"Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, seemed to give a thumbs down to bipartisan legislation that would greatly expand educational benefits for members of the military returning from Iraq and Afghanistan under the GI Bill." --Obsidianwings.com

Also, McCain missed about ten votes on matters dealing with Iraq, and in June of 2006 he voted NO to a resolution that Bush start withdraswing troops from Iraq (with no specific timetable.)

Two months earlier, McCain was one of only 13 Senators voting against a $430,000,000 appropriation for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.

Two years earlier, McCain voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating tax loopholes. In other words, he favors tax loopholes over veterans' welfare.

There's much more. You can find his record for yourself at many websites. My question is, why does McCain consistently vote against benefits for veterans?

One of the excuses he uses is that it will cause members of the armed forces to leave earlier if they get more benefits when out. But of course, benefit amounts can be linked to length of service, with smaller benefits for fewer years in service, etc. But McCain doesn't want these vets to have increased benefits at all.

If you close your eyes and sit silently for a moment, you can almost hear the veterans saying "Thank you" to John McCain.

Wait a minute. Maybe the first word isn't "thank".

While McCain was in Ohio, he took time to eat "Bahama Mama" bratwursts and cream puffs, and do a photo op with Lance Armstrong. Why didn't he find time to visit disabled veterans in the VA Medical Centers in Dayton and Cincinnati?

....And his true feelings for the troops is reflected by his statement that it's "not too important" when they come home from Iraq as long as not that many of them get killed over there.(100 year war)

Awwww now, come on. Is THAT what John McCain said? Really? He said it's not too important "as long as not that many of them get killed over there."

Is that REALLY what he said, or is this just one more pathetic example of a left-winger twisting what was really said, adding a few words, and then using that newly minted quote as a straw man to support their argument?

"Maybe 100," McCain replied. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me..."

translates: "What the heck, just leave em there..."

Atta girl! See? I knew you could quote what John McCain actually said if you just put your mind to it.


Awww heck. I'm in such a good mood, now, I'll even let you have your own translation. Sort of like that quote from the late Senator Moynihan: "You are entitled to your own opinion. You are NOT entitled to your own facts."

Sgt. James A. McHale

Dax's entire opening post smacks a lot of "You don't love your daughter because you did not buy her a Porche for her sweet 16 party..."

More like "you don't support the troops because you vote NO every time a benefits package comes up for vets."

As usual, the super rich neocons have conned a certain number of voters, yourself included, to vote against their own best interests. I can't believe you support a guy who doesn't want to help you after a career in the service.

But I imagine the "personal responsibility" always thrown out by neocons to justify their selfishness and greed kicks in here. No legs? You're lacking personal responsibility, boy! Get yourself a little cart and start selling newspapers after you've given yourself to your country. Nice way of saying thanks and honoring the troops.

Shame on you, argung against not only your own best interests, but those of the enlisted men you command. If it came to Bush visiting China, or using the same money to add some needed equipment to a Vet's hospital, I know where your vote would go.

There is no "daugther--Porsche" argument here, no vet is asking for a Porsche. It's a fake and fraudulent argument, You yourself would be all over someone who switched the scenario that way. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it.

A soldier against increasing Veteran benefits. How could you?

On the other hand, if your fellow soldiers all feel the way you do, then maybe the returning Iraqi and Afghanistan vets have enough benefits and don't need any more than they already have. Maybe they'll be just fine. Maybe we should cut more out of the benefits because we don't want to be buying Porsches for our daughters. In other words, screw 'em. If that's okay with you---well, it's still not okay with me.

You're always right there to criticize me by saying I don't support the troops, but when I do support the troops you find a way to mock it. Your post is worthless as argument, as it deals with absolutely nothing substantial.

It grows more obvious with every post you write.

Again, another example of that pretentious left-wing arrogance. I love that "voting against your own best interests" mantra. Dax manages to use it twice in the same postings when what he's really pissed about is that Lawmage dares to oppose Dax's political agendas.

I have no political agenda.

John McCain votes agaist Veterans benefits, you and lawmage support that.

Those are the facts. Your post, as usual, carries no facts, just rhetoric, useless, meaningless, and not to the point.

The point is, McCain votes against increasing veterans benefits every time out, you and lawmage want to vote for him. Case closed.

You can refute it with facts like "I don't want to vote for him" or "He does vote to increase Vet benefits" if you can.

But you can't, because you know what I say is true.

I find it extremely telling that although Dax made an acusation filled with facts, the responses to it are simply personal attacks that address his supposed "style", and none of his content.

I don't suppose Dax's opponents are capable of presenting a reasoned, well-thought, logical, honest rebuttal based on fact; therefore I am forced to believe the presentation that isn't based on nyah-nyah-nyah bullying. Points to Dax. Bullies: zero.

Oh well, you want a rebuttal. Here we go:

"John McCain votes for veterans benefits."
Does somebody have to go to the trouble of getting up Senate Bill numbers he voted for or might it suffice to say he has voted for some bills and voted against others, and he's voted for some amendments and voted against other amendments? Then Dax and be right and I can be right and you can be right and everyone can be right and we can move along to something else.

OK.. Here ya go..

I remember the first Republican debate held Spring 07. I watched with great anticipation because I keep an open mind regarding all the candidates...both Democrats and Republicans. After watching both political party debates, the candidate I was most impressed with was John McCain. After all the bs, canned insincere answers from most of the candidates...it was McCain's answer to a woman whose son had died in Iraq. He sincerely comforted her in that moment...his focus was on her. The pathos of the moment brought tears to my eyes...

Despite McCain's Senate voting record, he cares deeply about the Americans in Iraq.

Oh, I think Mr. McCain supports the troops--he just supports the military objectives more. Now, if we could only understand exactly what those objectives are...

I remembered something today that might possibly be, at least a former, little-known reason for military presence in Germany

I was coming home from Berlin. This was before the Wall came down. Since there were no more sleepers available on the train, I was put into the compartment that was reserved for the MP guard. We'd stopped at the Marienborn (Russian) side of the Marienborn/Helmsted border crossing. I was at the window when I saw a Russian guard patrolling the siding. I opened the window and called out, "Good evening" to him in Russian. It was the only Russian I knew. He was about my age and was dressed in the long, woolen, one-size-fits-all overcoat of the time. All of the excess material had been drawn up into a lump on his back on which he wore his pack, including bedroll. He was armed.

We'd just started a broken English conversation when WHANG--the window was closed by the MP, who led me back to the compartment and proceeded to give me utter Hell. "You, of all people, certainly should know better than to try to distract a guard from his duty!" he yelled. When he saw I was close to tears, he relented. "Don't you know that they probably have guards guarding the guards? Do you know what you may have done to that kid?"

Gee, thanks, Sarge. You've given me guilt I've carried with me forever.

After we'd crossed into Helmsted, his tone became avuncular as he explained that one of the duties of the MPs on the train was to take on and hide any potential escapee from E. Germany and that Marienborn was their last chance. The E. German security detail was heaviest there, but, with the cooperation of the W. German train personnel, the US had been able to smuggle some defectors out of E. Germany. They hadn't been successful the previous week--the last time that particular MP had been assigned to the train.

He then left the compartment, conviently leaving his paper-laden clipboard on the seat next to me. Among other things, it had papers to cover any possible occurrence. It also had a copy of the report from the previous week detailing what had happened during the unsuccessful escape attempt.

Law, you'd probably have had the Sergeant up for review--at least, you'd have issued a written reprimand had he been a part of your command.

But he gave me hope that, despite the actions of a stupid, little girl and, despite the earlier unsuccessful escape attempt, there would be more attempts and some of them would be successful.

Thats just it, Helice. In with Dax's "facts" is a great deal of unsupported accusation. He claims that McCain's voting record reflects a lack of support for the troops. I argue that it does not. What it represents is a difference in perspective. For instance, the existing GI Bill is already pretty generous. It pays on order of 36,000 dollars in benefits in exchange for the individual Soldier's service and his or her initial 1,200 dollar buy in. The revised GI Bill that McCain opposed is considerably more generous. It pays up to the cost of tuition at the most expensive public college in the Soldier's state, it pays a living stipend based on the housing allowance for a a single sergeant in that area, and it does not require an initial buy in. McCain and others who opposed this revision had legitimate concerns about its effect on retention.

There are similar issues with the various Veterans Benefit bills fielded over time. Issues of where does the funding come from? Are they truely necessary or are they election year gimmicks designed to garner votes for their sponsors? Sure, we can shower our service members with wealth in a misguided effort to display our affection for them but declining to do so does not demonstrate a lack of support. It demonstrates a sense of reality and proportion.

The truth is, you can assign any position to McCain and it will be true. He has morphed from a maverick to a Bush Conservative in his desire to win the Presidency, so name any issue, he's been on both sides of it.

(Insert paragraph here about how dare Conservatives accuse Dems of flip flopping when their own candidate has an Olympic gold medal in flip.)

So in fact, Lawmage is both right and wrong. Sometimes McCain supports the troops, or did at one time. Sometimes he doesn't. It depends on the day, his mood, what Karl Rove had to say that morning, and what he remembers thinking and/or saying the previous day.

Republicans are still painting this guy as a maverick, as though the conservative wing of their party would ever vote for a "maverick" who doesnt tow the party line. It's patent nonsense to suggest McCain is a maverick. He's a maverick like Ray is a liberal.

Thank you, Lawmage, for responding with facts about the issue.

Okay, the proposed bill is more generous than the existing bill. In light of the sacrifices made by soldiers who've seen active service, I personally don't have a problem with that -- I'm in favor of rewarding honorable service well. As a current college student I'm aware of the going tuition rates in Connecticut, a state with one of the highest cost of living indexes in the country, and it's around $3500 per semester. I'm thinking about that and.... I'm willing to foot that too, for men and women who have served under fire. I feel grateful to veterans. I like the idea of seeing them adequately thanked, and this is barely adequate.

After the Vietnam War we ended up with many homeless veterans who weren't adequatley taken care of, guys who ended up living on the street because they couldn't get jobs, had no education, no prospects, no "living stipend", just a cold shoulder from the American people. That was a sin that we should make sure never happens again. We have to take care of our own.



Well, I consider it part of the cost of the war, actually. If we can continue to occupy two foreign countries and wage war on their inhabitants, I think we can afford to take good care of the people who did that business for us when they come home. I think the cost of the bill would be minor in comparison to the other costs of the war.



Possibly both. But everyone who supports it would likely garner votes by doing so, it doesn't have to be an isolated political issue.



The tuition and living stipend you described don't exactly sound like being "showered with wealth" to me, Lawmage. That sounds like hyperbole.

I'm not in favor of rewarding veterans because it's a political issue that seperates two parties, I just think it's the right thing to do. Does your position depend on political alleigance, or are you truly convinced soldiers don't deserve more than we're giving them?

Conservatives aren't against benefitting the troops, they just won't spend their own money to do it.

Sometimes things you say can truly boggle the mind. When Congress spends money, no matter what party is in the majority, it isn't their money they are spending. They're spending MY money. And your money. And the money of all the other taxpayers in the country.

Reminds me of the quip about how accusing Congress of spending money like drunken sailors is an insult to drunken sailors. At least the sailors are spending their own money.

But here's something to chew on. Surveys around the country show that, based upon majority of political sentiment, "Red" states tend to contribute more dollars, per capita to charitable causes than do "Blue" states. Based upon this evidence it would be more accurate to conclude that Conservatives are, in fact, more willing to spend money out of their own pockets on good causes than are Liberals.

Like I said, they don't want to spend their own money on it. That they don't want to spend my money on it is beside the point. They aren't doing me any favors.

...


This is meaningless without knowing how many Dem vs. Rep. people in those states contributed. If Oklahoma, for example, is a red state, it's still not impossible that more charitable contributions came from Democrats. I'm not suggesting this is the case, I'm just pointing out that your conclusion is made on incomplete evidence.

September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments.

July 2007: McCain voted against a plan to drawdown troop levels in Iraq.

March 2007: McCain was absent from a vote on a bill that would require the start of a drawdown in troop levels within 120 days with a goal of withdrawing nearly all combat troops within one year.

February 2007: McCain was absent to vote against a resolution condemning escalation.

June 2006: McCain voted against a resolution that Bush start withdrawing troops but with no timeline to do so.

May 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.

April 2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.

March 2006: McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.

March 2004: McCain voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes.

October 2003: McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.

April 2003: McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.

August 2001: McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000.

Now.. I'm still checking some of these.. as some (2 so far) had the funding built into the resolution.. such as the tax loophole.. so although I understand Law's point about funding some of these proposals.. that doesn't address all of them..
But, I also agree with Helice.. supporting our troops with better health care, educational/housing opportunities, better pay (of course paying them as much as the private troops would be costly) these issues should have already been included in the war budget.. we shouldn't have to debate or vote on whether to increase healthcare, equipment safety, and financial support..

Ah! There you go! That's exactly how lots of people feel about the way the current Administration is handling our economy!

The American people, after September 11 2001, were in shock and rage over our loss, and we were anxious to revenge ourselves on the perpetrators of the terrible crime that happened here... we were all eager to go to Afghanistan and kick some butt. The spirit of suport and national unity we all shared was used and abused by the current Administration to lead us into a war with Iraq under less than honest pretenses, and national sentiment has tuened. The public has seen the overthrow of the former Iraqi regime and the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq, our stated goal... now the people are weary of seeing American lives lost, and American treasure squandered endlessly on a sandpit that will never yield any retuen for America. The Administration is spending MY money. And your money. And the money of all the other taxpayers in the country. And it's to do something that the vast majority of the taxpayers do NOT want done.

On the other hand, I think sentiment rather favors being good to veterans who fought in the Bush wars. People hate paying taxes, true, but they have to be paid no matter what and peopole would rather see their tax money go for a decent cause like supporting veterans than a bad causing like perpetuating a failed war.

In my opinion. (which is shared by the majority at the current time)

Rather like "The Walrus and the Carpenter".

I wanted to respond to a couple of alleged examples of McCain's lack of concern for the troops posted by Wanderingspryte. I think they demonstrate the problem with attributing a lack of concern to such votes.
Webb's ammendment was little more than political grandstanding. It would have made it impossible for the Pentagon to rotate troops into Iraq in any consistent and predictable fashion and would have required tour extensions for those actually sent to Iraq. Those are good reasons to have opposed it. Another very good reason to have opposed it is something called the seperation of powers. Our Constitution gives the President control over our military. This includes the rate and frequency of troop deployments. I am not at all sure such a law would have passed a Constitutional challenge. That same Constitution gives the Congress the ulitmate power to rein in the President's use of the military though. That power comes in the form of controlling funding for military activities. COngress is certianly free to use that power but it is not free to usurp the President's position as Commander-in-Chief.

Again, this goes directly to the issue of Executive branch control over the military. Congress is certainly free to cut off funding beyond a certain date but it is not, nor should it be, free to dictate the pace of troop deployments or the number of troops deployed.

I do not think a resolution limited to saying essentially it is the opinion of the Congress the President should withdraw troops would violate the seperation of powers. Of course, I do not think supporting such a resolution demonstrates support for the troops and opposing it certainly does not demonstrate a lack of support for the troops.

I could'nt agree with you more wanderingspryte, If I may add............

McCain like Bush is a fraud and pretend to support our troops but when it comes down to it, once these kids come home with physical and emotional damage, they don't give a damn about them, and anybody who denies it is a fraud also.

It took them forever to get our troops the proper armour to protect themselves, and that was after we lost precious lives, leaving the parents and siblings to grieve because of their carelesness. I could give lots of examples of lack of support for our troops but the majority of the American public already know this, there's just a few who will alway's be in denial.