I’m telling ya, I need to turn Unhinged into an encyclopedia set.
The Memorial Day holiday brought out the BDS crazies this weekend.
In case you missed it, the NYTimes used Memorial Day to bludgeon President Bush with a disingenuous editorial about the GI Bill. Don’t read it if you’ve already had breakfast. But here’s a typical, nutso passage:
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. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break.
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.
The White House responded forcefully (something they should do more often). This is the full statement released yesterday:
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.
Reader Michael Moran e-mailed this morning:
The New York Times, in a remarkable example of hypocrisy and political opportunism, published a Memorial Day editorial opposing President Bush’s threatened veto of the G.I. Bill legislation currently being “crafted” by Congress.
The Times stated, “Mr. Bush — and, to his great discredit, Senator John McCain — have argued against a better G.I. Bill, for the worst reasons”… yet President Bush’s well known points in opposition to the legislation… the lack of transferability of benefits to spouses or children… and the lack of greater rewards for continued service in our all volunteer force… were ignored.
Rather, the NY Times chose to ridicule President Bush’s entirely valid additional point… that being that to provide full tuition “and other expenses” for fours years at a public university for three years of service would likely hurt our military by negatively impacting retention.
But then again, this is, after all, the New York Times…. the newspaper that chose to:
* Adamantly and continuously oppose the Patriot Act.
* Publish front page Abu Ghraib stories for 32 consecutive days in May and June of 2004.
* Publicize and criticize a confidential government program to monitor international financial transactions by terrorists, citing undisclosed sources.
* Publicize and criticize a confidential government program to monitor outbound communication to terrorists, citing undisclosed sources.
* Publish, at a reduced rate, an ad by MoveOn.org headlining “General BetrayUs” on the occasion of Gen. Petraeus’ testimony, report and recommendations to the President and Congress last September.
The very same subject editorial brazenly states the obvious lie, “This page strongly supports a larger, sturdier military.”
If that were to be believed, one can hardly imagine the positions that would be taken by the New York Times if it opposed a larger, sturdier military.
…Earlier this week, the White House issued a statement criticizing NBC TV for artfully… and purposefully… editing an interview with President Bush to misrepresent his response to an interview question from NBC’s Richard Engel.
Today, the White House again issued a statement directed at the media, this time setting the New York Times straight regarding the subject editorial.
I strongly and wholeheartledly applaud both actions.
The NYTimes came close, but no one can out-HuffPo the HuffPo’s writers.
The headline says it all: Dead Troops Remembered By President Who Had Them Killed.
As an antidote to such bile, I recommend re-reading the words of fallen soldiers and their families that I linked to over the weekend:
“Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark.” – Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr.
“He knew what he was fighting for.” – father of Lt. Michael P. Murphy.
“He felt that what we were doing was just and right.” – Charles Cummings, father of fallen hero Army PFC Branden Cummings, who died in an IED attack in Diyala, Iraq.blog comments powered by Disqus
September 29, 2011 02:39 PM by Michelle Malkin
January 10, 2011 03:19 AM by Michelle Malkin
July 4, 2010 12:06 PM by Doug Powers
March 26, 2010 10:40 AM by Michelle Malkin
September 9, 2009 03:37 PM by Doug Powers