McCain and Bush take credit for GI Bill

[Gwendl]

McCain and Bush called Webb's GI Bill too generous to soldiers who only served for two years, even if that two years was in combat. There are several quotes from McCain to this effect and he even created an alternate bill that was far more restrictive on education benefits for all but the longest serving military members.

Now since Webb's version was passed by a huge margin with a veto impossible, both Bush and McCain have flip flopped. Not only that, but they've actually are trying to take credit for it.

McCain said he's always believed in the bill, but was against it because of transferability of benefits to spouses, not because it was too generous. Can this guy make up his mind?

Of course Bush will sign it. He does have a long history of being against something until forced into it, and then acting as though he was for it all along. Look at the Department of Homeland Security and the 9/11 Commission. He was solidly against both of these until it was forced upon him by Congress and public demand. Then he embraced them like they were his ideas.

[Carter]

McCain and Bush called Webb's GI Bill too generous to soldiers who only served for two years, even if that two years was in combat. There are several quotes from McCain to this effect and he even created an alternate bill that was far more restrictive on education benefits for all but the longest serving military members.

Now since Webb's version was passed by a huge margin with a veto impossible, both Bush and McCain have flip flopped. Not only that, but they've actually are trying to take credit for it.

McCain said he's always believed in the bill, but was against it because of transferability of benefits to spouses, not because it was too generous. Can this guy make up his mind?

Of course Bush will sign it. He does have a long history of being against something until forced into it, and then acting as though he was for it all along. Look at the Department of Homeland Security and the 9/11 Commission. He was solidly against both of these until it was forced upon him by Congress and public demand. Then he embraced them like they were his ideas.

Their hypocrisy is well known in the nation and the world. Let them believe they are impressing people. It's always best, in situations like these, to never stand in the way of someone really wanting to make an ass of himself.;)

[Clay]

McCain and Bush called Webb's GI Bill too generous to soldiers who only served for two years, even if that two years was in combat. There are several quotes from McCain to this effect and he even created an alternate bill that was far more restrictive on education benefits for all but the longest serving military members.

Now since Webb's version was passed by a huge margin with a veto impossible, both Bush and McCain have flip flopped. Not only that, but they've actually are trying to take credit for it.

McCain said he's always believed in the bill, but was against it because of transferability of benefits to spouses, not because it was too generous. Can this guy make up his mind?

Of course Bush will sign it. He does have a long history of being against something until forced into it, and then acting as though he was for it all along. Look at the Department of Homeland Security and the 9/11 Commission. He was solidly against both of these until it was forced upon him by Congress and public demand. Then he embraced them like they were his ideas.

You conveniently left out part of McCain's objection being that a generous GI bill should at least encourage REENLISTMENT. I agree with that. The GI bill should be a little generous after just two years but the real package shouldn't kick in until after a second reenlistment. That's fiscally responsible. The Democratic approach is of course, well you know the Democratic approach, let's go buy some votes.

[Carter]

You conveniently left out part of McCain's objection being that a generous GI bill should at least encourage REENLISTMENT. I agree with that. The GI bill should be a little generous after just two years but the real package shouldn't kick in until after a second reenlistment. That's fiscally responsible. The Democratic approach is of course, well you know the Democratic approach, let's go buy some votes.

No, I think when the republicans use our military to secure oil, one enlistment, which means about 3 tours in a war zone, is enough to give the veterans full benefits packages.