Webb: Bush ‘Made A Real Bad Mistake’ On GI Bill, ‘I Think He Blew It’
Webb: Bush ‘Made A Real Bad Mistake’ On GI Bill, ‘I Think He Blew It’
Yesterday, President Bush signed legislation that included Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) 21st Century GI Bill. In his signing speech, Bush praised himself and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for “work[ing] hard” to pass the legislation:
The bill is a result of close collaboration between my administration and members of both parties on Capitol Hill. … I want to thank members who worked hard for the GI Bill expansion, especially Senators Webb and Warner, Graham, Burr, McCain.
In reality, Bush and McCain “worked hard” to block the GI Bill. As Webb countered yesterday on MSNBC’s Countdown, “Neither of them really did get on board.”
“I think it’s safe to say there was a good deal of cooperation between Republicans and Democrats. It just didn’t include the administration,” Webb said with a chuckle. He added that Bush “blew it”:
I think George W. Bush made a real bad mistake in terms of our trying to show full respect for military service. I think he blew it.
Watch it:
Webb also noted that in his speech yesterday, Bush did not thank Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), who had a central role in the bill’s passage.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
36 Responses to “Webb: Bush ‘Made A Real Bad Mistake’ On GI Bill, ‘I Think He Blew It’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
bush "BLOWS" a lot of things....
July 1st, 2008 at 9:56 amI wonder what color the sky is in Bush's world?
July 1st, 2008 at 9:57 amraynman; rose-colored, of course.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:01 amLets think about this logically, shall we. The President's desperatly looking for a legacy. He fought like hell against the bill. The bill passed, despite his worst efforts. The bill is widely popular and greatly praised. Logically then, the President re-invents reality to insure a brave, bold achievement as part of his legacy. Reality, what a concept!
July 1st, 2008 at 10:02 amImpeach Pelosi, Cheney and Bush and Save the Constitution!
Hard to tell the color of the sky with all the pink elephants flying around, raynman.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:03 amHeh
Gee, Jimmy-George WebbAllen, what a penetrating observation from the same guy who blew the myriad opportunities to bring the troops home from an illegal war! Guess screwing us with your FISA vote and pushing for telecom immunity also "blows" your chance to show full respect to the Constitution.
STFU "Macaca jr."
July 1st, 2008 at 10:04 amBush did this as governor of Texas. At the time Democrats had a majority of the Texas legislature. They passed a children's health insurance bill, which Bush fought, and threatened to veto. When he was informed that the Democrats, with a few Republicans, had enough votes to override his veto, he refused to sign it, and it became law without his signature. Then the dickwad claimed credit for the bill, and bragged about how it showed his "compassion" for children. Hence the term "compassionate conservative".
July 1st, 2008 at 10:16 amGWB has had many chances to support the troops, but his agenda is ever so more inportant to him. The troops were his greatest asset but he has shafted them since day one. Photo opts just don't make it. What's a troop going to do with his picture? I could omnly imagine.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:20 amNever believe a bush who claims to be a troop's friend. It just ain't so.
If you read a bit about the French Revolution you'll find some parallels to Georgie and his administration. Although I don't think the First Lady will say anything like "Let them eat cake.", I wouldn't put it past her husband ("Let them burn corn!).
July 1st, 2008 at 10:22 amOf course, the main message from the Repugs is that is was a 'bi-partisan' bill and that the troops got what they deserved, so who cares about a 'little back room bickering'.
One more reason to get de-louseed every time they open their collective pie-holes.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:26 amBush Blows.
Nuff said.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:32 amItis areal tribute to American big media and uninformed voters that Bush and McCain can make such OUTRAGEOUS claims as this with relative impunity. Ignorantia non excusat!
July 1st, 2008 at 10:43 amWell of course Bush and Co. would try to take some sort of credit.
With his dismal approval ratings, and with the popularity of this bill (which, indeed does support the troops), he had to attach himself (and McSame) to it, in hopes of a momentary boost.
Worst.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:45 amPresident.
Ever.
Bush also didn't support the 911 commission before he took credit for its formation.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:52 amBush and McCain were trying to protect our poor soldiers from the perils of higher education.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:52 amChimpfck is coming to my town next month for a fund raiser for some petty politician, some school board nominee I think, and having a $1k/plate breakfast at a private house.
That's the level of respect that Americans have for this slimy POS. Sneak into town, blow a few locals, wipe up the mess, and sneak out.
Like a hyena feasting on rotten carrion in the cover of darkness, after the real players have moved on.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:58 amAbu Ben Hussein Leporello: Whatever "legacy" Bush hoped for was cast to the fishes the second he hired Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld and the neocons to shape his policies. Bush's legacy is war, death, debt, and failure in leadership.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:58 amJust like this president to mention the parties working across the aisle, but he's too petty to invite Sen. Webb to the signing. That would've been, well, a little too thoughtful.
On a side note, a press conference from the first week of this president's administration mentions the desire to oust Saddam Hussein. Lack the techno-know-how to link, but it's at whitehouse.gov, under press briefings -- go way back to the beginning to see that this had NOTHING to do with 9-11, and EVERYTHING to do with oil.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:10 amObama is a fool if he does not choose Jim Webb for VP!!!
1. He was born in Missouri and currently represents Virginia (two large swing states)
2. He has more military credentials than John McCain (as a marine he received a Navy Cross, a Silver Star, two bronze stars, and two purple hearts; afterwards he was appointed Secretary of the Navy by none other than the Reagan Democrat hero… Reagan; his son is currently a marine and has served in Iraq, and he was against the war in Iraq from the beginning)
3. He is an Appalachian redneck (he will bring in more white working class individuals than any other VP candidate could ever dream of)
4. He authored the modern G.I. Bill (his presence will be a continuous reminder that McCain’s “support” of the troops is little more than hollow rhetoric… also McCain will be unable to pull that “I served so I know better than you what's best for the troops” bullshit with Webb).
5. He is not a Washington insider (his newness to Washington would perfectly compliment Obama’s call for a new kind of Washington politics).
July 1st, 2008 at 11:12 amHere's the quote from the Jan. 29, 2001, press briefing with Ari Fleischer:
Q Ari, at his press briefing last week, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said, "It is not helpful to have Saddam Hussein's regime in power." He said, this is now a government policy. If it is government policy, what specifically is the President going to do to remove Saddam Hussein from power and does that possibly include military action?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President has made his position clear on that before, that we will protect America's interests and the region's interests in that area of the world. And we are prepared to do so, if necessary.
So, 7.5 years later, we're still paying for this pre-election mind-set.
Thanks, Sen. Webb, for finding some common sense and goodness to offer in this sea of tragic nonsense.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:16 amnanlichi; I hope you will be out there to protest with signs or whatever you have. I know I would if Bush showed up in Port Huron, and not in some bs "free speech zone" either.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:17 am19. G.W.SuperChrist Says:
Obama is a fool if he does not choose Jim Webb for VP!!!
...and we would be the fools for voting for a DINO like Macaca jr. Webb...
Look at his votes, not his empty, swaggering "tough bunny" talk. Webb voted as if George Allen had retained the seat. Anyone who thinks Webb is a democrat is the real fool....
July 1st, 2008 at 11:19 amUncle Ho. I will be there, and I hope to catch the bastards eye. Maybe even his ear, that would be a dream come true. To penetrate the little puke's bubble and let him hear from a real American what we think of his miserable ass.
Ain't gonna happen though. But it won't be for lack of trying.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:24 am20. Patty Says: Thanks, Sen. Webb, for finding some common sense and goodness to offer in this sea of tragic nonsense.
Hey Patty, I own this bridge...it's in Brooklyn..I can let you have it, cheap!
July 1st, 2008 at 11:25 am22. hanshiro Says:
we would be the fools for voting for a DINO like Macaca jr. Webb…
Look at his votes, not his empty, swaggering “tough bunny” talk. Webb voted as if George Allen had retained the seat. Anyone who thinks Webb is a democrat is the real fool….
I am as liberal as they come… but if you think that Obama is going to win the presidency by taking a hard turn to the left during the general election campaign you are delusional.
Like it or not anyone who is to be president has to win over the 40 something percent of moderate/somewhat conservative swing voters.
Unfortunately - this means not always getting your way… you know compromising.
If you take an all or nothing approach to politics, you will more often than not end up with nothing… this one’s to important to do that again.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:39 amLike it or not anyone who is to be president has to win over the 40 something percent of moderate/somewhat conservative swing voters. Unfortunately - this means not always getting your way… you know compromising.
And how does giving away Constitutional protections accomplish that? If winning some 40% moderate/somewhat conservative swing voters involves putting gays in internment camps as Huckabee advocated or deporting 12 million people as some republican idioti have pushed for, how do we win?
Burn down the village in order to save it, eh? A candidate willing to stand up for what's right, what's legal or what's Constitutional no matter how politically or emotionally incorrect, or whom he might alienate, is the only qualified individual. The word mincing is for liars.
Getting into the White House by compromising the Constitution is the most asinine rationale for defending Obama's telecom capitulation that I've ever heard. People who advocate for that bongwater are giving away this country just as fast as the bush republicans.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:48 am26. hanshiro Says:
And how does giving away Constitutional protections accomplish that? If winning some 40% moderate/somewhat conservative swing voters involves putting gays in internment camps as Huckabee advocated or deporting 12 million people as some republican idioti have pushed for, how do we win?
This is a straw man… have you heard of Obama supporting gays in internment camps or deporting 12 million people. You are sounding a little bit alarmist and irrational when you make such statements.
Burn down the village in order to save it, eh? A candidate willing to stand up for what’s right, what’s legal or what’s Constitutional no matter how politically or emotionally incorrect, or whom he might alienate, is the only qualified individual. The word mincing is for liars.
Again… if you take an all or nothing approach to politics, you will more often than not end up with nothing. Would you prefer that a completely unqualified individual be president -because you are not willing to compromise anything?
Getting into the White House by compromising the Constitution is the most asinine rationale for defending Obama’s telecom capitulation that I’ve ever heard. People who advocate for that bongwater are giving away this country just as fast as the bush republicans.
People that think that Democrats will get into the White House without compromising anything must be drinking bong water.
I too am unhappy with the telecom thing – but let’s not forget that removing civil litigation to disarm a political time bomb is not such a horrible idea if it leads to your party taking power and finally being able to pursue criminal charges.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:17 pm27. TrippleKick Says: It makes sense that you should qualify for more benefits if you’ve served longer. Duh.
So...according to you, a guy who serves 4 full years in a stateside assignment deserves more benefits than a soldier who gets wounded and disabled after a paltry two years fighting in Afghanistan....
"Duh," is probably the most revealing aspect of your quote.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:18 pmThis is a straw man… have you heard of Obama supporting gays in internment camps or deporting 12 million people.
This is most certainly not strawman when you are talking degrees of capitulation in order to secure votes from the conservative side.
You are sounding a little bit alarmist and irrational when you make such statements.
Yes, illegal spying and wiretapping, then an effort to retroactively legitimize criminal behavior, as Obama is advocating, does that to me.
Again… if you take an all or nothing approach to politics, you will more often than not end up with nothing.
The Constitutional rights afforded us brooks no 'compromise.' I'd like my rights intact please, not the orts and leavings after some career politician has surgically removed the bits that's get himself elected. He wouldn't be worth having as a leader.
People that think that Democrats will get into the White House without compromising anything must be drinking bong water.
Not just "anything,' SC, the Constitution. The piece of paper that used to protect you from detention without trial. That's gone because we thought, "Meh, we'll just wait until the dems win in '06 and then they'll restore everything..." Well guess what, rube? You still don't have it back, no thanks to "impeachment off the table" Pelosi and her nancy-boys, or Telecom immunity Reid. Gosh, guess you didn't give away enough rights to get dems elected, so you want to keep right on going...illegal spying, no court orders, Constitutional protections.
Guess when we give away all our rights, then we'll be free and happy, right? What's a guaranteed protection under the law here or there? The important part is to win against the red herring propped up to scare us into losing the whole shooting match anyway! Er..right?
I too am unhappy with the telecom thing – but let’s not forget that removing civil litigation to disarm a political time bomb is not such a horrible idea if it leads to your party taking power and finally being able to pursue criminal charges.
Yes, and we simply must worry about political timebombs like, Gitmo...Katrina...Abu Ghraib...Billions missing...911 stonewalling...secret energy meetings...Abramoff...etc...etc.
Oh, and about that "finally being able to pursue criminal charges," naivete, thanks for the laugh! How exactly will President Obama prosecute the telecoms after he votes to exonerate them and make their crimes, and by extension bush's role therein, legal? Meanwhile, you're giving away more bites of our Constitution until there is nothing left to give away.
How Faustian! If the idiotic logic of giving away our Constitution is what is required to get into office on order to defend the Constitution...if that is what makes sense to you, SC, then this country is already lost, with sanctimonious rubes like you rearranging the deck chairs as the ship goes down.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:41 pmHow much do you get if your rich powerful daddy pulls strings to get you into a "Champaign Unit" of the Texas Air National Guard, you lose your wings after a long vacation screwing Mexican whores and snorting cocaine, you go AWOL, and your rich powerful daddy has to pull more strings to get you an honorable discharge and hide your record?
July 1st, 2008 at 12:45 pm30. hanshiro - since Obama is so detestable will you be voting for McCain or Nader.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:16 pmwhat about Barr?
July 1st, 2008 at 1:33 pm33. G.W.SuperChrist Says:
30. hanshiro - since Obama is so detestable will you be voting for McCain or Nader.
And SC's leaps in logic continue unabated. Notice the sidestep of his ridiculous Constitutional protection giveaway and the added distraction of a baseless assumption.
One word, Constitution-Shredder: Accountability.
The idea that Obama should not be raked over the coals and blasted for his bought-and-paid-for, completely unconstitutional position regarding telecom immunity so that, by your logic, some 30% of throwbacks will suddenly find Obama nifty and vote for him is beyond abstruse. Giving Obama this leetle "compromise" in order to "win the White House," based on absolutely no guarantee of any of the fantasy criminal prosecutions of which you claim is Neville Chamberlain personified...and we all know how that worked out.
(Oh, and SC, the idea that anyone would float the notion that "political timebombs" that foment criminal behavior should be given a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card, as you have advocated, just to promote expediency in order to take power must have siblings for parents. Civil litigation is one of our protections from rampant abuse at the hands of the corporations and the government.)
Even with a "dem majority," Pelosi and Reid, Webb and Feinstein and the 'blue dog' cowards have shafted every voter that put them into office.
My point is, the gloves should've come off long ago regarding Saint Obama. You didn't select him, the MSM did. They went to court to block your choices, repress information and generally narrow the field to suit their commercial interests. One look at Obama's telecom windfall should inform you of whom he will protect; Hint- it won't be us or the Constitution.
Bottom line: Whomever we're stuck with, call bullsh*t and shut 'em down when they're cavalierly tossing your hard-won rights away. As far as I'm concerned, the idea of telecom immunity disqualifies Obama and he should step aside.
I'll be writing in Kucinich until Obama grows a pair and actually takes Constitutional law seriously rather than treating it as a "Do as I say, not as I do," position.
Obama's a fraud.
July 1st, 2008 at 2:35 pmOh, and SC: Looks like I'm in good company in regards to slamming flip-flop telecom poodle Obama.
No less than Glenzilla, Glen Greenwald agrees with me. (no, I didn't see his column before posting today.)
Excerpt:
This, of course as I said, stinks to high heaven...but since it's St. Obama, we must surrender to gain power, right SC? There's more...
Pity it isn't this clear to the deluded people advocating a major cave-in by bought-and-paid-for Obama so crazy rednecks and conservative *ssholes will like him. One more quote to drive home the point:
But as another Obama supporter, John Cole, pointed out:
Okay...I lied, one more quote pays for all:
My, my...great minds think alike, eh? :-)
July 1st, 2008 at 6:49 pmThis isn't about the money. This hypocracy is borne from Bush trying to keep Democrats from being able to establish a track record on supporting the troops. I think Bush and the Republicans think they have the market cornered on supporting the troops and will do anything to prevent Democrats from doing anything for the troops. I'd bet the .5% of my raise that Bush didn't support that Bush would support the full raise and the new GI Bill if it were introduced by a Republican!
I'm a GI and it occured to me a long time ago that Republicans were much more likely to send us to war, but less likely to support meaningful enhancements to pay and benefits. If you look back over the years Democratic Presidents have given us bigger raises. I can't be the only one to see the contradiction.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:39 pm37. JohnnyV Says: This isn’t about the money. This hypocracy is borne from Bush trying to keep Democrats from being able to establish a track record on supporting the troops. I think Bush and the Republicans think they have the market cornered on supporting the troops and will do anything to prevent Democrats from doing anything for the troops.
Actually, the republicans don't possess a cornered market on supporting the troops, republicans possess a cornered market on the perception of supporting the troops. They do this via the corporate MSM noise machine and their sock puppets like Rush and Hannity repeating agreed upon talking points endlessly. Oh, and Hannity or Limbaugh? did not serve.
Republicans don't support the troops because on balance, republicans don't serve as much as dems.
Example:
Prominent Republicans
* Representative Patrick McHenry, R-NC - did not serve. Saw fit to endanger American troops' lives after a visit to Iraq by violating operational security and helping militias target their mortar attacks on the Green Zone.
* Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY - did not serve
* Senate Assistant Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-MI - avoided the draft, did not serve.
* Senate Republican Conference Chairman Jon Kyl, R-AZ - did not serve.
* Senate Republican Conference Vice Chair John Cornyn, R-TX - did not serve.
* National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair John Ensign, R-NV - did not serve.
* House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-OH - did not serve.
* House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-MO - did not serve.
* House Republican Conerence Chair Adam Putnam, R-FL - did not serve.
* House Republican Policy Committee Thaddeus McCotter, R-MI - did not serve.
* National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Tom Cole, R-OK - did not serve.
* Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani - did not serve.
* Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney - did not serve in the military but did serve the Mormon Church on a 30-month mission to France.
* Former Senator Fred Thompson - did not serve.
* Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve.
* Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey - avoided the draft, did not serve.
* Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay - avoided the draft, did not serve "So many minority youths had volunteered ... that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself."
* Former House Majority Whip Roy Blunt - did not serve.
* Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist - did not serve. (An impressive medical resume, but not such a friend to cats in Boston.)
* Rick Santorum, R-PA, formerly third ranking Republican in the Senate - did not serve.
* George Felix Allen, former Republican Senator from Virginia - a supporter of Nixon and the Vietnam war, did not serve.
* GW Bush - decided that a six-year Nat'l Guard commitment really means four years. Still says that he's "been to war." Huh?
* VP Cheney - several deferments (1, 2), the last by marriage (in his own words, "had other priorities than military service") did not serve.
* Former Att'y Gen. John Ashcroft - did not serve (1, 2); received seven deferment to teach business ed at SW Missouri State
* Jeb Bush, Florida Governor - did not serve.
* Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve, too busy being a Republican.
* Former Speaker Newt Gingrich - avoided the draft, did not serve
Chickenhawks all.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:17 pm