RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,168340,00.html

A salute to Webb for coming up with this and pushing it through despite the Administration's opposition and the delaying tactics and everything else. Anyone who ever thought Jim Webb wouldn't be able to set aside his natural pugnacity should think again, because this is a masterful stroke of bipartisan negotiation, diligence, and devotion to the mission at hand. Kudos to Hagel, too, without whose support it would not have been possible, and to Senator Warner for lending his authority to this legislation. Virginia is proud of both her Senators today.

While Webb's bill may be good (I'll hold until I have read both bills) there is absolutely no reason why any other spending should be attached to this bill or Graham's. Absolutely no reason.

.."Now they have finally been recognized as "veterans."..I wonder if this also includes those who were dishonorably discharged by Chennault?"

..Joe Reilly writes, "I feel that if you could answer some of these questions, you would be doing a great service to many of those who were not Volunteers at far great poverty level while fighting the war."
..It was indeed unusual that members of the AVG were recognized by Congress as eligible for benefits of the Veterans Administration..After all, they were mercenaries..Other volunteer organizations have been less successful in efforts to obtain VA eligibility..
..Those unsuccessful volunteer groups include the American Field Service Motor Ambulance companies that served with the British in Burma, and the British and French in the Middle East and ETO..The probable reason is that the AVG had a better Washington lobby than the AFS and others..

.."The American Volunteer Group were very highly paid mercenaries being paid by a corporation set up to circumvent the American neutrality laws..It has been said that President Roosevelt could possibly have been impeached for his part in setting up this scheme."

..CBIer Joe Reilly, 11010 Crestbrook Dr., Sun City, AZ 85351, writes about Col. Claire Chennault's AVG "Flying Tigers."..He asks a number of questions..
..About impeachment, President Roosevelt was frequently threatened with impeachment by his political enemies before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor..He was threatened in 1940 when he ordered sale of surplus war material to Great Britain and the transfer of 50 over-age destroyers to Britain..
..He was threatened again in 1941 when he signed the Lend-Lease Act..But FDR's enemies never had enough votes to bring up impeachment proceedings in the Congress..
..The recruiting of American military flyers for the AVG was a completely different matter..That recruiting was done by American agents of a Chinese - not American - corporation..That corporation was the Central Aircraft Manufacturing CO..(CAMCO), a Chinese corporation headquartered in China..The Chinese government had majority ownership in CAMCO..Bill Pawley, an American, was president of CAMCO, and a minority stockholder..
..Roosevelt and members of his cabinet "turned their backs" during the recruitment of Navy, Army, and Marine aviators and ground personnel for the AVG..Many cabinet secretaries and other high government officials openly helped the recruiters..Officially, they did nothing and knew nothing..

The title should really read:

"Senators Stand With Veterans - President And Hopeful GOP Successor Do Not"

I was on the fence before... But now I've certainly chosen a side. McCain won't be getting my vote as long as he wants to shortchange veterans. Period.

Much as I support the Webb GI Bill, Rieckhoff's opinion piece is typically slanted and lacking in substance. He neglects to mentions:

quote:

The U.S. Senate today approved efforts made by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that funds labor and health initiatives, to include more than $8 billion for investments in American priorities, including health care initiatives, safety nets for families and grants to fight crime in neighborhoods throughout the country.

It also extended unemployment benefits by 13 weeks; 26 weeks in high unemployment areas.

Two observations -

- The bill secured the Republican votes that it did, not because it was the right thing to do but because the bill had plenty of bacon to take home pre-election - for both Dems and Repubs - as well as bipartisan support of the Webb GI Bill.

- This bill is a lot of things - but a straight vote on the Iraq War Funding Supplemental it was not ... nor was it a straight vote on the Supplemental plus the Webb GI Bill.

Rieckhoff ignores the above and instead tries to portray it, dishonestly in my view, as an up or down vote on the Webb GI Bill. It was not.

As an aside, I WAS pleased that the 100 pages plus of back door amnesty and other goodies for illegals got stripped from the bill, a disappointment I am sure for Senators Feinstein, Craig, and others that tried to circumvent last year's clearly expressed "will of the people" that politicians talk about when it suits them ... and ignore otherwise ... by slipping their previously failed legislation piecemeal into the unrelated Iraq War Funding Supplemental. Nice try at end-running American citizens ... and I'm glad their "out of the sunshine" butts got spanked.

quote:

joshuacarnes
Member

Posted Thu 22 May 2008 05:05 PM Hide Post
The title should really read:

"Senators Stand With Veterans - President And Hopeful GOP Successor Do Not"

I was on the fence before... But now I've certainly chosen a side. McCain won't be getting my vote as long as he wants to shortchange veterans. Period.

Maybe you should read Senator Lindsay Graham's bill before you jump off that fence Josh. This whole thing was timed for maximum effect; including this Mil.com topic, and two others that suddenly appeared just before Memorial Day weekend.

We all want a better GI Bill, but why do you think twenty two senators were brave enough to give a no vote; maybe because of all the trash earmarks that have been looking for a ride to the presidents desk for years but couldn't get there on their own merit? Maybe because this isn't the best bill out there? Senator Graham proposed a higher monthly payment after six years of service and veterans with two years would still exceed what anybody is getting now. Finally, the Graham bill would educate just as many veterans at higher payments and still save $13 Billion for increased Veterans medical services and home loans

You and I were in Iraq at about the same time. I also have my degree and I don't have anything to gain or lose by telling you this. Just look at all the facts before you jump.

Well said.

quote:

Rieckhoff ignores the above and instead tries to portray it, dishonestly in my view, as an up or down vote on the Webb GI Bill. It was not.

So what? The IAVA doesn't CARE whether those other issues are tied to this bill or not. They have never said anything about those issues, they care only about the new G.I. Bill and Veterans Benefits, as they have always stated, Clearly. Rieckhoff should NOT be demonized for not caring about Tom Harkin's pork, or anyone else's.

In fact, if it were not for Paul Rieckoff? It is highly dubious that this G.I. Bill effort would have succeeded, even to this point.

Once again it appears obvious, that many people in this country, do not understand the politics of Washington, or how and why legislation is presented and either passed or vetoed.

Slipping bills into other bills is one of the oldest ploys used by politicians. And not only do they use the method to conceal and sail pork through the house and senate, they also use it as a political tool against the president.

And that method is often specifically designed to purposely incur the wrath of special interests groups and lobbyist, toward the other party or the White house.

This same war appropriations bill, had Diane Feinstein's Alien Agworkers bill inserted, before the word leaked out and the public became aware, and Harry Reid immediately pulled it. That bill, was just the latest attempt to slip legislative amnesty for illegal aliens into a bill before congress.

And the political ploy of parasitic bills included into other bills, is always double edged. First, if the president takes exception to any of these hidden agendas concealed in bills, such as the veterans bill that was included in this one, he is represented as not supporting veterans. Regardless of whether the bill is a good bill or something that the taxpayers can live with, the mere fact that the president has threatened to veto it and it includes this veterans bill, along with a ton of other pork, is enough for many people to go off half cocked.

Everyone is against unchecked congressional spending and ridiculous pork hidden in most every bill. Unless and until someone questions one of these pork barrels, that just happens to include something that they would like to have.

Then all bets are off.

quote:

Rieckhoff should NOT be demonized for not caring about Tom Harkin's pork, or anyone else's.

Nope ... Of course Rieckhoff shouldn't be demonized ... just criticized for his half-truth, badly slanted opinion pieces that rarely offer anything original or of substance.

Without Rieckhoff, the bill would be exactly where it is now. After all, Bill O'Reilly supported Webb's GI Bill ... and arguably contributed significantly to mustering all that Republican support.

Let's not forget that the main intent of the Bill was to provide 165 billion in new funding for the wars.

An extended education plan for vets, an increase to unemployment benefits and money for new American initiatives were not part of what the President wanted. Chickenfeed in comparison to war spending.

Sen. McCain couldn't show his support by vote, because he had to be away campaigning. But he did indicate he opposed the additional education benefits unless they were tied to longer-term enlistments. Did Obama vote?

quote:

Originally posted by Jade_Gate:

quote:

Rieckhoff should NOT be demonized for not caring about Tom Harkin's pork, or anyone else's.

Nope ... Of course Rieckhoff shouldn't be demonized ... just criticized for his half-truth, badly slanted opinion pieces that rarely offer anything original or of substance.

Without Rieckhoff, the bill would be exactly where it is now. After all, Bill O'Reilly supported Webb's GI Bill ... and arguably contributed significantly to mustering all that Republican support.

right

quote:

Originally posted by popsiq:
Let's not forget that the main intent of the Bill was to provide 165 billion in new funding for the wars.

An extended education plan for vets, an increase to unemployment benefits and money for new American initiatives were not part of what the President wanted. Chickenfeed in comparison to war spending.

Sen. McCain couldn't show his support by vote, because he had to be away campaigning. But he did indicate he opposed the additional education benefits unless they were tied to longer-term enlistments. Did Obama vote?

hell if i know they probably have that somewhere. besides this aint the sen. mccain i used to remember had all these liberal views about most of whats going on. i think they should get the benenfits and more from this bill. its like i spoke to my pops about we both agree they should be against this because what you want these kids be a servicemen (and woman) their whole life and not give them any benenfits of education so they can be more knowledgeable and better equipped for whatever. i mean **** were sending these people to hell where they scrutinized every second in a place where they send not just men but women and childern as well with guns and bombs to kill them. and then them denying the troops the this kind of support. hell seems like the only 2 people that served any military service was gates and colin powell. tells me a whole lot that they support our troops.

Democrats in Congress are screwing Vietnam Vets again by making Vietnam Era veterans the only veterans who did not get fully paid college benefits. This could be fixed by adding retroactive housing benfits to this bill and reimbursing Vietnam veterans for housing at the current rate for each month they received GI bill benefits. After all our casualty rate was 10 times that of IRAQ/AFGHAN VETS.

quote:

Originally posted by loki1x:
Democrats in Congress are screwing Vietnam Vets again by making Vietnam Era veterans the only veterans who did not get fully paid college benefits. This could be fixed by adding retroactive housing benfits to this bill and reimbursing Vietnam veterans for housing at the current rate for each month they received GI bill benefits. After all our casualty rate was 10 times that of IRAQ/AFGHAN VETS.

You don't think that Viet Nam era vets would get anything, retroactive, did you?...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

I am a Vietnam-Era Veteran, and I have 2 Degrees. I went to school for almost 5 full years, and paid for ALL of it using the benefits I earned (under the G.I. Bill - as it still was in 1975 and until I finished school in 1980). They even gave me an extension of 6 months because I had two small children at the time.

Just love them Trolls, the ones with the attitudes, the ones that roll in here daily and then try their best to start a hassle.

of course Bush doesn't want to extend financial help to those serving their country -- he has NO concept of being tight for cash -- family money has always been there in truckloads. The Bush family has interests in Haliburton, kbr, bechtel engineering, carlyle group. Billions of bucks, thousands of employees.
typical Republicans -- I've got mine.