Senator Tube Stevens of Alaska, along with Secretary of Veterans Affairs, James Peak, chose this weekend to tell their audience that our soldiers did not enlist because they are patriotic, but did so in order to get free goodies from the government, as they told America the reasons both oppose a bipartisan bill that passed both houses of Congress with veto-proof majorities. Here is how I see it:

Our soldiers are not slaves. They enlisted of their own free will to protect America. Many did so right after 911, without giving it a second thought. To call them mooches instead of patriots, and choosing Memorial day weekend to show the kind of blatant disrespect they are showing is way beyond the pale. How freaking dare they.

And Mr. Bush - I sincerely hope you veto this bill, just so I can have the sheer satisfaction of seeing it rammed down your unpatriotic throat when the veto is overridden. Tell me now - Do you want ketchup or mustard to eat your veto with?

Article is here.

I do have severe disgust for all who oppose a decent GI Bill. The NEOCONS do lie when it comes to claiming support for the troops. They support the troops when the roops are leaving to be in harm's way but they pull back support when the troops come home.

Too bad you lost both of your legs Corporal but you volunteeered so pay for your own expenses to rfetrain yourself so that you can be productive- G.W. Shrub!!

__________________
"I will not take the low road to the highest office in the land" - Guess Who? You go it !

Idiotic Repubs.

__________________
.

"It is extremely difficult for our contemporaries to conceive of the conditions of free banking because they take government interference with banking for granted and as necessary"

-- Ludwig von Mises

Between 2001-2003 there where many incidents of people saying..
"I never knew I'd have to go to war. I didn't sign up for this"

..course these people are mental midgets...apparantly the uniforms and guns didn't give them a clue....... but why did they enlist?

College Money.



ATM the new GI bill does not favor retention or service length its just another get your benefits and leave package.

Which is why McCain opposes it. I agree with McCain, Bush, and the Pentagon.




Its an election year ploy manufactured by Webb to generate an issue Democrats can use to try to act like they give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the people whom they ignore and declare losers since 9/11/2001.

__________________
McCain/Palin 2008
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"Peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"Keep that faith,keep your courage,stick together, stay strong,do not yield,do not flinch,stand up,we're Americans,we'll never surrender they will"
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

Seriously, I understand how you see it, but can you kindly point out where either said "our soldiers did not enlist because they are patriotic, but did so in order to get free goodies from the government". I simply can't find that in the story you linked to. Maybe I missed it.

__________________
Barack Obama's Executive Flop

If Obama couldn't lead such a small organization as the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to success, how can any one bellieve he can lead this country to it?

Demagogue is another word for liar. You should get into the habit of actually looking at the legislation before you say it's good, and you should look into the reasons for being against something before you say you're disgusted.

Those who support this bill are counting on the ignorance and lack of logic of the masses. Who but a moron would vote for a bill that gives motivation for soldiers to get out of the service after only 3 years? But, some can't be bothered to read the details; they're only interested in taking a political jab at their opponents. Such is politics these days that it's almost guaranteed that the more support a bill receives, the less likely it is to be of value.

Just like this thread which is used to attack Republicans. Yet, when we reads the article, we see that Stevens main opposition is that the benefits cannot be transferred to spouses or children. Disrespecting the troops my ass.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

They can just stop-loss troops that they don't want to leave.

Three years is enough service to deserve these benefits in my opinion.

excellent example of cranial-rectal inversion there 12th

you object to soldiers being able to qualify to further their education, potentially leaving the service to do something more enriching

while at the same time objecting that others - who did not serve - cannot qualify for that same educational benefit

lay off the partisan kool aid for a while and your capacity to think clearly may eventually return

__________________
“Mayor Palin fails to have a firm grasp of something very simple: the truth.”

[Frontiersman editorial, 2/7/97]

Yup, it simply went over your head. From my link:

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what he meant.

The Military invests a lot of tax payer's dollars to train folks. I think the idea here is to get a return on the investment of the training rather than just 3 and out and get the bennies.

The average military pilot, for example, has an investment in training and education at well over One million dollars $1,000,000.00

For Operational training the total investment can be close to $5,000,000.00

That is not a typo.
That's 5 million dollars.

For this investment the DoD is looking for a return in service. The USAF pilot owes a minimum of 10 years of active duty.

I think it is fair that the DoD gets a return on what it invests in the troops.
I agree our Veterans should get all the benefits they have earned, but it is tricky not to make it too appealing for them to leave the Service after a short stint.