If Anyone Wonders if Obama "Supports the Troops":Obama scraps visit to wounded troops

[Pexster]

Quote:

ANDREA MITCHELL: The background on the military flap is that they [Obama campaign] had clearly planned a trip to Ramstein [AFB]. They were planning to visit the injured troops. And then the Pentagon explained that they couldn't go as part of a political trip. The Obama campaign thought that they could go, leave the press corps on the tarmac, and then take off with military escort and make this one last visit. As he did in Iraq, by the way. He visited a casualty unit in the Green Zone, without photographers, as part of the congressional delegation. But the military said that the rules are that he could only go as part of a previously-arranged congressional delegation, to Ramstein.

Clearly, people in the campaign are really angry. They had wanted this to be the final stop on the trip here in Germany, and to do it without the press corps, just to do it on his own. But the objections of the military are that he is now being staffed by campaign aides, not by his Senate staff, who are the people of course with him when he went with Hagel and Jack Reed in Iraq. So, you know, the anger here in the campaign is pretty intense at the Pentagon. They feel that the military are drawing some lines--they're not saying this publicly of course--but drawing lines that they might have drawn for other people. He was planning to just go by himself, not with cameras, not with any entourage, as he had done in Walter Reed in the past in Washington, as he did in Iraq. Joe.

[sharder8]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pexster

If I felt that he was slighting them, I would absolutely agree with you! But I don't. Who co-sponsored the much-improved veterans' benefits bill? Who opposed it? What's more important?

Don't give me this "sad" shit.

Think about it Pex . . .

You may not feel that it was a slight . . . but there are many that do.

If you'd like, I can go into much more detail on how little what you or I think in the overall scheme of humanity . . . but I think you get the gist of what I just stated.

Harder

[Chuckiechan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pexter

Don't give me this "sad" shit.

It's about looking a man in the eye, who has no legs and is shitting in bag, and shaking his hand and thanking him for his service to the country.

It's not for the squeamish. It is not a political stunt.

There would be no cameras to catch him fainting or throwing up. Just him and his secret service detail.

But, the cameras wouldn't be there to witness the Messiah's greatness...

[Pexster]

Chuck, do me a favor and read what I posted above before you spout any more drivel.

sharder8, I can appreciate that you would not be one of those who, had Obama gone to the hospital, would not then turn around and slam him for doing so! (Because you know damn' well that those folks are out there in abundance.)

[Chuckiechan]

Quote:

If I felt that he was slighting them, I would absolutely agree with you! But I don't. Who co-sponsored the much-improved veterans' benefits bill? Who opposed it? What's more important?

Sponsoring a veterans bill is about as similar to visiting a veteran's hospital is eating a picture of a Big Mac is to eating.

Is this the bill you were referring to?

While Illinois’, and the Nation’s, Veterans Suffer, Obama Campaigns : NO QUARTER

Quote:

Illinois’ disabled veterans are at “rock bottom” — “dead last” — in benefits and claims processing of applications for disability. But Illinois’ veterans take a back seat because their junior senator is running for president. And that senator, Barack Obama, has missed an astonishing number of hearings and meetings of the Senate Veterans committee.

[Pexster]

Just for your limited attention span and lack of reading comprehension --

Quote:

He [Obama] was planning to just go by himself, not with cameras, not with any entourage, as he had done in Walter Reed in the past in Washington, as he did in Iraq . . .

Since you apparently pulled a Rip Van Winkle during the recent debate and passage of a new G.I. Bill, here are some details --

Quote:

Endorsed by:

Organizations:
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA)
The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)
The American Legion
The Military Officers' Association of America (MOAA)
Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA)
AMVETS
The Air Force Sergeants Association (AFSA)
The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States (EANGUS)
The Student Veterans of America (SVA)
The American Association of Community Colleges (AACC)
The National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC)
The Partnership for Veterans' Education
The American Council on Education (ACE)
Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU)
Disabled American Veterans (DAV)

Governors:
Former Governor Tom Ridge (Pennsylvania)
Governor Janet Napolitano (Arizona)
Governor Timothy M. Kaine (Virginia)
Governor Steven L. Beshear (Kentucky)
Governor David A. Paterson (New York)
Governor Bill Richardson (New Mexico)
Governor Christine O. Gregoire (Washington)
Governor Edwards G. Rendell (Pennsylvania)
Governor Aníbal Acevedo Vilá (Puerto Rico)
Governor Jim Doyle (Wisconsin)
Governor Sarah Palin (Alaska)
Governor John P. de Jongh Jr. (Virgin Islands)
Governor M. Jodi Rell (Connecticut)
Governor Dave Freudenthal (Wyoming)
Governor John S. Corzine (New Jersey)
Governor Brad Henry (Oklahoma)
Governor Joe Manchine III (West Virginia)
Governor Martin O'Malley (Maryland)
Governor Jennifer M. Granholm (Michigan)
Governor Michael F. Easley (North Carolina)
Governor Chester J. Culver (Iowa)
Governor Ted Strickland (Ohio)
Governor Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas)
Governor Deval Patrick (Massachusetts)
Governor Mike Beebe (Arkansas)
Governor Jon M. Huntsman Jr. (Utah)
Governor Bill Ritter Jr. (Colorado)
Governor John Baldacci (Maine)
Governor Rod Blagojevich (Illinois)
Governor Phil Bredesen (Tennessee)

Background on the GI Bill:

In 1944, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the original GI Bill, ensuring that eight million combat veterans coming home from Germany and Japan would be able to afford an education. Called the “Servicemen’s Readjustment Act,” the World War II GI Bill covered tuition, fees, and books, and gave veterans a living stipend while they were in school. Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, Senators Bob Dole and Patrick Moynihan, and authors Norman Mailer and Frank McCourt all relied on the GI Bill.

Experts have argued that the GI Bill “reinvented America” after a half-decade of war. Indeed, a 1988 Congressional study showed that every dollar spent on educational benefits under the original GI Bill added seven dollars to the national economy in terms of productivity, consumer spending, and tax revenue. But in his signing statement, President Roosevelt spoke more simply:

“[The GI Bill] gives emphatic notice to the men and women in our armed forces that the American people do not intend to let them down.”
Today, 1.5 million troops are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to a very different future than the one FDR made possible for the Greatest Generation. The current educational benefits offered to veterans are far lower than the original GI Bill. Today, after paying a nonrefundable contribution from their first military paychecks, troops can receive a total of up to $39,600 towards their education. Unfortunately, this covers only 60-70% of the average cost of four years at a public college or university, or less than two years at a typical private college.

In addition, structural problems and bureaucratic delays discourage veterans from using their GI Bill benefits. National Guardsmen and Reservists, including those who have served multiple combat tours, typically receive only a fraction of their GI Bill benefits. Moreover, 30% of troops who pay the nonrefundable $1,200 contribution do not end up using the GI Bill at all. These veterans have paid the government $230 million, but received nothing in return.

Today’s veterans deserve a real reintegration program to help adjust to the civilian world. At the same time, a renewed GI Bill is a practical answer to the military’s troop shortage. Despite investing $4 billion in recruiting annually, the military has had serious problems recruiting high-caliber personnel. The Pentagon has responded by lowering age, education, and aptitude standards for new recruits, as well as upping the number of recruiters and increasing enlistment bonuses. These stopgap measures will not address long-term problems with recruiting, especially as the overall size of the armed forces is expanded.

Rather than continuing to spend billions in bonuses for lower-standard enlistees, increasing GI Bill benefits would encourage high-aptitude young people to join the military. The GI Bill is the military’s single most effective recruitment tool: the number-one reason civilians join the military is to get money for college. As our military recovers and resets in the coming years, an expanded GI Bill will play a crucial role in ensuring that our military remains the strongest and most advanced in the world.

[sharder8]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pexster

Sen. McCain did not vote at all on this bill. And I certainly hope that you are well aware of the many veterans who take great umbrage at McCain's continued portrayal of himself as a supporter of veterans.

Myself and many Veterans have a problem with McCain for abandoning his fellow Veterans when he became a Senator. McCain is not a friend of Vet's or our Military complex . . . just look into the "Boeing refueler" fiasco and McCain's part in it.

I will not vote for McCain . . . I might have considered Obama, had the Senator visited the wounded troops in Germany . . .

But, for now . . . Mickey Mouse gets my vote.

Harder

[MTAtech]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharder8

I will not vote for McCain . . . I might have considered Obama, had the Senator visited the wounded troops in Germany . .

Then they got you to substitute substance for nonsense. It's what defense attorneys do all the time to place doubt in jury's minds -- it's the kitchensink approach. Let's review the Republican tactics:

They attacked Obama for being a neophyte for even discussing a timeline for withdrawal. That criticism is completely overwhelmed when Mr. Maliki stated that was in line with Iraq's desires. Then both Bush and McCain essentially adopt Obama's plan and call it their own, with the exception that the "timetable" is called a "time horizon."

Obama said that he would sit down and talk to Iran. Both McCain and President Bush labeled those direct talks with Iran "appeasement." But that did stop Bush from recently sending State Department officials to nuclear talks with Iran. Even the Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page makes the same observation: “Now Bush Is Appeasing Iran.”

So, now they invent a false issue, Obama won't visit the hospitalized troops. Let's review this. Obama wanted to visit those troops and was even willing to visit them alone but was hindered by the Pentagon. Yup, that Obama sure doesn't support the troops. That act sure does mean that Obama, who was active with the GI Bill in Congress, hates the troops compared to troop lover McCain, who opposed the GI Bill.

[Chuckiechan]

Quote:

Obama wanted to visit those troops and was even willing to visit them alone but was hindered by the Pentagon.

And as a prosecution lawyer will tell you. This is the critical question that the press won't investigate.

If this were a trial, it's his word against the Pentagon's. I would say he is lying.

Quote:

Myself and many Veterans have a problem with McCain for abandoning his fellow Veterans when he became a Senator. McCain is not a friend of Vet's or our Military complex . . . just look into the "Boeing refueler" fiasco and McCain's part in it.

[sharder8]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Then they got you to substitute substance for nonsense. It's what defense attorneys do all the time to place doubt in jury's minds -- it's the kitchensink approach. Let's review the Republican tactics:

They attacked Obama for being a neophyte for even discussing a timeline for withdrawal. That criticism is completely overwhelmed when Mr. Maliki stated that was in line with Iraq's desires. Then both Bush and McCain essentially adopt Obama's plan and call it their own, with the exception that the "timetable" is called a "time horizon."

So mouth . . . what is the time table???? Obama wanted to set a specific set of dates as intended withdrawal dates . . . . Time Horizon doesn't set specific dates, but lets you know it will be in the near future. BIG diference. As for Maliki's comments . . . he flip-flops as good and as much as any American politician, Republican or Democrat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Obama said that he would sit down and talk to Iran. Both McCain and President Bush labeled those direct talks with Iran "appeasement." But that did stop Bush from recently sending State Department officials to nuclear talks with Iran. Even the Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page makes the same observation: “Now Bush Is Appeasing Iran.”