DING DING DING DING DING!!!!! -13.... How High can this go???
blah blah blah
Actions speak louder than words. Bush will show how much he really cares when he vetoes the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Snide: Do you have nothing better to do on Memorial Day than spread your poison?
It's nothing to them, Mike.
Memorial Day is just a day off with pay for creatures like Snide.
blah blah blah
Only part of your comment that was vaguely intelligible.
Nice arguments from all three of you. What part of supporting comprehensive veterans educational benefits reform qualifies as "poison" Mike?
Snide: All you are doing is repeating misleading and intellectually dishonest talking points handed to you by the smear factory.
I call that poison.
We all know that President Bush supports the GI Bill.
I know it and you know it.
Your comment is nothing more than a LIE
From the White House statement:
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.
Stop Lying Snide. It's too easy to spot and you don't do it well.
I guess I don't do it well because I never practice.
Your copy and paste skills are incredible, by the way. Speaking of talking points...
The cost of transferability would be enormous and the concept of it doesn't even make sense. One of the reasons the GI Bill works is because not everyone takes advantage of it. If you could pass it to kids and spouses there would be massive financial pressure on the system. I'd love to hear you explain it if you could do so without copying directly from a White House press release.
The only reason McCain's lap dog and his little cronies introduced this bill was so they could claim an alternative. It's politics at it's best and I hate to see a seemingly intelligent person like yourself buying into it.
Here are some facts: The Graham bill has ZERO chance. The Webb bill has a VERY GOOD chance. Giving better benefits to our military will NOT weaken our military.
The American Legion and VFW support the Webb bill. Are they "repeating misleading and intellectually dishonest talking points" too?
I'd really love to hear from the other side on this, but if all you can do is call me a liar I'll be happy to move along.
So why is it that DEMOCRATS are opposed to the GI Bill Snide?
You yourself admitted it.
What a pity.
But then, we know you folks NEVER support the troops.
Case in point: Not one of you had any comment on the Memorial Day observances.
You are so transparent.
Oooookay. I'm not even sure what most of that means.
Which DEMOCRATS are you referring to? Ted Kennedy is the only (D) Senator who didn't vote on the measure, perhaps you could forgive him for being absent. If you're referring to the Anti-War Democrats in the House, I won't make any excuses for them and I find them just as retarded as everyone else working against this measure.
See I don't think you're picking up on the fact that I'm against ANYONE who blindly follows the company line or plays politics for personal gain. A lot of people support the Webb bill because it will make them look good, especially going into an election year. Well, that's a necessary evil. I want what's best for our military. And if Bush and Co. are really against the Webb bill they can draw up a better plan for next year's emergency supplemental bill.
And who are you talking about commenting on the Memorial Day observances? Is it required of all troop-supporting Americans to view your posts and comment on them?
I'd love to talk about how much memorial day means to me and I posted a little about it on my own blog. I'm sorry I have nothing to add to your flag-waving posts, but I'm not going to watch some happy, brainless cheer leading for a president who has shown time and again a complete inability to lead our military without leaving a response.
I apologize though, I thought you might be capable of civil discourse. You clearly are not. I'll stop wasting my time.
Not so fast! You are saying Bush is opposed to the GI Bill becase he doesn't like the Webb version.
But then, Democrats don't support the Gramm version, so the same conclusion applies:
Dems hate the GI Bill.
I am simply taking the same intellectually dishonest rules you use as your stock in trade and applying them to yourself.
You are not being honest in this debate and even you know it.
That's ridiculous and childish. When did I say anyone "hates" the GI Bill?
Graham's version is a clear effort at deflecting the wide and growing criticism of McCain's lack of support for the Webb bill. Where am I lying there? If I'm wrong, please tell me how.
Webb tried to compromise with McCain to secure his support but McCain refused, even claiming he hadn't had time to read the important legislation because he was too busy on the campaign trail.
Where is the dishonesty you keep claiming?
If Bush uses his veto, NO changes will be made. Is that good for our service members? Is that the best way to honor their sacrifices? The best available option is to pass the version Webb has written and improve it in the future.
You're playing games Snide and no one is fooled but you.
Mike held his breath then typed:
You're playing games Snide and no one is fooled but you.
Au contraire Michel.
Once you start with the name calling we can be sure a painful truth has been revealed.
Cheers.
Sorry "Arthur." I should have said "No one but 'Arthur' is fooled by you."
I forgot that you will believe anything told you by another lefty. I bet you are STILL looking for those WMD in Iraq Bill Clinton warned us about.
I love that picture of Bush with the leather vest. Awesome!!
Mike typed:
I forgot that you will believe anything told you by another lefty. I bet you are STILL looking for those WMD in Iraq Bill Clinton warned us about.
I seem to recall President Clinton wrapping up his second term well before the unilateral invasion of Iraq.
Your point?
Oh wait. Mission Accomplished!
My Point?
Talk about Mission NOT Accomplished:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 |
That's just a taste. You want more?
I'll bet you lapped up every word when he said it.
Note the dates Mike. Five years before the invasion. During the entire period from 1998 - 2003 Iraq was the subject of intense scrutiny & endless inspections turning up NO WMDs. The 'threat posed by Iraq's weapons' (sic).. had ended. The invasion was unnecessary. There would be no mushroom clouds. No poison gas. No nothing at all.
George was merely fulfilling the fantasy of PNAC and the results speak for themselves.
I did note the dates Artie. I also noted that when President Bush actually DID something about the problem, those same Dems who insisted Iraq was an "eminent threat" with WMD changed their minds for political reasons.
Such weanies!
Thanks for confirming that it would have been perfectly OK with you if Bill Clinton invaded Iraq, but not OK if Bush did it.
And as for "no poison gas" ask the Kurds, if you dare.
I can think of very few folks who ever thought Saddam Hussein was much good. Except for a couple of Reagan administrations but why quibble? The Kurds were gassed before the first Gulf War.
After the Iraqi military was destroyed in 1991 its capability was NEVER restored. Weapons programs were not restarted after their defeat.
By the time 2003 rolled around sanctions and inspections had worked. There were no WMDs found then.
And they haven't been found yet.
Not even on Ebay.
Commenting by HaloScan
