BDS alert: NYT and Huffpo get totally unhinged
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.
“I genuinely believe the United States Army is a force of good in this world.” - 2LT Mark Daily.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- A Memorial Day Reflection, The Appropriate Way To Honor Memorial Day : BigMouthFrog
- Bring It On! » Blog Archive » The Ultimate Sacri-farce
- Media Mythbusters Blog » Blog Archive » Media Bias Roundup - 05/27/08
- UrbanGrounds
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Bush Derangement Syndrome
Confederate Yankee
» Shocker: L.A. Progressive Writer Who Smeared Palin as a Racist and Sexist is a Life-Long Liberal With a Severe Hatred of Republicans
TigerHawk
» The bogus banned books listPower Line
» Perspectives on the Palin pickLittle Miss Attila
» That New McCain AdPatterico
» Why We Need to Link Andrew SullivanJustOneMinute
» Seeing Is Not BelievingJustOneMinute
» Sweetheart DealWeekly Standard
» Anatomy of a Smear
Read all I could from the Geiger dude. BDS is putting it mildly. Even he uses the word HATE.
Prosecutable hate speech? Not in the US, but how about Canadia? Don’t they get the Huffpo up yonder?
If the New York Times is right (ha!), why does this soldier and the vast majority of his peers think that 43 is the best Commander-in-Chief we’ve had since Reagan?
None dare call it treason? But that’s what the MSM and Left are in fact up to. Oh, I know, just an honest difference of opinion, supposedly, but they are so hurting this country, the one they despise.
To any and all, on the left, right, or anywhere in between…
It is NOT “Mr. Bush,” or “Mr. Clinton,” or “Mr. Carter”…
It is PRESIDENT Bush, or PRESIDENT Clinton, or PRESIDENT Carter.
As much as some may not respect the man we all need to respect the Office.
Dropping all pretense of BDS leaves just pure BS …
The Al Qaeda Times continues on its path to oblivion … it has already achieved irrelevance in the minds of anyone capable of rational thought … which eliminates the few sheeple that still support this totally deranged excuse for journalism …
lol…and the NYT is absolutely baffled why they’re losing so much money.
jbenedict said:
Agree with you on respecting the office but had to make a slight correction …
I watched ABC snooze spin the same, “McCain and Bush do not support the troops” crap. They have been at it since Senator Webb’s bill came up.
The MSM is, of course, trying to win this election for BO (much like they chose the Republican nominee for POTUS).
Screw the MSM.
Funny, I have to agree Tiger, my husband who came into the Army during W’s father’s term also agrees he’s the best CIC he’s had. I would say Reagan but I came into the Army in 1982, but agree wholeheartedly with the comments.
Jbenedict, I agree, they are/were Presidents and should be addressed as such. Although I honestly have an easier time addressing President Clinton than Carter.
To an extent the headline DOES say it all–it says all we need to know about Bob Geiger, Comrade Arianna Huffington and the Left in general. They are our enemies and let this headline ever remind us of it. They are the enemies of our country, military families and everything else we love. Let this headline remind us.
Cut out that headline and keep a copy with you. As we get into the election cycle and start hearing this crap about “Unity, Coming Together, Solving Common Problems” hand that Leftist rat this headline. We are being told by the Leftist Hate Machine (B. Hussein Obama) that “Candidates and Issues are not our Problem, Cynicism Is”.
Hand that Leftist rat the headline and tell him/her just how cynical you can be towards them. Yes the headline DOES say it all. Liberals loved to be hated and I am glad to accomodate them.
HuffPo and the NYT are idiots. Is this the “stuff we dont like” scenario like lgm was talking about last time?
How could anyone with any sense give credence to these people?
We owe our troops a debt we can never repay, and owe their families and loved ones due respect and all the support we can muster.
These “journalists” make me sick.
May the New York Times go the way of our local rag, the Star Tribune. Purchased in 2004 for $1.2B, sold two years later for $530M (lost more than half its value……), now 2 years after the purchase by a private equity firm, bleeding cash and can’t seem to stop.
That’s what Journalistic malpractice will get ya……..maybe Rupert Murdoch can ‘rescue’ the Times.
Opposing the Patriot Act is wrong? If that’s wrong, I don’t want to be right.
Came back to this because I was thinking about those I visited Saturday at Arlington. They would get up out of their graves if they could and smack the Slimes and the puffpo’s upside the head of they could.
Okay, off for the day. My little boy turned four today and I have to get ready for his party this afternoon. Think of me as I have 18, 3-5 y/os coming to the party, a bounce house and petting zoo. Their parents will be there but they’ll probably be munching on the food and adult beverages. Thank goodness my ex-inlaws are coming from Mclean to help.
You all have a great day and I will see you all later.
I cannot even hit the NY Times link anymore….my brain will not let my fingers do it…they are a disgusting piece of leftism.
The NYT has always suffered badly from BDS, but to dishonor the sacrifices made by our serving military and veterans on Memorial Day is a new low. HuffPo is beyond hope with way too many people off their medications commenting there. I have a lot of trouble viewing the lefty web sites due to their poorly written rants and extreme use of language that makes this retired Senior NCO blush.
Over the weekend I saw an article about the Chief of Staff reminding our troops to stay out of politics this election cycle: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/25/america/pent.php . This was prompted by many comments made by our military men and women concerned about what will happen should a Democrat win the White House. The liberals and their American hating allies had better start treading lightly. I don’t think this generation of heroes is going to salute smartly and follow orders of any politician that wants to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.
bbbbbbbbbbbut they support the troops!!
/sarc
khan #13 - What is there in the Patriot Act that you don’t you support? Please be specific.
I noticed in his Bio, Geiger gave a list of his left wing academic and literary credentials including some pathetic article he wrote titled “I Know This Little Boy in New Orleans.” but not a single word about his military service. You would think he could give it at least mention it in passing if he is so proud of it.
TDS — Truth Derangement Syndrome. You think that a hissy-fit can change the fact that most of what the NYTimes editorial said is true.
Bush/McCain did oppose the Webb bill because it would hurt re-enlistment. They did oppose a pay raise. They have run the VA into the ground. They didn’t seem to care too much about protecting the troops (”You go to war with the army you have…”).
Just in case anybody missed this in Powerline.
Obama and the New York Times’ constant screeching gets old. Here are some facts.
Are We Safer?
On the stump, Barack Obama usually concludes his comments on Iraq by saying, “and it hasn’t made us safer.” It is an article of faith on the left that nothing the Bush administration has done has enhanced our security, and, on the contrary, its various alleged blunders have only contributed to the number of jihadists who want to attack us.
Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.
Some perspective here is required. While most Americans may not have been paying attention, a considerable number of terrorist attacks on America and American interests abroad were launched from the 1980s forward, too many of which were successful. What follows is a partial history:
1988
February: Marine Corps Lt. Colonel Higgens, Chief of the U.N. Truce Force, was kidnapped and murdered by Hezbollah.
December: Pan Am flight 103 from London to New York was blown up over Scotland, killing 270 people, including 35 from Syracuse University and a number of American military personnel.
1991
November: American University in Beirut bombed.
1993
January: A Pakistani terrorist opened fire outside CIA headquarters, killing two agents and wounding three.
February: World Trade Center bombed, killing six and injuring more than 1,000.
1995
January: Operation Bojinka, Osama bin Laden’s plan to blow up 12 airliners over the Pacific Ocean, discovered.
November: Five Americans killed in attack on a U.S. Army office in Saudi Arabia.
1996
June: Truck bomb at Khobar Towers kills 19 American servicemen and injures 240.
June: Terrorist opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one.
1997
February: Palestinian opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one and wounding more than a dozen.
November: Terrorists murder four American oil company employees in Pakistan.
1998
January: U.S. Embassy in Peru bombed.
August: Simultaneous bomb attacks on U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed more than 300 people and injured over 5,000.
1999
October: Egypt Air flight 990 crashed off the coast of Massachusetts, killing 100 Americans among the more than 200 on board; the pilot yelled “Allahu Akbar!” as he steered the airplane into the ocean.
2000
October: A suicide boat exploded next to the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 American sailors and injuring 39.
2001
September: Terrorists with four hijacked airplanes kill around 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
December: Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber,” tries to blow up a transatlantic flight, but is stopped by passengers.
The September 11 attack was a propaganda triumph for al Qaeda, celebrated by a dismaying number of Muslims around the world. Everyone expected that it would draw more Muslims to bin Laden’s cause and that more such attacks would follow. In fact, though, what happened was quite different: the pace of successful jihadist attacks against the United States slowed, decelerated further after the onset of the Iraq war, and has now dwindled to essentially zero. Here is the record:
2002
October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam’s government.
2003
May: Suicide bombers killed 10 Americans, and killed and wounded many others, at housing compounds for westerners in Saudi Arabia.
October: More bombings of United States housing compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killed 26 and injured 160.
2004
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2005
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2006
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2007
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
I have omitted from the above accounting a few “lone wolf” Islamic terrorist incidents, like the Washington, D.C. snipers, the Egyptian who attacked the El Al counter in Los Angeles, and an incident or two when a Muslim driver steered his vehicle into a crowd. These are, in a sense, exceptions that prove the rule, since the “lone wolves” were not, as far as we know, in contact with international Islamic terrorist groups and therefore could not have been detected by surveillance of terrorist conversations or interrogations of al Qaeda leaders.
It should also be noted that the decline in attacks on the U.S. was not the result of jihadists abandoning the field. Our government stopped a number of incipient attacks and broke up several terrorist cells, while Islamic terrorists continued to carry out successful attacks around the world, in England, Spain, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, Indonesia and elsewhere.
There are a number of possible reasons why our government’s actions after September 11 may have made us safer. Overthrowing the Taliban and depriving al Qaeda of its training grounds in Afghanistan certainly impaired the effectiveness of that organization. Waterboarding three top al Qaeda leaders for a minute or so apiece may have given us the vital information we needed to head off plots in progress and to kill or apprehend three-quarters of al Qaeda’s leadership. The National Security Agency’s eavesdropping on international terrorist communications may have allowed us to identify and penetrate cells here in the U.S., as well as to identify and kill terrorists overseas. We may have penetrated al Qaeda’s communications network, perhaps through the mysterious Naeem Noor Khan, whose laptop may have been the 21st century equivalent of the Enigma machine. Al Qaeda’s announcement that Iraq is the central front in its war against the West, and its call for jihadis to find their way to Iraq to fight American troops, may have distracted the terrorists from attacks on the United States. The fact that al Qaeda loyalists gathered in Iraq, where they have been decimated by American and Iraqi troops, may have crippled their ability to launch attacks elsewhere. The conduct of al Qaeda in Iraq, which revealed that it is an organization of sociopaths, not freedom fighters, may have destroyed its credibility in the Islamic world. The Bush administration’s skillful diplomacy may have convinced other nations to take stronger actions against their own domestic terrorists. (This certainly happened in Saudi Arabia, for whatever reason.) Our intelligence agencies may have gotten their act together after decades of failure. The Department of Homeland Security, despite its moments of obvious lameness, may not be as useless as many of us had thought.
No doubt there are officials inside the Bush administration who could better allocate credit among these, and probably other, explanations of our success in preventing terrorist attacks. But based on the clear historical record, it is obvious that the Bush administration has done something since 2001 that has dramatically improved our security against such attacks. To fail to recognize this, and to rail against the Bush administration’s security policies as failures or worse, is to sow the seeds of greatly increased susceptibility to terrorist attack in the next administration.
Posted by John at 10:25 PM | Permalink
The NYT is in a death spiral. Their story reminds me of the revelation that the Dodo Bird was becoming extinct many years ago. Rather than try to preserve the species, people scrambled to kill one and stuff it before they were all gone. This led to its quick extinction.
While reading this BS from the NYT, my first thought was that idiots like littlegirlyman think of the NYT rag as fair and balanced.
Liberals are absolutely pathetic
rooster,
This is coming from someone who is staunchly against the war and what our troops have accomplished. I think it’s rather comical that he would make the argument for pay raises but, then again, any opportunity to let off some fresh BDS steam is an opportunity to good to pass up…
First off, like so much legislation lately, the congress critters have also managed to load all kinds of pork into this bill, thereby hoping the president vetos it and once again has to suffer the slings and arrows of criticism.
Secondly, let me ask any business man out there a question. Would you give somebody a job for 3 years, allowing them to learn a job for which they had no previous training, and then paying for 4 years of college knowing that once he completed school he would probably leave your company to go to a better paying one?
Doesn’t make sense does it? I believe the current GI BIll does need to be updated, but I would go along with a 2:1 ratio. 2 years of Active Duty service for 1 year of paid tuition. make it transferable.
MAKE IT A STAND ALONE BILL WITH NO EARMARKS HIDDEN!!!!
The Today Show also twisted the truth this morning. The discussion of Obama and McCain’s latest exchange about the proposed G.I. Bill and other issues neglected to mention the bill McCain is proposing. Andrea Mitchel merely said McCain believes the Webb bill is too generous.
Chris Mathews with the tingling leg said the war in Iraq is still horrendous. McCain has been reacting quickly to Obama’s attacks. He ought to do the same to our media.
lgm #20
projection at its best (or worst, depending on your point of view)
Wait, is the new GI bill bad? Should we not pay for our soldiers to go to college?
Why not make the benefits bigger, and then make them transferable? And when has this administration limited itself to the text of a law? He could sign the increased benefits and then issue a signing statement saying that they’re transferable.
Also, if you look at the list of liberal offenses by the Times that Michael Moran emailed, none of those are anti-soldier, but are anti-white house and anti-pentagon. The recipients of the new GI bill, enlisted men and women, for the most part aren’t administration officials or pentagon brass. Most of the people the Times has been critical have already been to college. The Times just thinks enlisted men should be able to earn the same opportunities that the President and most of our congressmen were born into.
Hey lgm, how are you doing this morning. I sure hope that this latests comment of yours is putting you closer to your goal of accumulating enough points to redeem them for a glossy 8×10 signed Howard Dean photo in the frame with the hearts. I know how much you’d like to get that from the DNC blogger comments points program™. and I just want to mention that I know how difficult it is for you to come here, to a site you hate and make a comment to the people you despise, but remember, it’s all worth it when you can get that Howard Dean signed photo and put it by the nightstand.
Best of luck.
UGH, how much longer do we have to put up with lgm?
1. Yes, you have “Truth Derangement Syndrome”
2. The NYT’s wouldn’t know truth but I digress, most of the article is true. Syntax comes to mind.
3. The President DOES care about our troops. More than Clinton ever did. Considering we are fighting wars on two fronts, how do you explain the lives lost during Clintons reign (no war on any front)?
4. The fact that Bush opposed the Webb bill is proof he cares about the troops.
5. Your “ethical congress” wants to attach record amounts of pork (something THEY were going to do away with) to any bill (for our vets) is just disgusting.
6. You are an IDIOT OF EPIC PROPORTIONS.
lgm said:
Well, the truth is nobody believes the NYT and most think it’s garbage. If you want proof of that look at the stock price ($17.45), it’s no better than a supermarket tabloid.
You need a return on your investment. For instance graduates of the military academies are required to give 6 years active duty to the military or the equivalent.
I served for 22 years and you know during that whole time I never any of those great Democrat president, Carter or Clinton, propose any such bill. Hmmm come to think of it I don’t remember any member of congress doing it either. To now put on the Faux outrage, and yes it is false, to once again score political points while trying to make service members the victims is despicable. In the end the service members are the victim, but not because of the president, but because of this dishonest and vile congress.
Vote all of them out this year and let’s start anew. That is the only way to send a message. Vote out all incumbents and quit playing this game everybody’s congressman is bad…..except mine.
There are plenty of Iraq veterans running for seats in the HOuse that I am sure can come up with a good plan. William Russell challenging Murtha in PA, David Bellavia in NY, Duncan Hunter Jr in CA.
I should juxtapose the $17.45 against what it used to trade at: around $80/share.
Yes to both questions, even though your second one is badly worded and could be interprated a couple of different ways.
Guess you’re an Obama voter.
JHSII I think you will find many of us Conservatives bothered by the Patriot Act. The Act bypasses too many safeguards and gives Police agencies authority to self write warrants. Re read our Declaration of Independence and you will find that as one of the Usurpations.
And if Senator Obama or Miss Hillary gets control of that police power? We do not think the Patriot Act was written for bad reasons or by bad people. It was a bi-partisan, reaching across the isle issue. We just think it is dangerous. Power you give one can be used by another. The police powers given to Presidents Wilson and FDR in the two World Wars were used primarily to stifle dissent on other issues.
We must always we cautious about power. I hate to say too much about it as I do not wish to appear to agree with the Leftist. But the Leftist using the Patriot Act does bother me.In God We Trust, no others need apply.
GET totaly unhinged? They have been that way for years.
Except for the premise. . .you know, the whole point of the story.
“The police powers given to Presidents Wilson and FDR in the two World Wars were used primarily to stifle dissent on other issues.”
I too have problems with the Patriot Act. In my opinion it smacks of “Big Brother” looking over my shoulder constantly.
ArizoneNeanderthal #35
You missed my point entirely. Please tell me what specific “safeguards” that the Patriot Act bypasses.
I will also point out that it doesn’t give our police agencies the ability to self write warrants.
Now, if you’re going to bring up how the Patriot Act could (and will) be misused by the liberals, you could (and should) apply that to any and all pieces of legislation.
Oh, for the record, I’m a Conservative too. You don’t need to tell me to reread the Constitution. I was going to say something else to you here for that crack, but I don’t want to get banned from the board.
Ok, so why is it a bad bill? If we should pay our soldiers to be able to go to college, then what, exactly, is the problem? So near as I can tell (which is based on what’s been reported here and in the MSM) all this bill does is increase the amount to which we’ll pay for soldiers’ tuition to an amount that bears resemblence to what tuition is. It would give soldiers a better life once they’re back and encourage more people to enlist who otherwise wouldn’t.
The only arguments I’ve seen against the bill are that its sponsor is a Democrat, the benefits aren’t transferable and that it discourages re-enlisment. The first is dismissable as a blatant ad hominem. The second isn’t really a criticism, there’s nothing to stop the passage of another bill making these benefits transferable. Will the effect on re-enlistment be greater than the effect on enlistment? If we’re only maintaining our military because people who want a civilian life are forced by economic need to re-enlist multiple times, then maybe we should re-consider how we supply our army. I mean, why should a few people make all the sacrifice for the war? The pentagon and white hourse should either recruit more, re-start the draft, or accept that they just don’t have as many soldiers, sailors, and marines as they would like to have.
Why is this a bad bill? Without argumentum ad hominem, red herrings, etc. What is bad about increasing the amount that the military will pay for our soldiers, etc. to go to college?
sorry, of course, “The pentagon and white hourse” should’ve been “The Pentagon and White House.” And if I’m wrong about the actual content of the bill, I hope someone will tell me.
It depends on whose truth you’re taking..i mean, there’s 2 america’s right?
The NTY had it completely wrong and the fact you think they’re correct is simply an indication that you likewise are ignoring the reasons behind why the administration didn’t go for this.
That would make it more like Selective Truth Syndrome. Taking only the parts of the argument/discussion you think helps you, and ignore the garish and glaringly evident truth behind the remainder.
I guess the MSM does not realize it is Soldiers, dead and alive, who give them Freedom of the Press. If the MSM candidate wins, I can forsee the loss of that freedom. Shame on them for not seeing that.
It’s official - the Old Grey Lady has Alzheimer’s!
As for HuffPo, I regard Arianna as a lost sheep. She used to be one of us; maybe she fell and hit her head or something.
lgm reminds me of some lind of mechanical twit-toy. You put a quarter in the back of his head and he spews liberal garbage till the times up. He’s likr the Tin Man except he doesn’t have a brain.
JRoberts, first, I preface this comment with the qualifier that I recently retired from the Marine Corps 20+ years. I include that information solely to qualify that I know of our current tuition assistance and Montgomery GI Bill benefits. First, tuition assistance is already afforded every military member, regardless of amount of time served, at 100% tuition with a $250 / credit hour cap. Secondly, the current Montgomery GI Bill provides those enlisted military member who choose to enroll in the program (at an individual cost of $1200) a little over $36,000 for college paid over a 36 month period. Services also have a service specific “college fund” which affords up to another $12,000 on top of the MGIB for those service members who qualify.
The current proposed bill that is being debated on this site is wrong for two reasons. It does not address the transferability of benefits as we veterans have repeatedly asked for. Secondly, the proposed bill is too costly in that the full benefit package is available to those who have served the minimum obligated service. Another bill is also in the Senate that limits the funding of education for those members who serve only the minimum obligation at present level while increasing funding for those members who stay in the military 8 years or more. The second bill also allows service members to transfer their benefits to their spouse and/or children.
In essence, the reason the bill is bad is that it is too costly to taxpayers without addressing fundamental wrongs in the current MGIB program.
“Going to war with the army you have” That is the most acurate statement rumsfield probably ever made. Fact is no army ever went to war 100% ready with every single peice of equipment possiable all at the latest level of technology. It will never happen even if saint obama gets in. Why? Because by the time you have outfitted the entire military with that new gear, something better is either in development or production. (note this is why we are on the 5th or 6th generation of vehicle armor in Iraq, since 2003) So you do the best you can and roll out with what you have in place, on the day. If Obama does not understnad this then he has no business being president.
If you want an example, LGM, then you can have one. In 1998 I deployed to bosnia with an M16 with an M203 attached that rotated arround the barrel. Reason? Because the clinton whitehouse had not funded maintenance well enough to pay to get it fixed. In fact my bradley back at fort hood was deadlined when we left because maintenance couldn’t get a bolt for the same reason. No funding. (front left spocket) so liberals have no room to talk about “the army you have” because I can point out many other items like that from world war one to today.
I didn’t smell this coming from a mile away. Oh, that’s right. I did. As I’m sure most of you had, as well.
Yahoo added a Purple Heart to their logo from Saturday morning thru Monday evening.
Google failed to make any acknowledgement about Memorial Day.
First, thank you for your service and for an actual response about the facts.
The problem with the current benefits package is that that amount of money isn’t very competitive with many states’ scholarship programs. $250 a credit hour, and $12,000 a year for only 3 years (do you get both at the same time?) won’t cover even in-state tuition at most (or maybe just many) state schools, especially not at the better ones; it definitely won’t be enough to cover room and board. And that will barely cover even 1 year of a private university. Someone relying on that for funding will still graduate very deeply in debt.
I see what you’re saying about transferability, and agree fully. The minimum commitment is 8 years right, even though some of that is on reserves? (at least, all I could find on the army.mil that said anything directly said it was 8 years) I think if someone commits to the army for 8 years, they should be able to pay for college. They’ll already be starting when their 26 or 27 (granted, they could start on reserves, but they can get called back up so they couldn’t commit fully to the degree until 26 or 27). That’s really old to be an undergrad. They won’t finish until they’re 30; that is, they won’t be able to fully enter civilian life with a civilian job until they’re 30. Isn’t that a big enough sacrifice?
Can the military be staffed entirely by career soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen? Or do we need some people to serve in their youth who can then go on to civilian careers? Eight years should be enough for the soldiers who want civilian lives.
I see your point though. There are still fundamental problems with the lack of transferability and the failure to better reward folks such as yourself who stay longer. But the less fundamental problem of the bill not actually paying enough to go to a decent college is still a serious problem.
From Michelle:
The recent challenges by the administration to the NYT’s bull-squat editorial and NBC’s recent fun-n-games editing of the President’s interview with them would’ve encouraged me 8 years ago.
As it is, I feel like I’m watching a football game in which one team’s offense does the kneel-down, 3-downs-and-punt routine until they’re behind 70-0 with two minutes left in the 4th quarter; then, as they’re huddling under the shadow of their own goal post on 4th-and-10, they decide that now’s a good time to start moving the ball.
Too little, too late.
Just re-read the peice from huffpo. My god these people are hate filled wackos. That hate post should be read on national tv as an example of the lefts base. In fact if michelle malkin (not obama, this doesn’t help HER kids BTW) reads this, I would suggest it next time you are on fox, cite this article as an example of how irrational the left has become.
Ron said:
None dare call it treason?
No, not so much… ahem, “treason”.
Treason most foul.
Treason most foul, & in a time of war.
There you go… I SAID it.
Until the editorial board at the NYT is proscecuted, the notion of a nation of laws is at best a cruel joke.
I’ve always wondered about that.. why wait til now to play hardball instead of taking it on the chin like so many times in the past.. would make me respect the guy (W) if he did so even 4 years ago..
Both the NYT AND Hillary Clinton are in death spirals. Thought I’d never see the day!
When it comes to the NYT, I’m almost…almost…willing to go along with another Sedition Act under Adams. They are fast becoming way out of control in their “opinions”. Of course, the congress would never agree to that…unless, it is against the conservatives (Fairness Act). NYT seems to be controlled by a reincarnation of Benjamin Franklin Bache.
here’s some more BDS today, from Vincent Bugliosi at HuffPo who attempts to make the case that Bush doesn’t care about all the people he’s killed. He’s got a book out about this, too. Needless to say I am not impressed by his “research”. If this is what passes for evidence in California, no wonder,there criminal justice system is flawed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-bugliosi/george-bushs-unseemly-res_b_103592.html
*no wonder their criminal…*
This is the same paper that has been having financial problems and lay offs - wonder why???!!!!