Contributors

Friday, May 23, 2008

Support the...er...um...troops? (Part Two)

All of you may recall, I wrote a piece back in March of 2007 regarding the poor treatment that returning troops from Iraq have received at the various VA hospitals around the country. Rather than agree that changes needed to be made, many conservatives decided it would be better to use Walter Reed fiasco as an example of how government run health care doesn't really work.

Not really the point...but hey, remember, that is their modus operandi...re-direct, deflect, deny, blame liberals, and shirk all responsibility.

A couple of months back the conservative douche bag pundit machine, led by Bill O'Reilly, decided to come out with the statement that "there aren't that many homeless vets. Liberals like to make a big deal out of a few nutsos who live under bridges."

Actually, there are about 200,000 homeless vets and our government has all but ignored them. Put them together with the large numbers of PTSD (post traumatic stress syndrome) patients coming back from our current war in Iraq and what do you get?

A piece of shit administration that does not give a rat's ass about the troops. To them, they are just fodder that facilitates the purpose of making them and their pals rich on oil and defense industry money (side rant: a post is coming soon on this one, boys and girls, from a primary source in the Pentagon, which essentially proves this point).

Adding insult to injury was the vote of no support from John McCain and President Piece of Shit himself regarding Jim Webb's GI Bill. Take a look at what the bill has to offer and tell me....how can anyone honestly say that these douche bags support the troops? This is a bill that enjoys heavy bi partisan support (75 Senators voted in favor of it, including several fiscal conservatives) and offers extraordinary educational opportunities for returning vets. It gives something back to the brave men and women who put their lives on the line for us around the world and John McCain doesn't support it?

So when Senator Obama said this yesterday:

Senator Webb and the leaders of both parties have introduced a 21st century GI bill that would give this generation of returning heroes the same chance at an affordable college education that we gave the greatest generation. I respect Senator John McCain’s service to our country. … but I can’t understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI bill. I can’t believe he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the president more on this issue. There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them.

....how did some conservative react? They accused Obama of mis-characterizing McCain's position, stooping down to a low level, being naive and stupid, and blah blah blah...we are going to hate him no matter what...blah blah blah....

Well, let's take a closer look at McCain's position, shall we?

First of all, he didn't even vote on the bill. He wasn't in town! He doesn't have the balls to vote no on something and then he whines like a baby at Obama for being "naive?" What a dick...

Second, according to Fox News, McCain doesn't like the bill because he has "concerns that offering education benefits as early as the Webb bill allows would discourage people from re-enlisting." So, he wants to keep people in the army longer? Gee, that has worked out really well. Stop-Loss, anyone?

Well, we all know what happens when people get an education. They listen to the Marxist professors propagate lies about all the bad things the United States has done in the world and then they start to (gasp!) question authority. And if that happens (double gasp!), it will be the end of all things wholesome and good (i.e. douche bags stealing tax payer money and using it to steal more money from brown people, killing a few hundred thousand of them in the process).

Give a person an education and what do you have?

The answer comes from my favorite episode of M*A*S*H. The episode, entitled "QuoVadis, Captain Chandler?", tells the story of a bombardier (Chandler) who ends up at the 4077th and says that he is Jesus Christ. He refuses to go back to the front and, as is sometimes the case, Colonel Flagg shows up. Flagg is in Colonel Potter's office with Hawkeye and BJ.

Flagg: Damnit, Colonel, Chandler's turned chicken. All it takes is one GI with a messiah complex and before you know it you'll have hundreds claiming they are Christ and refusing to drop bombs. Then what will have?

BJ: Peace?

Yep.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow Mark. I stand corrected.

For years I've defended you to people who read your blog and label you as a liberal nut-job. I tell them that you really aren't as close-minded and vindictive as you seem in many of your posts. I stand by you when you claim that you really mean the best with what otherwise often times comes across as petty criticism. Truthfully, I always believed that to be the case.

Now, after this posting, I'm starting to believe that you've really gone over to the dark side. The side that truly isn't interested in engaging in any sort of meaningful dialog. The side that isn't interested in cold hard fact as much as carefully filtered "fact" that conveniently fits a pre-conceived notion.

For what it's worth, I've always respected you as a voice that speaks heartfelt and well-intentioned views of the world around you.

But after this posting I just can't continue doing so. I'm sorry. I'm sure it means little to you, and I'm very sure it means even less to the yippy dogs that nip at your heels. But if you truly believe what you just posted here, then most or all respect that I had for your voice in the political realm is now gone. I'm actually unable to describe the degree to which the arrogance and/or ignorance illustrated by your posting shocks and humbles me. Shocks because I thought better of you. Humbles because, despite evidence to the contrary, I always maintain hope that people will prove themselves better than such things.

Mark Ward said...

"The side that truly isn't interested in engaging in any sort of meaningful dialog."

The problem is, PL, that the side your are describing is the side that you sometimes defend...Bush and cronies'. By their own admission, they don't negotiate.

I have always held you to be of high moral character and I always will. So I find it terribly perplexing that you can't see how horribly criminal and inhuman these people are. I'm still not quite certain yet if McCain is fully in the Bush Co. camp but he sure seems to be heading in that direction and his non support of the GI bill really leaves me wondering. Bear in mind, I am embracing a bill that has BIPARTISAN support and I have somehow gone over to the dark side by championing it? And I am not interested in engaging in meaningful dialog?

I have to admit that I have been more pissed off these days but it is mostly because, day after day, I see more and more evidence of a government so completely corrupt that is sickens me. This is primary source evidence, PL, not media filtered. Some of it I write about and some of it I don't, depending on the source. To experienced what I have experienced and learned...well you might feel differently.

It does mean a lot to me when you defend me but I respect your decision not to do so anymore if that's what you want. I think what has happened here, though, is you are looking at me in the frame of what people like...oh...Sean Hannity for example...characterize me as being like. People who espouse these views are "nuts" and "raving", right?

I'll make you a deal. I think that over the next few months and the first few of an Obama presidency (if it happens), we are going to find out, definitively what Bush Co has been up to. We just took a big step forward yesterday, which will be the topic of my post on Tuesday. More is going to come out if Rove goes down. I think you are going to see what I am talking about and it won't just be partisan politics. Will you then admit that I may not have "gone over to the dark side?"

If none of what I said here ends up being true over the course of that time, I will admit to having let my emotions run away with me. Deal?

Anonymous said...

I guess I don't understand how Mark has gone over to the dark side. What points are close minded and vindictive?

As he said a few posts ago, some issues have no middle ground. We have to start facing the facts, as a nation, as to what we have allowed this administration to do.

Anonymous said...

While Mark's style is quite peptic, he is essentially correct. We are murdering people for financial gain in the Middle East without a care for the soldiers we send there. The people that are currently running our country and the people who defend them, in the media, are quite horrific and the farthest thing from Christian.

Anonymous said...

elizabeth and the goddess - What? What in the world did anything that I say have to do with GWB and his administration? That's all the majority of the people in Obama's camp have -- he's not GWB -- and that's really getting tiresome.

No, Mark. No deal. Frankly, your position disgusts me. As Obama did in his speech, you are grossly generalizing alternate points of view and making associations (i.e. to GWB) that have little foundation in fact. All for the sake of advancing your beliefs. Which, again, I don't have a problem with at a philosophical level. It's the fact that you pretend to be telling it like it really is that turns my stomach.

Your repeated retort of "I've always considered you to be a person of moral character..." indicates to me that your reaction to anybody who disagrees with you/your candidates is that they have no moral character until proven otherwise. That's an awfully "you're either with us or against us" approach, which is every bit as disgusting as that same approach utilized by GWB and followers.

This particular bill has nothing to do with GWB. Hopefully you are open-minded enough to admit that. But I can't help but notice that you have omitted from your posting and response the facts that don't fit into your model of how the world works.

Fact:
It's almost a surety that strong bi-partisan support of the bill is indicative of two things:
a) abandoning the sinking GWB ship
b) a bunch of Republican senators (25, I believe the count to be) knowing that they need to score some points with people back home as election time approaches. Clearly the best way to do that is to support a no-brainer, easy-win bill like this one. The bill was going to pass with or without strong bi-partisan support, so if you are a Repub senator looking to score points, what's the point of fighting it?

Fact:
McCain didn't support this bill because he preferred, and still does prefer, his version of the bill. The Graham-Burr-McCain version of the bill enjoys strong support from those most closely associated with the military. Perhaps we should be listening to those who raise caution flags rather than simply dismissing what they say? I thought that's what listening to those around you who know more than you was all about?

Fact:
McCain did not align himself with GWB on this issue, despite Obama's ridiculous reference to the contrary. Yes, they are on the same side as far as opposing this bill, but whereas McCain is leading to push his measure through, GWB is tagging along. The usage of the two names in the same sentence with respect to this issue is purely a political ploy, but it was an opportunity that Obama was too shallow to pass up. An excellent ploy by him, no doubt, as millions of Americans now believe every word that comes out of his mouth.

If Obama, you, or the yippy dogs were truly interested in debating the issue you'd focus on the pros and cons of the differences between the two measures, rather than focus on clumsy statements or sinister insinuations about "GWB's third term". You would acknowledge that McCain is, in fact, interested in improving support for veterans, while at the same time being conscious of the need to retain quality people to lead our armed forces. (WHAT! You mean an issue could be more complex than simply giving people more money!) Instead, you choose to align yourself with the people who are too lazy, ignorant, or malicious to actually debate an issue, and focus on maligning by omission.

Again, this has nothing to do with GWB. I started typing "Inexplicably you immediately launched into a tirade against GWB..." but then I realized that it truly is perfectly understandable that you did. After all, that is the single greatest weapon Obama has going for him right now.

Hi, I'm Barack Obama. Vote for me for President. I'm not in the same political party as George Bush.

But hey, as I've said in other postings, I have to give you credit for knowing what sells to the masses. How many of them even knew that McCain sponsored a different version of the bill? How many of them know or care about the differences? If you keep feeding them carefully filtered versions of the truth it will make your boy seem that much more palatable. I know that Obama is low enough to employ that strategy. I believed that you were above that. I stand corrected.

If you were right (apparently elizabeth thinks you were...no surprise there) and some issues have no middle ground, then this would have to be one such issue for me. Your stance on this situation is beyond reprehensible, in my opinion, and no "deal" can change that.

Anonymous said...

Well, I suppose I better chime in here since I am one of the five people that Mark knows who has served in Iraq.

I have to say that, while I agree with Mark's main points, Mark, don't you think there is a more mature way of expressing your views? Dude, I am half your age and you act like a 10 year old sometimes. I understand that you are angry. So am I because I have to live with this shit day in and day out. After a time, you need to learn a better way of getting your points across.

That being said, Webb's bill has large support of the people that I know in the military and that includes people in the Pentagon. The army, believe it or not, actually wants smarter people to volunteer. We want to have better opportunities as well.

To be honest, I don't trust McCain at all. His plans mirror the mess that we have had for the last five years and none of us want that. We aren't accomplishing anything in Iraq and many of us want to go back to Afghanistan where the people who knocked down the towers are still enjoying freedom.

From what I have read, McCain's version of the bill is a spit polish of a turd--Stop-Loss--a way to keep people in the army longer. I have served three tours in Iraq and two in Afghanistan. I enjoy what I do but I see it take a toll on some of the other guys in my unit.

PL, I understand your view on Mark and even your reaction but McCain, Bush, the Republican Party have destroyed the military and in no way, shape, or form give a crap about the troops.

Anonymous said...

McCain is Bush III and we really don't need that right now. I find McCain's position on this to be quite odd. His own bill doesn't really go far enough, pl, sorry. And his position on torture is very perplexing considering he was tortured himself for 5 years.

Anonymous said...

Careful, Ben. You are bordering on spakring an intelligent discussion on this blog, something that is continually discouraged. Out of curiosity, what have you read that makes you believe that McCain's version is a "spit polish of a turd"? Understand that I have to accept your criticism with a grain of salt given the fact that you prefaced your comments with "I don't trust McCain at all". One might suspect that you view his particular stance, then, with a predilection to find fault with what he brings to the table. What I take away from your and Tom's criticism is, well, that you don't like him. OK, great. You don't like him. Not sure how that's valid criticism of the legislation.

Anonymous said...

For me, the main difference between the two bills is that Webb's bill offers more money for tuition for as little as three months of service, provided you joined after 9-11-01. If you serve up to 36 months, you will have much of your tuition covered at a public university or college. You also get monthly housing assistance and per diem of up to 1000 a month.

McCain offers 1500 a month flat rate for those who have served less than 12 years. This is the part of the bill that is vague, hence the reason I don't trust him. How lonog do you have to serve to get the help? 3 years? 11.9 years? It sounds like another cover for Stop-Loss to me.

Anonymous said...

Fair enough. As somebody who is in a position to potentially be impacted by it, do you see retention as a pressing concern in the military? You mentioned earlier that the military wants smarter people to volunteer. Yet we live in an age where the military is actively being purged from some college campuses. Recruitment, as I understand, has dropped dramatically. Not being as close to the situation as you are, that strikes me as a problem. The net effect of the difference between the bills being that it is incentive for people to re-up for longer periods, that strikes me as a logical solution.

Now, obviously that must be balanced with the fact that it seems unfair to change the rules of the game halfway through the game, particularly from the perspective of those already involved in the game. But I would like to think that our leaders are thinking of things from the longer-term perspective, and not from the "let's give people more for less" perspective. (That's not a denigration on the service of our soliders, although people like elizabeth I'm sure are just dying to rip on me for saying that.)

Having been a manager of people (albeit in the corporate world) it seems to me that a fundamental reality of the world is that the more you incent people to move on, the more they are going to move on. In an era where we seem to hardly be packing them into the recruitment office, that's a tough one for me to buy. I don't disagree with the importance of Webb bill, but I go back to how I hardly see how raising an alternate approach qualifies somebody as a "douche bag."

To borrow a sentiment from one of the yippy dogs, I guess that means I will be left behind as the glorious new era of politics begins in '09. Woe is me, I guess.

Anonymous said...

It's true that recruitment has become a problem but I don't think that has anything to do with the so called purging from college campuses, which I happen to think is highly exaggerated by Fox News and the right wing radio set.

Part of the problem is Iraq. People don't want to join a fight that is not exactly protecting our nation. The other part, which I think is a much larger problem, is the army has stricter standards now on who they let in. I had a friend from Racine, Mark knows him, who wanted to join after 9-11. The army wouldn't take him because he had a minor defect with one of his knees. We shouldn't go back to the days of Vietnam when they were taking anyone with breath but I think there are a variety of ways a guy could serve and not have to carry a 100 pound backpack.

It has also been my experience that our leaders don't really think about the long term perspective. That didn't happen in Iraq. It also didn't happen during the Clinton Administration as he spent most of his tenure in office cutting the military budget and causing some of the problems we have today.

I'm not sure what the new era in politics will bring although the cynic in me thinks it won't be much different. Sorry Mark.

Anonymous said...

I don't disagree with any of that. So really what this boils down to, then, is a matter of perception of motive. Apparently one of two things is going on:

1) When it appeared his version of the legislation was going to fail, he could hop on board the more popular legislation, thereby ensuring benefits for servicemen and women despite misgivings he has regarding a deleterious effect of the added benefits. Instead, he chose to stick to his conviction that the other legislation was better, giving up an easy political win while simultaneously leaving himself wide open to easy criticism while in the midst of a Presidential campaign against a juggernaut of an opponent.

2) Some nebulous sinister force is driving McCain to refrain from throwing his actual support behind our veterans.

If #2 is correct then he is every bit the douche bag that Markadelphia professes him to be. If #1 is correct then he is either a man to be admired for sticking to his convictions in the face of adversity, or he is too stupid to be elected to the highest office in the country.

I know which one I believe is true. Obama and his supporters have made it clear which one they believe is true.

Wikiality at its best, I suppose.

Anonymous said...

Wow pl, good work. Speaking of getting an education, I think you just handed out an education on the issue at hand. CNN headline news had a profile last night of the differences between the two bills but you would have never known that there were two bills if you were to listen to markadelphia and his no-middle-ground stance on issues. I read the comment section of the earlier post markadelphia linked to and he seemed to only give half the story then too (his modus operandi) and I think it can honestly be said that markadelphia isn't interested in debating the differences between the two bills or even informing his readers that another bill even exists. He would rather say people are douchebags and dicks, claim that he knows exaxtly what is going on inside their heads by accusing them of having the most sinister of motives and accusing them of not supporting the troops. Yeah, what evidence you have markadelphia. Like ben said, please grow up. New era of politics yeah right. ends justify the means don't they, liar.

Mark Ward said...

No prob, Ben. I understand where you are coming from and if I were in your shoes, I would probably be more cynical. Wouldn't you agree, though, that even if Obama accomplishes 10 percent of what he says he can do, that we would be heading in a better direction?

Mark Ward said...

"Wikiality at its best, I suppose."

I'm sorry. I couldn't let this one pass by. So, wikipedia is now a tool of the left? Along with the media, the education system etc?

Anonymous said...

Who said anything about Wikipedia?

Anonymous said...

Wikiality, which could be my new favorite word, is loosely defined as "Reality as decided upon by majority vote". It's not so much a tool of any side of any discussion as much as it is a phenomenon.

It appears quite frequently on this blog. Case in point....which bill was the better bill - Webb, or Graham-Burr-McCain? It must be the Webb bill, because it enjoys strong bi-partisan support and the support of the majority of people.