for the higher good without tacking on earmarks and loopholes and signing statements.
Nevar Says:
——————————————————————————–
“I was only trying to raise the idea that there are other considerations involved in the latest GI bill proposals than helping veterans.”
Such is the case with legislation in this day and age.
Congress and the Executive are unable to address singular issues and resolve them for the higher good without tacking on earmarks and loopholes and signing statements.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Perhaps if the bill were by someone other than Jim Webb ; he has never shown a proclivity when it’s his military brothers and sisters involved.
BTW backup
The reason why your assessment is nothing more than laughable and stupid is because Webb’s bill is OVER A YEAR OLD ; you believe Webb was trying to send/make a political statement over a year ago ?
Gimme a break with your foolish nonsense…………..
May 26th, 2008 at 10:31 pmbackup: “I don’t know where you get you impression that United States lags in human rights, but comparatively, its citizens (especially women) enjoy relative freedom.”
“Apologizing for trumped American human rights abuses in light of whats happening within Islamic fundamentalism, seems naive.”
Whose apologizing?
In my neighborhood, the American Southwest, I see the human rights abuses of North America’s indigenous populations that has been going on for 500 years.
And across the globe I see the very same human rights we take for granted being denied to aboriginal and native cultures so that we can suck their life’s resources away to support our own gluttonous lifestyles.
And yes, we enjoy relative (nice loophole you left yourself there) freedom. We have also become slaves to the corporate world which masters our food, energy, and privacy.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:34 pmNope. The Webb bill is not about “helping veterans”. It’s about rewarding those who may be killed, wounded or disabled before they have the chance to achieve the honorable status of “veteran”.
Just as a personal example: my late Father was a B-17 navigator/bombardier in 1943. He flew six missions before he contracted TB. Lucky break there since not a single flight-crew member of his squadron survived their combat tour of 25 missions and he fought the disease long enough to benefit from early antibiotics. After 18 months in hospitals, his G.I. benefits nearly paid for his dual Masters degrees from M.I.T.
Under current rules, or the McCain bill as I understand it, he would be shipped home with a handshake. There’s no way in Hell he would have been able to attend such an elite school. He probably wouldn’t have been on the team that developed the first disc drive or been in position to push IBM’s development of PCs. Who knows? Perhaps, if he had received the same benefits as today, we wouldn’t have an internet?
Makes one wonder, don’t it?
May 26th, 2008 at 10:48 pmMCMetal. In hindsight, it was a mistake to invade Iraq. The were no significant WMD and we had more time or other options to deal with Saddam.
But, you understand that there are no free rides. No real black and white, easy solutions.
We are in the situation that we are in, in Iraq. We can blame George Bush for getting us into that situation. You can blame me for supporting him.
But, now if you choose to lead in a new direction, there will be some negative consequences from that decision. The withdrawal from an unstable Iraq could result in increased genocide and conditions that are much worse there than they are today. If you want to lead us out of Iraq, you are not only signing up for the positive outcomes that will occur, but for the negative unintended consequences that will occur from our withdrawal.
The situation in Iraq is difficult. Blame it on Bush. And blame it on me for supporting him.
But, should the solutions to our present circumstance be only limited to what we should have done 6 years ago? Isn’t the situation different now than it was in 2002? The answer may be a swift withdrawal, but have we really considered the ramifications of what we will leave behind?
If you believe that I have no credibility, I understand. But, just because I lack credibility, isn’t the idea still real. That there will be negative unintended consequences from a premature withdrawal and that maybe a withdrawal based on improved stability would be worth staying longer? Maybe staying longer would be worse. The question is, have we considered the ramifications?
May 26th, 2008 at 10:49 pmNevar. It’s not cut and dried, but make it easy on yourself:
would you rather your daughter grow up in the U.S. or in the middle east?
May 26th, 2008 at 10:53 pmNevar. It’s not cut and dried, but make it easy on yourself:
would you rather your daughter grow up in the U.S. or in the middle east?
Nevar says:
May 26th, 2008 at 10:58 pmNot to say that I don’t consider him to be a mere deluded wingtard.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:00 pm Add Karma Recommend (0) |
backup Says:
——————————————————————————–
An opposite opinion would be viable if there was credibility involved ; you and those whom you support have absolutely none.
MCMetal. In hindsight, it was a mistake to invade Iraq. The were no significant WMD and we had more time or other options to deal with Saddam.
But, you understand that there are no free rides. No real black and white, easy solutions.
We are in the situation that we are in, in Iraq. We can blame George Bush for getting us into that situation. You can blame me for supporting him.
But, now if you choose to lead in a new direction, there will be some negative consequences from that decision. The withdrawal from an unstable Iraq could result in increased genocide and conditions that are much worse there than they are today. If you want to lead us out of Iraq, you are not only signing up for the positive outcomes that will occur, but for the negative unintended consequences that will occur from our withdrawal.
The situation in Iraq is difficult. Blame it on Bush. And blame it on me for supporting him.
But, should the solutions to our present circumstance be only limited to what we should have done 6 years ago? Isn’t the situation different now than it was in 2002? The answer may be a swift withdrawal, but have we really considered the ramifications of what we will leave behind?
If you believe that I have no credibility, I understand. But, just because I lack credibility, isn’t the idea still real. That there will be negative unintended consequences from a premature withdrawal and that maybe a withdrawal based on improved stability would be worth staying longer? Maybe staying longer would be worse. The question is, have we considered the ramifications?
May 26th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Absolutely
The situation is different now ; the Iraqis want us the hell out of their country and I concur , and so do about 75% of the citizens of the US.
End of story.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:58 pmwould you rather your daughter grow up in the U.S. or in the middle east?
So how long before the Iraq AUMF were you fighting for the rights of Islamic women, HMMM???
May 26th, 2008 at 10:59 pmI would rather have my children live in a country of laws and accountable leadership. Unless honor is restored to American government, we could make the Mideast look pretty attractive.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:03 pmI am just concerned about all those girls growing up in Jersey.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:03 pmdbadass Says:
——————————————————————————–
I am just concerned about all those girls growing up in Jersey.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Yeah
Because guys like me make sure they become women as soon as possible………….
May 26th, 2008 at 11:05 pmYou’ve got an endless army of strawmen, don’t you, Cap’n?
Your arguments are entirely circular. Observe:
We invaded Iraq.
The Iraqis fight back.
The Iraqis form an insurgency.
We fight the insurgency.
The insurgency grows, fueled by religious extremism.
We keep fighting the insurgency.
The insurgency keeps fighting back, growing more extreme.
The population of Iraq suffers because of what we did.
We insist we have to stay to solve the problem WE created.
Circular logic. We’re there because we’re there because we’re there because we’re there.
It’s time to make an end. Get out. Let the U.N. and the other nations in the ME help Iraq regain it’s stability.
We are the problem we are fighting.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:18 pmBush screamed like a scalded dog about the NYT op-ed. The truth can be painful sometimes can’t it you miserable cur. Those clever little democrats really got you boxed in. I look forward to the veto ceremony, the “liberal” press will play it like a porno loop for the next six months. Your new legacy title: The Torture President who Hates Our Armed Forces.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:21 pmpete. I know you think things are bad in the u.s., but how about a little perspective:
How much honor would you have for a society in which, women are beheaded for going to work. For not covering up. For having sex out of wedlock. Or the female victim of rape is ‘honor’ killed.
your despair over human rights in the u.s. when considered along side your view that islamic fundamentalism might make an attractive alternative, doesn’t seem rational.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:23 pmAnnie. you make a good point.
But, the news out of Basra seems to be that once the british left there was an increase in genocide and atrocities (especially against women). If it happens in Basra after the british pullout, it’s plausible similar things will happen after we pull out of Baghdad.
It may be the right thing to withdrawal our troops. But, we should not be blind to the possibility that our withdrawal could make an already bad situation worse for the Iraqis.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:28 pmInvading by mistake=waging a war of aggression=war crime.
It’s not a complex equation.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:29 pmbackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
I would rather have my children live in a country of laws and accountable leadership. Unless honor is restored to American government, we could make the Mideast look pretty attractive.
pete. I know you think things are bad in the u.s., but how about a little perspective:
How much honor would you have for a society in which, women are beheaded for going to work. For not covering up. For having sex out of wedlock. Or the female victim of rape is ‘honor’ killed.
your despair over human rights in the u.s. when considered along side your view that islamic fundamentalism might make an attractive alternative, doesn’t seem rational.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Islamic extremists make no bones about whom and what they are ; while their ideology and methods are truly extreme , they stand behind it and are willing to die for it.
This country’s “democracy” has become perverted and lying is almost like breathing , especially to the GOP and you , one of their imbecilic backers.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself ; you are no American.
You are instead , a partisan political hack for the worst group that has ever called themselves “representatives” in this nation’s proud history.
They represent everything that is wrong and only give a damn about themselves and their garbage political party 1st and second , and screw everything and everyone else.
You can all go to hell………………
May 26th, 2008 at 11:30 pmbackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
We are the problem we are fighting.
Annie. you make a good point.
But, the news out of Basra seems to be that once the british left there was an increase in genocide and atrocities (especially against women). If it happens in Basra after the british pullout, it’s plausible similar things will happen after we pull out of Baghdad.
It may be the right thing to withdrawal our troops. But, we should not be blind to the possibility that our withdrawal could make an already bad situation worse for the Iraqis.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
It is their country and it is time to give it back to them.
Let them do as they see fit ; as for us , it is time to bury our dead and move on with the arrests of the entire Chimpy administration , including former members , and punish them for their crimes………………
May 26th, 2008 at 11:32 pmMCMetal. Under Bush’s leadership we stumbled into Iraq. We decapitated the leadership and a power struggle has ensued. Islamic fundamentalists want to spread their rule in the area and subjugate human rights to Islamic law. We have a window into scenes of genocide, rapes, beheadings and oppression that will intensify when we withdraw.
What you seem to be saying is “let’s close the curtain, walk away and let them handle it. It’s George Bush’s fault, anyway.”
I understand you anger at Bush, but how is it progressive to turn your back on the genocide and oppression giving the situation as it is today? If it were happening in another country, you’d be calling for something to be done about it.
I thought human rights and women’s rights were important to progressives.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:52 pmbackup Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
You f_cking slime bag.
I haven’t read the comments after this one yet, but I’m sure you’ve been called out for your idiocy.
Get lost.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:54 pmbackup:
May 27th, 2008 at 12:00 amI mean no disrespect but your agenda is interferring with your ability to read with any degree of integrity. You are trying to set up a weird argument to support a messed up ill advised cause. Of course human/women’s rights are important to us all but you seem to be using those issues in a dishonest way.
backup Says:
——————————————————————————–
MCMetal. Under Bush’s leadership we stumbled into Iraq. We decapitated the leadership and a power struggle has ensued. Islamic fundamentalists want to spread their rule in the area and subjugate human rights to Islamic law. We have a window into scenes of genocide, rapes, beheadings and oppression that will intensify when we withdraw.
What you seem to be saying is “let’s close the curtain, walk away and let them handle it. It’s George Bush’s fault, anyway.”
I understand you anger at Bush, but how is it progressive to turn your back on the genocide and oppression giving the situation as it is today? If it were happening in another country, you’d be calling for something to be done about it.
I thought human rights and women’s rights were important to progressives.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
There are human rights atrocities and violations all over the entire planet ; do you suggest we intervene where they are the greatest and untold numbers die?
Do you suggest we invade China , which is the country I mention above ?
Let the Iraqi people decide what they want.
If and when they get a truly representative government or reps of their own and they ask for our aid , then other options may need to be invoked.
As it stands , we are needed there no longer.
Stop with bullshit reason #427 for us to remain there , you Chimpy apologist freak…….
BTW
It is “progressive” to listen to those whose country you are illegally occupying when they ask for you to get the hell out ; stop trying to make it seem as if I am not a man of my word and unfaithful to the brand or moniker you and your ignorant ilk want to try and place on me.
You and your retarded brethren back morons , liars and thieves with weak-ass excuses and blind loyalty ; how completely un-American.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:01 ambackup Says:
MCMetal. Under Bush’s leadership we stumbled into Iraq. We decapitated the leadership and a power struggle has ensued. Islamic fundamentalists want to spread their rule in the area and subjugate human rights to Islamic law. We have a window into scenes of genocide, rapes, beheadings and oppression that will intensify when we withdraw.
What you seem to be saying is “let’s close the curtain, walk away and let them handle it. It’s George Bush’s fault, anyway.”
I understand you anger at Bush, but how is it progressive to turn your back on the genocide and oppression giving the situation as it is today? If it were happening in another country, you’d be calling for something to be done about it.
I thought human rights and women’s rights were important to progressives.
We have to leave eventually, because it’s not our country. We cannot impose our way of life on the Iraqis, although we have tried. The kind of secular democratic society you envision isn’t something that can be imposed, and it’s not something that emerges just because you think it should.
And, by the way, the last time I checked women were humans. No need to distinguish between humans and women.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:13 amdbadass. That’s reasonable. I’ll take another look at it.
I’m only making the point that I don’t think it’s a black and white decision to leave Iraq. The situation in Iraq is ugly. It’s uncertain. It’s difficult.
There would be positive things that would result from our withdrawal. Our troops would come home. We could stop spending the hundreds of billions of dollars that it is costing us.
But, if you’re honest, you would acknowlegde that there will be some negative consequences. A probable increase in genocide in the wake of our withdrawal. Human rights abuses resulting from the surrender of the area to Islamic fundamentalists. That’s reality.
Again, it might be the best idea for Americans to withdraw from Iraq, but it comes along with a whole new set of consequences.
If we spent more time considering consequences before we went into Iraq, maybe we could have avoided them. If we spend some time considering the real consequences of withdrawal, maybe we can avoid some future missteps.
I apologize for my ‘don’t progressives care about human rights?’ comment. It was over the top.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:14 amNO, you thought it made for a good wedge in the conversation – one that would be difficult for bleeding heart liberals to tap dance around.
The simple fact remains that your argument, “think of what will happen to the poor Iraqi people if we abandon them now…” is laughable on it’s face. It’s SHOCKing and AWEsome in it’s poetic irony.
I will congratulate you on your new angle, though. This new persona as thoughtful, civil and considerate conservative is CLEVER and stealthy. It keeps the conversation going much longer and no one is inclined to bounce your ass because you are so polite.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:18 ambackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
backup:
I mean no disrespect but your agenda is interferring with your ability to read with any degree of integrity. You are trying to set up a weird argument to support a messed up ill advised cause. Of course human/women’s rights are important to us all but you seem to be using those issues in a dishonest way.
dbadass. That’s reasonable. I’ll take another look at it.
I’m only making the point that I don’t think it’s a black and white decision to leave Iraq. The situation in Iraq is ugly. It’s uncertain. It’s difficult.
There would be positive things that would result from our withdrawal. Our troops would come home. We could stop spending the hundreds of billions of dollars that it is costing us.
But, if you’re honest, you would acknowlegde that there will be some negative consequences. A probable increase in genocide in the wake of our withdrawal. Human rights abuses resulting from the surrender of the area to Islamic fundamentalists. That’s reality.
Again, it might be the best idea for Americans to withdraw from Iraq, but it comes along with a whole new set of consequences.
If we spent more time considering consequences before we went into Iraq, maybe we could have avoided them. If we spend some time considering the real consequences of withdrawal, maybe we can avoid some future missteps.
I apologize for my ‘don’t progressives care about human rights?’ comment. It was over the top.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:14 am
And before excuse-making , perhaps one should take into consideration who and what one is excuse-making for ………..
May 27th, 2008 at 12:18 amgummitch. I agree with everything you’re saying here. I would only add this:
I believe that the elected leaders of Iraq want us to stay, for the present, to help stabilize the situation.
I would consider any information that refutes that notion.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:19 am> I thought human rights and women’s rights
> were important to progressives.
You dont understand it, do you? Those intolerant, islamic nuts
you are so worried about opressing women? YOUR president put them there, in power, running the show, by giving them “freedumbs”…Do you know anything about how, compared to the rest of the middle east, Saddams hussien’s iraq was very progessive in the area of womens rights?
Did you ever think that maybe there was a reason your heroes armed and allies themselves with saddam hussien? maybe its because they knew that something worse would happen if you let the natural forces in the area rule? Why do YOU think reagan gave saddam weapons, anyway?
You really are so naive as to think that if you give people democracy they will unquestionably do something good with it, right? Do you think the Palestenians “freedumbs” led them to make the right decision by choosing Hamas as thier goverment?
Can you tell me, sir, roughtly what percentage of our arab allies are democracies?, anyway?
May 27th, 2008 at 12:20 amIn hindsight, it was a mistake to invade Iraq. The were no significant WMD and we had more time or other options to deal with Saddam.
~ backup @ 10:49 pm
Now, now backup -had you been really following the news, you’d know by now that there were no WMD in Iraq.
The Iraq Survey Group reported waaay back in 2005 that -more than likely- Hussein had got rid of his stockpiles in the 1990s, which was consistent with the findings of the UN’s WMD mission in Iraq prior to the invasion.
It was a mistake to invade Iraq ‘in hindsight’ only for the easily lead -like you. The rest of us knew Pres Bush was leading the country into a needless war of choice.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:23 ammccain and stevens predict mass exodus from the military? – and the last correct prediction these guys along with their neocon buddies made was when? (greeted as liberators?…oil will pay for the war?…all over within 6 months?…last throes?) – so what they are really saying is that money spent educating young people who are prepared to die for their country is not as valuable as money spent bribing lunatic militia not to shoot at them?
May 27th, 2008 at 12:24 ambackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
We have to leave eventually, because it’s not our country. We cannot impose our way of life on the Iraqis, although we have tried. The kind of secular democratic society you envision isn’t something that can be imposed, and it’s not something that emerges just because you think it should.
And, by the way, the last time I checked women were humans. No need to distinguish between humans and women.
gummitch. I agree with everything you’re saying here. I would only add this:
I believe that the elected leaders of Iraq want us to stay, for the present, to help stabilize the situation.
I would consider any information that refutes that notion.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Iraq’s “elected leaders” are nothing more than a puppet government thrown together by the Chimpy administration to be answerable to them only , and not the Iraqi people ; similar to what they believe they should have here.
They are criminals of the highest (lowest?) order , and deserve nothing but to peer through bars on a cell the rest of their useless existences for crimes against humanity and war crimes………….
May 27th, 2008 at 12:26 amI’m only making the point that I don’t think it’s a black and white decision to leave Iraq. The situation in Iraq is ugly. It’s uncertain. It’s difficult.
~ backup @ 12:14 am
Uh, and the situation in Iraq is such like you describe largely a a consequence of the invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq.
But, if you’re honest, you would acknowlegde that there will be some negative consequences. A probable increase in genocide in the wake of our withdrawal. Human rights abuses resulting from the surrender of the area to Islamic fundamentalists. That’s reality.
~ backup @ 12:14 am
Right, as opposed to the punctilious respect for human rights that the Bush administration has shown for Iraqis in Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, Sadr City, and many other places. And I suppose Halliburton hasn’t shot and killed innocent Iraqi civilians.
Are you following the news at all?
May 27th, 2008 at 12:31 amFearandSmear.
Think about it like this. Regardless of whether I am sincere or credible or reputible, doesn’t really matter.
The idea is still there. Only an idea that can be accepted, rejected, debated, refuted, considered, modified or discounted in total; regardless of the messenger.
In an honest debate, the more information or viewpoints you consider, should produce the best assessments, the best outcomes.
I suggest that if we spend a little time considering the possible consequences of withdrawal, we can act to possibly mitigate them or accept them, but at least we won’t be caught unprepared by them.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:32 amAnd b-kup’s contention that “Islamic Fundamentalism” is the only force in the Mideast is patently false. As is the contention that the Webb bill would lead to genocide. And pathetic excuses for the worst criminal in American political history.
Bush willfully destroyed a modern nation, plagued by a dictator, and has proven to be incapable and unwilling to adopt rational measures to mitigate the damage. And, we have never had the right to enforce our values on another nation no matter how distasteful we may find their’s. The only way to help Iraq is to minimize our involvement and beg the civilized world to help clean up Bushco’s mess.
The disgrace of Bushco’s human rights disasters will be played out on the international stage for a VERY long time. Bushco’s crimes against citizens of the world will be repaid in kind. They have destroyed our credibility. They have potentially removed any protection Americans once enjoyed under international accords. There are parts of the world, where Americans were once honored, that will be off limits to Americans forever.
Of course, there is still the overriding absurdity that a competent government and military will pack up and leave the Iraqi people to there fate. Heck, just getting the “contractors” disarmed and shipped home will be a long process (Though it may be safest to leave them to their fate if they prove unwilling to disarm.) Fortunately, there is a chance we can redress the wrongs we’ve perpetrated, however, it can never happen until we begin to withdraw our occupation forces. And it won’t even begin so long as our government is ruled by “black and white thinking”.
The first step is to dispense with the foolish notion that withdrawal means surrender. Reasonable people,unlike neocons, are eager to explore ways to yank off the Band-aid and allow real healing to begin. And I’ve yet to hear a single reasonable person suggest that the only options are “staying the course” or full, immediate, withdrawal. There’s a whole lot of gray area that the neocons, and their pet Psychochristians(TM), refuse to even explore.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:33 amGregor. I try to follow the news. And you’re right we have made mistakes and violations of our own.
But, do you realize that when I bring up debate about the way forward in Iraq, progressives most often point to mistakes of the past. How does that solve our problems today?
May 27th, 2008 at 12:36 amI suggest that if we spend a little time considering the possible consequences of withdrawal, we can act to possibly mitigate them or accept them,
~ backup @ 12:32 am
How cute. Since when the Bush apologists want to think before acting? They didn’t stop to think the consequences of an invasion what would be if it turned out -as if did- that Blix and his team were right about Hussein’s non-existent WMD.
Instead they called ‘traitor’, ‘unAmerican’, ‘America hater’ anyone who dared disagree.
And now, they want to weight the actual, very real, tangible consequences of the occupation of Iraq against the highly hypothetical consequences of a withdrawal.
How disingenuous. How hypocritical. How very Republican.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:41 ambackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
Are you following the news at all?
Gregor. I try to follow the news. And you’re right we have made mistakes and violations of our own.
But, do you realize that when I bring up debate about the way forward in Iraq, progressives most often point to mistakes of the past. How does that solve our problems today?
May 27th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Because just like your retarded imbecilic deity fu(king up the Oval Office , those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it , you insist that the past 7 + years of absolute incompetence and plain idiocy are insignificant ; it’s akin to throwing gasoline on a burning building to put it out and wondering why it burns quicker and hotter instead.
The definition of a knucklehead is someone who doesn’t learn and keeps repeating the same mistake(s) over ; you and your simian hero are “knuckleheads”……….
May 27th, 2008 at 12:44 ambackup said:
And how does this erudite pontification correlate to the GOP’s opposition to Webb’s GI Bill?
Oh yes, you believe that the Webb GI bill is a partisan backdoor for pulling the troops out. How thoughty…
Let’s continue to have an “honest debate” about the topic of the thread. Hmmkay?
May 27th, 2008 at 12:45 ampete. If you are suggesting a reasonable withdrawal based on leaving Iraq when they are capable of providing their own security; I am on the same page.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:45 amdo you realize that when I bring up debate about the way forward in Iraq, progressives most often point to mistakes of the past. How does that solve our problems today?
~ backup @ 12:36 am
We bring up your mistakes of the past as a reminder of how catastrophically wrong your man in the White House has been -time and again.
Every time Bush and his minions -that’d be you- have proposed a solution (and mainly to problems that you people have created), it’s been a total disaster.
It serves as a reminder that you people cannot be trusted -whether with foreign or domestic policy.
And today’s problems will be solved as soon as Bush and his blind followers -that’d be you again- are stopped before it’s too late; for the US, for Iraq, and for our planet.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:47 amFearandSmear. I think it started by my suggesting that McCain opposed Webb’s bill, not due to disregard for veterans, but more due to concern that it would affect staffing to continue the war in Iraq.
But, you’re right. It’s gotten way off topic. Sorry.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:48 ambackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
pete. If you are suggesting a reasonable withdrawal based on leaving Iraq when they are capable of providing their own security; I am on the same page.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:45 am
IF WE DON’T LEAVE , THERE IS NOTHING FOR THEM TO PROVE
What in the hell is wrong with you besides all of the obvious ?
Are you that dense ?
May 27th, 2008 at 12:49 ambackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
And how does this erudite pontification correlate to the GOP’s opposition to Webb’s GI Bill?
FearandSmear. I think it started by my suggesting that McCain opposed Webb’s bill, not due to disregard for veterans, but more due to concern that it would affect staffing to continue the war in Iraq.
But, you’re right. It’s gotten way off topic. Sorry.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Well you and the entire goddamn GOP are wrong about everything , and your lousy record proves it.
There is nothing you have presented that indicates your unsubstantiated assessment of Webb’s bill ; and contrary to your blind loyalty and spouting of excuse after excuse , I posted much earlier that Webb’s bill has been in the making for over a year already.
You believe Webb wants to play political games when his military brothers and sisters are involved ?
He has never shown that type of behavior , even when he was a part of the horseshit GOP……..
May 27th, 2008 at 12:54 amGregor. Fair enough. But, you have to admit that, while there is a purpose for discrediting your opposition, the has to be more to leadership than that.
I’m not dissuading you from pointing out Bush’s (neocons, and my) failures, but I am wondering, besides opposing Bush’s Iraq policy, what plans do progressives have for the withdrawal? Pull out ASAP, regardless of the situation? A metered withdrawal on a timeline? Input from the Iraqi leadership on when they want us to leave? Leave based on the security situation in Iraq at the time?
Progressives will most likely be in total leadership of the government in ‘09. I respect you desire to point to Bush failures, but it’s not showing us the way forward.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:56 ambackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
And today’s problems will be solved as soon as Bush and his blind followers -that’d be you again- are stopped before it’s too late; for the US, for Iraq, and for our planet.
Gregor. Fair enough. But, you have to admit that, while there is a purpose for discrediting your opposition, the has to be more to leadership than that.
I’m not dissuading you from pointing out Bush’s (neocons, and my) failures, but I am wondering, besides opposing Bush’s Iraq policy, what plans do progressives have for the withdrawal? Pull out ASAP, regardless of the situation? A metered withdrawal on a timeline? Input from the Iraqi leadership on when they want us to leave? Leave based on the security situation in Iraq at the time?
Progressives will most likely be in total leadership of the government in ‘09. I respect you desire to point to Bush failures, but it’s not showing us the way forward.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:56 am
Ask those whose opinions matter alone : the Iraqi people.
Fu(k you , fu(k your retarded simian deity and his horseshit administration’s obedient opinions , fu(k the Chimpy puppet government of Iraq , and fu(k your imbecilic GOP brethren …………
May 27th, 2008 at 1:00 amOh, and backup, your point about Webb’s bill potentially causing a shortage follows very closely what Stevens has said, and is just as disrespectful, crass, and despicable.
You and Stevens are saying that the only reason why people join the military is for the money -in essence calling them unpatriotic and mercenary.
Obviously, you and Stevens obviously don’t think that all those years of service under fire should be rewarded, and consider the service men and women as little more than cannon fodder in Bush’s pet war of choice.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:00 amProgressives will most likely be in total leadership of the government in ‘09. I respect you desire to point to Bush failures, but it’s not showing us the way forward.
~ backup @ 12:56 am
Oh, excuse me. I didn’t realise that Pres Bush was showing us the ‘way forward’ right now. A way forward that doesn’t lead over the edge of the cliff that is.
Unless the enormous deficit, and the flailing economy don’t worry you. If that is so, you have other problems to take care of first. Like a lack of grounding in reality.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:03 amWhat else IS there to point to Backup? Can you please name for us ONE significant and lasting achievement? One time they got it right?
Tax cuts during wartime?
May 27th, 2008 at 1:04 amGregor. I spent 10 years in the military. I joined out of a sense of duty and also because the military provided great benefits.
I respect people in the military. They are patriots and I respect their service.
But, if you structure benefits that induce them to separate sooner rather than later, it will be a factor in their decision making and could cause many to leave.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:06 amFearandSmear Says:
——————————————————————————–
I respect you desire to point to Bush failures, but it’s not showing us the way forward.
What else IS there to point to Backup? Can you please name for us ONE significant and lasting achievement? One time they got it right?
Tax cuts during wartime?
May 27th, 2008 at 1:04 am
That’s only “right” if you’re in the correct tax bracket too , BTW……………
May 27th, 2008 at 1:07 ambackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
Gregor. I spent 10 years in the military. I joined out of a sense of duty and also because the military provided great benefits.
I respect people in the military. They are patriots and I respect their service.
But, if you structure benefits that induce them to separate sooner rather than later, it will be a factor in their decision making and could cause many to leave.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Who gives a shit ?
They volunteered out of a sense of patriotism and duty ; not to fight an illegal invasion and occupation for a sorry little spoiled turd’s cronies to make oodles of cash and perhaps be maimed for life or die for that ………….
May 27th, 2008 at 1:09 amBut, if you structure benefits that induce them to separate sooner rather than later, it will be a factor in their decision making and could cause many to leave.
~backup @ 1:06 am
This is horse manure at its best. WTF are you talking about ’sooner rather than later’? These people already served. They earned those benefits.
Also, the CBO already reported that better benefits would lead to better recruiting -which would offset any loss in retention. Had you followed the VetVoice link you’d know that.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:14 amOnce again, the resident Bush apologist tries to opine on a hypothetical future lack of leadership should anyone but a Republican win the presidency, instead of considering the actual, very real, tangible, absolute lack of leadership that the current occupier of the White House has displayed all these bloody years.
But such is the mind of the Bush apologist. Fear the hypothetical, ignore the present -specially if it involves talking about Pres Bush’s many failures.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:29 amStill wondering about that ONE significant and lasting achievement.
Chirp… Chirp… Chirp…
May 27th, 2008 at 1:42 amMcCain really screwed the pooch on this one. Military families, veterans, even current troops are PISSED.
They are commenting on every article or blog post I read on the topic – all speaking out about what they perceive as a staggering betrayal.
Does anyone else remember all the finger wagging and bilious lectures about demoralizing the troops in a time of war? I recall it being TREASONOUS why just a few short years ago…
Sadly, and like many, I actually considered McCain to be someone of conscience and character then. Funny enough, I remember being chided for my naive perception of McCain by a friend who drinks deep from the kool-aid. He predicted years ago that the shine would wear off McCain pretty quick if he ran for president and…
I certainly take no pleasure in it. None.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:57 amGregor and FearandSmear.
We are talking past each other.
I’m not promoting Bush achievements. I’m not denying any charges of Bush incompetency.
I’m only recognizing that Progressives are winning in the battle of ideas. Democrats will accumulate seats in the Congress that they already control in ‘09 and Obama will probably be the President.
I hear you lamenting Bush’s mistakes. I’ve heard it for a long time. I get it. I’m not disputing it.
What I’m asking is, what is the progressive plan. You win. Withdrawal is pretty much inevitable. On progressive terms. Now, that we have that settled, have you given any thought to consequences of the vacuum that will occur when our troops have withdrawn?
At some point progressives should start to feel comfortable with the leadership they have. I’m not sure leadership consists merely of pointing to someone elses failed initiatives. I’m sure progressives have a good plan for the withdrawal of troops. Maybe they could get that message out.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:14 amClinton has taken Kentucky and Obama is right there in Oregon.
The Democratic race for nomination is still very much alive – and most likely to be decided by superdelegates – as CNN points out clearly
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/20/primary.wrap/index.html
If you’re tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support Clinton or Obama
If you haven’t done so yet, please write a message to each of your state’s superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com
Obama Supporters:
Sending a note to current Obama supporters lets them know it’s appreciated, sending a note to current Clinton supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Obama, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Obama. It’s that easy…
Clinton Supporters too …. !
It takes a moment, but what’s a few minutes now worth to get Clinton in office?! Those are really worth !
Sending a note to current Clinton supporters lets them know it’s appreciated, sending a note to current Obama supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Clinton, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Clinton. It’s that easy…
May 27th, 2008 at 6:33 am______
And Yet… Says:
Sen. Webb has the real military leadership credentials McBush lacks (being a flyboy & POW just not quite the same as Jim Webb doing the actual command thing-
______
Yeah, what’s up with all those POW’s lazing away the war like that. If they had any kind of leadership skills they would have managed to escape like in the movies, right?
Seriously, can’t you find enough to criticize in McCain without denigrating a whole group of people who suffered terribly in the service of our country?
If the GI Bill creates such a great incentive to leave the military, keep it and increase the incentive to stay in longer before taking advantage of the GI Bill.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:36 ambackup Says:
I respect people in the military. They are patriots and I respect their service.
But, if you structure benefits that induce them to separate sooner rather than later, it will be a factor in their decision making and could cause many to leave.
WTF?
You spent all day and night arguing McCains lame assed reasons to deny veterans benefits?
Even I, who spent 9 years jumping into hellholes around the globe, then finally getting a career ending wound in Desert Storm, would not even qualify for benefits under McCain neocon backed version, much less the kids who get wounded getting off the plane in Iraq…
Frankly you have disgusted me with your crap and spin.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:55 amGlad I spent Memorial Day afternoon and evening taking two elderly veterans fishing, rather than reading the crap you posted all night.
So, is it that we have the best equipped, best trained, etc, etc armed forces in the world made up of servicemen and women motivated by their patriotism and not by the lack of other employment opportunities? Or is it the new GI bill will cause a mass exodus because it will offer them a better life and more opportunities?
May 27th, 2008 at 9:18 amTypical conservatives, waving their flags as they treat the troops like dirt.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:57 amGeee…was’t it the New York Times that was one of the staunchest cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq? Didn’t the Times print the lies of Judith Miller as Gospel on its front page? Isn’t the Times now looking like a liberal paper when it’s liberality affects nothing and will accomplish little real change in policy? The Times is always suspiciously conservative when it matters, financially…liberal and progressive when it’s too late to make a difference.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:01 amObviously GWB is not through abusing our military for his own ends. We all know, he would rather shovel money to private contractors than support better lives for our military.
The fear of loosing personel in the armed forces because of the GI Bill is bogus. If it were true GWB would gladly lower a few standards to protect those numbers. It’s like he is playing a 21st century deferment game with his opposition to this GI Bill.
It’s plain and simple, GWB is not a veteran!
And I bet he can’t prove otherwise. Remember, he has lost all his records in the dodge game he played.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:42 ambackup Says:
Gregor. I spent 10 years in the military. I joined out of a sense of duty and also because the military provided great benefits.
And under the McCain bill your stint of 10 years was2 years too short for you to qualify. And if you had been wounded and honorably discharged, tough shit there too. 12 years uninterrupted service is the main requirement.
Are you really that dense?
May 27th, 2008 at 10:56 amWayne. This country doesn’t owe me anything. It was my pleasure to serve.
I think we should provide generous veteran’s benefits, but we should be cognizant of our staffing needs and promote benefits that serve veterans without compromising our requirements.
I understand why democrats don’t care if veterans are motivated to separate. They want them all home now, anyway.
But, once you support this plan, you are forcing the hands of our government towards withdrawal, whether it’s in our best interest or not.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:02 pmAssuming the troll is correct about all these terrible vets using the military for their own evil ends, and then running off to get an education — I’m all for it.
More and more people will sign up for military duty, use them terribly, and then run off to get their own education — we’ll always have people in the military, and more people will be getting educated.
Since we’ve been using our military for the most vile of wars, I really don’t care if they use the military to get an education.
Of course, only complete idiots think our military members are as self-serving and vile as themselves.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:22 pmZooey. If you’re involved in a war, that you recognize is difficult to staff, why would you want to induce soldiers to leave the military? Here’s a hint: no soldiers, no war.
I served for 10 years. My father was in vietnam in for 2 years when I was young. He spent 28 years in the Air Force. My brother has been in the Navy for 25 years and my sister married a Marine.
I don’t hate vets. I don’t want to deny veterans benefits. But, there is another side to this issue. For the people that think staying to provide stability for Iraqis is doable and worthwhile, the way the Webb bill is structured, forces conditions that oppose that goal. There are ways to provide benefits to veterans that won’t induce them to leave in the short term.
If you’re honest, you would see that using this bill to charge that republicans are against vets, is a little like conservatives claiming that progressives were unpatriotic for opposing the war. Progressives weren’t unpatriotic, they disagreed with the policy. Conservatives aren’t attempting to short change vets. Many, like McCain, believe in Iraq and believe it requires consistent staffing. Progressives don’t feel the same.
It’s disingenuous to argue that those that oppose this bill, don’t care about vets. There is more to the issue. And you (should) know it.
P.S. I hope your Mom’s okay.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:09 am