Calm Down, Senator McCain

Senator Webb, how about running as Vice President? Would you please consider it if Senator Obama asks you?

"I think what we really need to work on over the next four, five months, and it goes back to the speech that Sen. Obama gave [Monday] and this little fight that I've been watching and that is, we need to make sure that we take politics out of service," [Senator James] Webb said. "People don't serve their country for political issues."

He continued: "And John McCain's my long-time friend, if that is one area that I would ask him to calm down on, it`s that, don't be standing up and uttering your political views and implying that all the people in the military support them because they don't, any more than when the Democrats have political issues during the Vietnam War. Let's get the politics out of the military, take care of our military people, or have our political arguments in other areas."

I gotta tell you...I love it when Democrats fight back...

--WS

Deus nobiscum, quis contra?

Organizations that combine religion, the military, and proselytizing are recipes for disaster. While proselytizing is "banned" by the military, there are numerous instances where this type of activity has caused severe problems for members of the military. The question for readers is, are they ethical? Are they harmless? Should a veteran use their GI Bill Benefits to pay for the training that is being marketed by such an organization?

The idea of someone who has left the military going to work for an organization that does missionary and charity work is a fine idea. Selfless service should not be criticized. However, an organization that advertises on military issues websites and recruits former members of the military to engage in missionary work and proselytizing might be the sort of organization that should be scrutinized.

Individuals who "click" on the ad pictured above [the link is deactivated here] are taken to a web site for the Active Duty Missionary website. Visitors are asked to take a look at the various aspects of joining this program. Military images and graphics are found all throughout the site:



The facility where people would go to train is described as something very similar to what Blackwater uses in North Carolina:

The Master’s Mission’s 1500-acre training base in the remote mountains of North Carolina provides a unique setting for thorough and “hands-on” preparation for missions service. The Bible & Missions curriculum encompasses scriptural authority, principles of biblical interpretation, a survey of God’s plan throughout history, and scriptural methods for establishing churches in both remote and urban areas. The Technical curriculum includes building construction on roads, dams, and airstrips, bush living, mechanics, water systems, community development, health and first aid, and more.

The cost is fairly steep, but the applicant can get special assistance to apply Montgomery GI Bill benefits to the training costs:

Married Couples and Families: $17,675 *
Single: $12,010 *

*This amount includes estimates for living expenses while training, in addition to tuition and board. From the informational .pdf file: Cabins are equipped with kerosene or propane lamps and accessories. Each candidate is responsible for purchasing propane and kerosene for their cabins as needed. This cost is included in the above estimate.

Contact the Business Office to apply your Montgomery GI Bill – Active Duty Educational Assistance Program benefits to your training costs.

It is not known whether this covers the use of All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs):



Their doctrine is fairly explicit:

We believe in the literal biblical account of creation (a grammatical/historical method of interpretation).

Frequently asked questions and issues are discussed:

In a section titled "The Issue," the subject of "why" is discussed:

Assumption
Short term missions and relief/aid projects are an effective way to present the message of salvation to people in foreign countries.
REALITY “Cross-cultural evangelization will hardly occur when the time frame is a 2 or 3-week visit into and out of a society, with little knowledge or understanding of local language and culture.” (International Journal of Frontier Missions, Spring 2004, p. 29)

Misconception
Short term missions and relief/aid projects are an adequate substitute for long term missionary presence.

REALITY
Such activities are valid expressions of love… but in the strict sense, they do not qualify as missionary work. The distinction is vitally important if we are to keep gospel proclamation, evangelism, church planting, and discipleship at the heart of what we are supposed to do. (Jim Reapsome, Mission Maker
Magazine–2005, p.26)

The following is a list of places where the organization has missionaries:

Strengthening existing mission work in...
Alaska, Congo, Ecuador, India, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Mexico, Romania, Uganda

Starting new mission work in...
Afghanistan, Asia, Central America, East Africa, Eastern Europe, Iraq, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, South America, Western Europe

h/t to Wired's "Danger Room."

Of conservatives, veteran benefits and bullshit reasoning

Conservatives spent the Memorial Day weekend explaining why they are opposed to education benefits for veterans who have served since September 11, 2001. Speaking to a group of veterans on Monday, McCain repeated the debunked bullshit that improving the GI Bill would damage retention by as much as 16%. "Encouraging people to choose to not become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly," he said.

He is, to put it delicately, full of shit. But it isn't just me saying that - it is the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), too.

CBO expects that both enlistment and retention would be affected by the proposed improvement in education benefits. The net impact on DoD’s discretionary costs for those purposes would be an increase of $1.1 billion over the 2009-
2013 period. That net change reflects the expected cost of increased bonus payments for reenlistment ($6.7 billion), less the estimated savings for enlistment bonuses and other recruiting costs ($5.6 billion). (The net discretionary costs described above include this $1.1 billion, as well as offsetting savings to DoD from other aspects of the legislation.)

To maintain current levels of enlistment and retention, DoD incurs costs for advertising, recruiters, enlistment bonuses, and retention bonuses. An enhanced package of education benefits would make military service more attractive, and increasing those benefits would allow the services to reduce other enlistment incentives while still enlisting the same number of recruits. However, because the higher educational benefits would reduce the costs of attending college after military service, enacting S. 22 (as modified) also would increase the number of servicemembers who would separate from military service to take advantage of those benefits. Additional reenlistment incentives would then be required to keep the number of reenlistments, and the experience profile of the military force, constant.

Educational benefits have been shown to raise the number of military recruits. Based on an analysis of the existing literature, CBO estimates that a 10 percent increase in educational benefits would result in an increase of about 1 percent in high-quality recruits. On that basis, CBO calculates that raising the educational benefits as proposed in S. 22 would result in a 16 percent increase in recruits. To maintain the same force levels and thus the same number of recruits, enlistment bonuses and other recruiting costs could be reduced.

The marginal cost of enlistment bonuses and the other expenditures necessary to attract an additional enlistment is about $35,000. CBO estimates that reduced spending for those purposes would result in a savings of almost $5.6 billion over the 2009-2013 period.

Now, we all know that the military has never intended to retain every last recruit. What McCain proposes would totally screw over the vast majority of recruits who only serve one hitch. What McCain and the conservatives are proposing sounds very familiar to a lot of us who have been around the base a time or two - they are offering what we used to call bootstraps, and bootstraps are for lifers. Period. And if more than two freakin' percent of the country had any military connection, they would call these assholes on this crap.

The CBO found that increases in recruitment would offset retention losses - and not only that, the recruits motivated to serve by the promise of an education would inherently be of a better quality than many of the waivered Soldiers and Marines that those branches have been forced to take to make their recruiting quotas.

Spending on education benefits for those who serve return every dollar expended to the economy seven times over, and made the middle class not merely the envy of the world, but possible in the first place. And an overwhelming majority of those people who used it and improved their lives and communities were one-hitch draftees.

But these feckless Bravo Foxtrots would rather lie through their teeth and deny todays volunteers the benefits that some of them used themselves. (h/t VetVoice)

This is what it looks like when McCain Loses His Temper

A tip 0' the hat to Grand Moff Texan and Marc Ambinder...

McCain loses his temper with a flair that has to be admired. He is unhinged in releasing statements, and that is no small feat. A staffer has to write these things, edit them, and re-write them. And get the final draft approved. That's a lot of eyes on what, in this case, amounts to a full-blown temper tantrum that is unrestrained and unhinged.

"It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of. Let me say first in response to Senator Obama, running for President is different than serving as President. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim.

"When I was five years old, a car pulled up in front of our house in New London, Connecticut, and a Navy officer rolled down the window, and shouted at my father that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. My father immediately left for the submarine base where he was stationed. I rarely saw him again for four years. My grandfather, who commanded the fast carrier task force under Admiral Halsey, came home from the war exhausted from the burdens he had borne, and died the next day. I grew up in the Navy; served for twenty-two years as a naval officer; and, like Senator Webb, personally experienced the terrible costs war imposes on the veteran. The friendships I formed in war remain among the closest relationships in my life. The Navy is still the world I know best and love most. In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home to the country they loved so well .

"But I am running for the office of Commander-in-Chief. That is the highest privilege in this country, and it imposes the greatest responsibilities. It would be easier politically for me to have joined Senator Webb in offering his legislation. More importantly, I feel just as he does, that we owe veterans the respect and generosity of a great nation because no matter how generously we show our gratitude it will never compensate them fully for all the sacrifices they have borne on our behalf.

"Senators Graham, Burr and I have offered legislation that would provide veterans with a substantial increase in educational benefits. The bill we have sponsored would increase monthly education benefits to $1500; eliminate the $1200 enrollment fee; and offer a $1000 annually for books and supplies. Importantly, we would allow veterans to transfer those benefits to their spouses or dependent children or use a part of them to pay down existing student loans. We also increase benefits to the Guard and Reserve, and even more generously to those who serve in the Selected Reserve.

"I know that my friend and fellow veteran, Senator Jim Webb, an honorable man who takes his responsibility to veterans very seriously, has offered legislation with very generous benefits. I respect and admire his position, and I would never suggest that he has anything other than the best of intentions to honor the service of deserving veterans. Both Senator Webb and I are united in our deep appreciation for the men and women who risk their lives so that the rest of us may be secure in our freedom. And I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did.

"The most important difference between our two approaches is that Senator Webb offers veterans who served one enlistment the same benefits as those offered veterans who have re-enlisted several times. Our bill has a sliding scale that offers generous benefits to all veterans, but increases those benefits according to the veteran's length of service. I think it is important to do that because, otherwise, we will encourage more people to leave the military after they have completed one enlistment. At a time when the United States military is fighting in two wars, and as we finally are beginning the long overdue and very urgent necessity of increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, one study estimates that Senator Webb's bill will reduce retention rates by 16%.

"Most worrying to me, is that by hurting retention we will reduce the numbers of men and women who we train to become the backbone of all the services, the noncommissioned officer. In my life, I have learned more from noncommissioned officers I have known and served with than anyone else outside my family. And in combat, no one is more important to their soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, and to the officers who command them, than the sergeant and petty officer. They are very hard to replace. Encouraging people not to choose to become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly. As I said, the office of President, which I am seeking, is a great honor, indeed, but it imposes serious responsibilities. How faithfully the President discharges those responsibilities will determine whether he or she deserves the honor. I can only tell you I intend to deserve the honor if I am fo rtunate to receive it, even if it means I must take politically unpopular positions at times and disagree with people for whom I have the highest respect and affection.

"Perhaps, if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as President, the country would regret his election."

Patronize, much? I think the country would probably "regret" the election of a out-of-control, raging, angry and frustrated man who cannot accept the slightest criticism.

All Obama has to do is roll his eyes at such a statement. That's the only response this thing needs.

Grand Moff Texan has more...

And you "moonbats" should just relax. It's not like McCain has PTSD or anything...

There are behaviors associated with the candidate that would be consistent with a diagnosis of PTSD. Author Robert Timberg mentions McCain's intense explosions of anger --- a hallmark sign of lingering mental trauma from war -- in his book "John McCain: An American Odyssey." Timberg describes the episodes as "an eruption of temper out of all proportion to the provocation." Timberg, who McCain has said "knows more about me than I do," wrote that McCain's sudden fury is a result of Vietnam coming "back to haunt him." McCain has himself described having an adverse reaction to the sound of jangling keys, which reminds him of his Vietnam jailers. McCain also told doctors that during solitary confinement he had strayed pretty "far out" and had referred to himself as "mentally deteriorating."

UPDATE I / Warren Street / 8:27 PM

Notice anything about this picture?



That's right--on the day when McCain decides to blast Obama for not serving in the military, McCain is skipping a vote on a funding bill for the Iraq war to hang out in California with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Who, if you'll recall:

Schwarzenegger served in the Austrian army in 1965, to fulfill the one year of service required at the time of all 18-year-old Austrian males. He won the Junior Mr. Europe contest in 1965. Schwarzenegger went AWOL during basic training so that he could take part in the competition, and spent a week in an army jail: "Participating in the competition meant so much to me that I didn't carefully think through the consequences. When I got to Stuttgart, I was all confused. I forgot my posing routine, I had to borrow posing trunks, but still I won!"

Always leading by example, even if it is the Austrian Army.

Oh, and Senator McCain? Yeah, a good number of those Republicans in Congress who "support" you? A hell of a lot of them didn't serve in the military, either. But we're not going to bring up Patrick McHenry, John Cornyn, or Norm Coleman if you don't...

This time, no screw-ups please...

This is what it looks like when the Republican Party breaks with its President and runs for the hills out of abject terror that the people are going to turn on them:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment No. 2 with Amdt. No. 4803 )
Vote Number: 137 Vote Date: May 22, 2008, 11:42 AM
Required For Majority: 2/3 Vote Result: Motion Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4803 to H.R. 2642 (Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008)
Statement of Purpose: In the nature of substitute.
Vote Counts: YEAs 75
NAYs 22
Not Voting 3

McCain ducked it. Huckleberry Graham voted against it. Kit Bond? Kit Bond ain't messing around. He and Pat Roberts voted for it. A majority of Senators up for re-election voted for it. Hell, BOTH Murkowski and Stevens voted FOR it. The only vote NAY that surprises me was Charles Grassley.

Now, on to the House. Get it right this time, please.

And when you can tell us what the Cuban Missile Crisis was all about, then maybe you can make the joke stick, okay?

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino on Thursday ridiculed House Democrats after a clerical error threw a wrench in their plans to override President Bush’s veto of the farm bill.

“It shows that they can even screw up spending the taxpayers’ money unwisely,” Perino quipped to reporters aboard Air Force One.

Gates Speaks About Taking Care of Troops, MRAPs

Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently gave a speech, emphasizing the need to take care of the troops over the need to prepare for future conflicts:

The Defense Department must focus on current war demands, even if it means straining the U.S. armed forces and devoting less time and money to future threats, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday.

Meeting the war-fighting needs of the troops now and taking care of them properly when they get home must be the priority, Gates said in a speech to journalists at a seminar here sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

"I have noticed too much of a tendency towards what might be called Next-War-itis — the propensity of much of the defense establishment to be in favor of what might be needed in a future conflict," Gates said.

But in a world of limited resources, he said, the Pentagon must concentrate on building a military that can defeat the current enemies: smaller, terrorist groups and militias waging irregular warfare.

If it means putting off more expensive weapons for the future or adding to the stress on the Army — that is a risk worth taking, he said.

Gates has announced his opposition to one reform that would ease the stress on recruiting and retain soldiers who wish to pursue an education:

Gates’ letter [to Congress] complicates Webb’s effort by opposing S 22 while favoring other bills that include a Pentagon and White House initiative allowing service members to transfer GI bill benefits to family members.

“It is essential to permit transferability of unused education benefits from service members to family,” Gates said in the letter to Sen. John McCain, ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a co-sponsor of a Republican alternative bill, which was to be formally introduced on Tuesday. Transferability, Gates said, “is the highest priority set by the service chiefs and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reflecting the strong interest from the field and the fleet,” Gates said.

Transferring benefits is good for the family but also good for the services by helping to keep people in the military while family members are using the benefits, Gates said.

Gates also restated long-standing Pentagon opposition to GI Bill educational benefits that are too generous, making it more likely for service members to leave the military to attend college. “Serious” retention issues are expected if benefits exceed the average monthly cost for a four-year public college, including tuition, room, board and fees, Gates said.

Webb’s proposal would pay full tuition and fees for a public college plus provide a monthly living allowance equal to the basic allowance for housing of an E-5, which would exceed the level Gates says is acceptable.

The Enhancement of Recruiting, Retention and Readjustment Through Education Act, cosponsored by McCain and other Republicans, provides $1,500 in basic monthly benefits plus $500 a year for books. It also includes transferability of benefits, with the right to transfer all benefits to family members after completing 12 years of service and to transfer half of earned benefits after six years.

The Republican bill might have attracted support from military and veterans groups if the more generous Webb proposal was not on the front burner. But the promises of full tuition plus stipend benefits, similar to what was provided after World War II, are very attractive to major veterans groups and to new organizations representing Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans.

A senior Pentagon official, speaking on condition of not being identified, said the McCain bill, co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Richard Burr of North Carolina, “is retention friendly. It gives education benefits a big boost, but not more than average national costs. We can manage retention at those levels, but S 22 is a retention killer.”

Webb, in an interview, described such arguments as "absurd."

The Department of Defense, he said, "is doing a very good job managing its career force, given the strains that are on it. But it's doing a very poor job of taking care of the people who don't come in for a career."

Raising GI bill benefits nearer to those offered to veterans returning from World War II, Webb said, will give every volunteer, particularly those with no intention of making the military a career, "a proper reward for their service" and a great tool for transitioning to civilian life.

Defense officials have to understand, Webb said, that a volunteer military is "only a career system to a certain point." The current system isn't properly rewarding those who enter "because of love of country, or family tradition, or the fact that they just want to serve for a while," he said.

The services, he said, "have got this one demographic group they keep pounding on and throwing money at. Yet there's a whole different demographic group that would be attracted to coming in and serving a term."

GATES on MRAPs



During the same question and answer period, Gates also spoke about the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle:

Gates pointed to the mine-resistant vehicles as an example of spending money now on critical lifesaving equipment, rather than pouring all resources into war-fighting systems of the future.

Roadside bombs and suicide attacks "have become the weapons of choice for America's most dangerous and likely adversaries — and the need to have a vehicle of this kind won't go away," he said.

Gates also issued a warning to the military services, which have long set their sights on pricey, sophisticated weapons systems that take decades to develop and get onto the battlefield.

The Army has its $200 billion Future Combat System, the Air Force has its F-22 jet fighter. Both programs have been plagued by delays and escalating costs, as well as criticism from Congress.

However, the MRAP vehicle has been cited as having already been compromised by an insurgent-deployed weapon that finds a vulnerability in the design:

The deaths of two U.S. soldiers in western Baghdad last week have sparked concerns that Iraqi insurgents have developed a new weapon capable of striking what the U.S. military considers its most explosive-resistant vehicle.

The soldiers were riding in a Mine Resistant Ambush Protective vehicle, known as an MRAP, when an explosion sent a blast of super-heated metal through the MRAP's armor and into the vehicle, killing them both.

Their deaths brought to eight the number of American troops killed while riding in an MRAP, which was developed and deployed to Iraq last year after years of acrimony over light armor on the Army's workhorse vehicle, the Humvee.

The military has praised the vehicles for saving hundreds of lives, saying they could withstand the IEDs, or improvised explosive devices, which have been the biggest killers of Americans in Iraq. The Pentagon has set aside $5.4 billion to acquire 4,000 MRAPs at more than $1 million each, making the MRAP the Defense Department's third largest acquisition program, behind missile defense and the Joint Strike Fighter.

The military has resisted efforts to find out what might be wrong with the MRAP:

The Marine Corps has ordered a civilian scientist to stop work on a report critical of its efforts to obtain new armored vehicles, saying he exceeded his authority, a Marine official said Tuesday.

Franz Gayl, a retired Marine officer and civilian science adviser, alleged in a Jan. 22 report that "gross mismanagement" of the program to quickly field Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles had resulted in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of Marines in Iraq. Gayl had planned to continue his investigation.

A New GI Bill Is Needed Immediately

Freshman Senator James Webb of Virginia is trying to bridge a critical gap between the cost of a college education and a promise made to our Veterans:

Congressional advocates of an update to the Montgomery GI Bill gathered for an impressive show of force Tuesday afternoon, pressing for swift passage of the measure.

The bill, primarily sponsored by Vietnam veterans Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) would cover the full cost of tuition at a public state university for soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and provide a monthly living stipend.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) and over 25 veterans’ advocacy organizations all participated in a rally for the bill on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.

“At its heart, this bill is about helping a large and deserving group of young men and women readjust to the civilian life that we enjoy because of the sacrifices they make wearing that uniform,” said Reid.

The cost of everything is rising, and that includes the cost of going to college. That rise in costs has not been matched by an adequate increase in GI Bill benefits:

"These are people . . . who served the country at a time when very few people did," said Sen. James Webb (D-Va.), who is pushing a bill that would expand benefits for veterans, including active-duty guards and reservists, to cover the cost of the most expensive public universities and to match contributions from private schools with higher tuition, for four academic years. "We should give them the best shot at a good future."

An earlier version of the bill stalled in Congress; the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs opposed it as too expensive, too complex to administer and too likely to tempt troops to move back to civilian life. The bill, substantially revised, now has 58 co-sponsors, including both Democratic presidential candidates.

There are dozens of other bills, including one announced last week by senators including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), also a presidential candidate. Hundreds of supporters of Webb's bill plan to rally today on Capitol Hill.

Many people enlist to earn money for college, and almost everyone signs up for the education benefits -- which, in the case of the main GI Bill, requires a service member to pay about $1,200 into the plan-- but not everyone takes advantage of it. And that buy-in is not returned even if the benefits are unused.

About 70 percent use at least some part of it, said Keith Wilson, director of the education service, but the VA does not track how many earn degrees.

An independent study found that just over half use some part of the benefits, said Ray Kelley of AMVETS, a veterans support group, and only 8 percent use all. "Congress is realizing we're not giving them the benefits we say we're giving them," Kelley said. "They only have 36 months from the time they start using it to the time they finish." That means going to school full time, year-round.

Students apply for the flat-rate benefit monthly and get a check once it is confirmed that they are still enrolled. Luke Stalcup, 27, of Student Veterans of America, who served in Iraq and will attend Georgetown University for graduate study in the fall, said he paid his rent late every month after the GI bill check came in. Now he relies on loans and scholarships to cover the rest of the cost at Columbia University.

That's right--very few people did serve. This bill is so solid, only the craziest wingnuts are opposing it. Why should they care? These Veterans are never going to vote for them in the future. They don't have a powerful lobby in Washington D.C. that can help prop up a campaign fund. Taking care of the people who served is an idea that is actually under siege as we speak--more and more, the wingnuts are fleeing from the Bush doctrine of government by incompetents and returning to their old song and dance--pissing on everything that happened in the 1960s and the 1930s in the hopes of conjuring a Ronald Reagan who can appear and give them a conservative icon to worship:

Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things - using the mantra of “change” endlessly - the cold fact is that virtually everything has says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.

Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive, and subsidizing those who are not - all this is a re-run of the 1960s.

We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation, and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.

The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances, and hamstringing the police.

Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes - including the media magic of meetings between heads of state - was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.

Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.

History? You mean the history of Republican Party politics from the 1930s, which encouraged doing business with Hitler and tore into Roosevelt for trying to help Britain? Remember lend lease? Remember when Roosevelt wanted to start preparing for war--he was fought every step of the way by Republican politicians. When the war was nearly upon us, the Republican Party was isolationist and unpatriotic to extremes that were conveniently forgotten once we banded together, joined our allies and defeated our enemies.

Modern conservatives have a deep, black hole in their memories--and let me fill it with some information about a certain Republican who, by the 1950s, was called "Mr. Republican" and was, in effect, the spiritual leader of the conservative movement:

Robert A. Taft:

A staunch non-interventionist, Taft believed that America should avoid any involvement in European or Asian wars and concentrate instead on solving its domestic problems. He believed that a strong U.S. military, combined with the natural geographic protection of the broad Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, would be adequate to protect America even if the Nazis overran all of Europe. Between the outbreak of war in September 1939 and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 Taft opposed nearly all attempts to aid Allied forces fighting the Nazis in Europe. His outspoken opposition to aiding the Allied forces earned him strong criticism from many Republican liberals, such as Wendell Willkie and Thomas E. Dewey, who felt that America could best protect herself by fully supporting the British and other anti-Nazi forces. Although Taft fully supported the American war effort after Pearl Harbor, he continued to harbor a deep suspicion of American involvement in postwar military alliances with other nations, including NATO.

Here's another piece of history that this liberal is not ignorant of--a viable GI bill educated countless Veterans after World War II and helped us create an educated, professional, and thriving middle class. Hence, the need to support Webb's critical piece of legislation. It's a smart investment in our future. It's one we need to make every generation or so. It didn't bankrupt this country. It didn't lead to socialism. Here's another fact--our economy was wrecked by an unpopular and unnecessary war that divided the American people, one which was largely fought by the poor and the minorities and hundreds of thousands of whom we abandoned and forgot to take care of. Ring any fucking bells? Everything that was done back in the 1930s saved us from socialism, and saved capitalism as a viable ideology. Everything that happened in the 1960s is viewed through a wingnut prism designed to marginalize the Democratic Party. It's a shopworn lie that isn't going to play very well with voters born in the 1970s and 1980s who don't give a shit about what happened in the 1960s.

What you see in that vile little piece from Thomas Sowell is the new wingnut marketing campaign--everything that made America great is an evil, corrupt government program that will starve and kill us all and lead to socialism. Have you noticed how often you hear the terms "socialist" and "Marxist" out of these people lately? It's not for nothing that they're desperately trying to re-run the Reagan mantra of 'government is the problem.' Everything they have touched has turned to shit. They gotta run with whatever their diseased little minds can conjure up.

Desperation is self-evident every time a wingnut bleats about socialism, Reverend Wright, or the war on terror.


UPDATE - Blue Girl 11:35 a.m.

I shake my head in wonderment that this bill does not have 99 cosponsors. The GI Bill transformed America. It made the middle class, which became the envy of the entire world, possible. Every dollar spent on the GI Bill was returned to the economy seven times over.

Simply put, it made us a better, stronger and more diverse nation.

The promise of educational assistance is one of the most effective recruiting tools we have at our disposal, but it is more than that. It is a promise made to those who enlist that this country appreciates their sacrifice and their service and we will stand by them and help them move up in society in return for their service to protect it.

UPDATE II - PALE RIDER - 1:21PM

This helps explain what's really going on--and it's just bullshit:

...McCain has all but locked up the Republican presidential nomination and is preparing for a fall campaign in which his support of the Iraq war is sure to be a major issue. Yet the former Navy pilot and Vietnam POW makes himself a target by refusing to endorse Webb’s new GI education bill and instead signing on to a Republican alternative that focuses more on career soldiers than on the great majority who leave after their first four years.

Undaunted, Webb, who was a Marine infantry officer in Vietnam, is closing in on the bipartisan support needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate, where the cost of his package — estimated now at about $52 billion over 10 years — is sure to be an issue. But McCain’s support would seal the deal like nothing else, and the new Republican bill, together with a letter of opposition Tuesday from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, threatens to peel off support before the Democrat gets to the crucial threshold of 60 votes.

“There are fundamental differences,” McCain told Politico. “He creates a new bureaucracy and new rules. His bill offers the same benefits whether you stay three years or longer. We want to have a sliding scale to increase retention. I haven’t been in Washington, but my staff there said that his has not been eager to negotiate.”

“He’s so full of it,” Webb said in response. “I have personally talked to John three times. I made a personal call to [McCain aide] Mark Salter months ago asking that they look at this.”

“Hell, no,” Webb bristled when asked if there had been an implicit message that he would attack McCain if he didn’t come on board.

"John McCain has been a longtime friend of mine, and I think if John sat down and examined what was in this bill, he would co-sponsor it,” Webb said. “I don’t want this to become a political issue. I want to get a bill done.”

The debate will soon come to a head when Congress takes up the administration’s request for new emergency funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The current plan is for the House to take up a 2008 military construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations measure, strike its content and then layer in a series of three amendments that would include not only war funding but also very likely the Webb bill.