|
JOHN McCAIN SUPPORTS WAR BUT NOT THE TROOPS
This entry was posted on 5/19/2008 5:02 PM and is filed under uncategorized.
In inspirational books, stirring speeches, teary-eyed displays of patriotism, and soaring campaign commercials, John McCain has made a cottage industry out of his own heroism in surviving five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, and out of his family's history of military service. His supporters wax euphoric about his "courage" and "sacrifice" and "honor."
I take nothing away from the fact that the man did display great courage and fortitude of spirit, especially when he was offered a chance to return home early due to the fact that his father was a Navy admiral, and that he turned it down because other prisoners had been there longer than he. He endured terrible torture at the hands of his captors that affects his physicality to this day.
You would think that such experiences would translate into great compassion toward servicemen and women in our country, so that when he took office, first as a congressman from Arizona, and then as a senator, he would make absolutely certain that active-duty troops and veterans received the highest measure of support the country they fought for could provide.
After all, he frequently poses onstage at various veteran's groups while giving speeches on his "No Surrender" presidential campaign tour.
But you would be wrong.
But don't take it from me. Let's start by reviewing percentage-point ratings given by veterans groups of all three presidential candidates, based on a minimum of 14 senatorial votes cast on issues ranging from additional inpatient and outpatient care of veterans to safety equipment for the troops deployed to Iraq to increased funds for improvements to veterans' health care facilities.
(It should be noted that the most junior senator, Barack Obama, was not in the senate yet during some of the votes counted, and yet still scored higher than either of the other two candidates on veteran's issues.)
Disabled American Veterans
Key Votes--McCain 28%
Key Votes--Obama 92%
Key Votes--Clinton 93%
Vietnam Veterans of America
Key Votes--McCain 37%
Key Votes--Obama 92%
Key Votes--Clinton 88%
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
Overall Grade: McCain D
Overall Grade: Obama B+
Overall Grade: Clinton A-
My thanks to T Partier, who posted this at Talking Points Memo Cafe on March 26 of this year
(http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/tweety-mccains-moral-edge.php).
T Partier adds, "The really god-awful thing is that on two of the votes, less than 10 senators voted against the issue presented, one had only 5 dissenters and the other 7; he (McCain) of course was one of the select reprehensible few in both cases."
Even more scathing is a piece put together by VoteVets.org, "Senator McCain's Real Record on the War in Iraq," on February 8, 2008.
(http://votevets.org/mccain.html)
This is a compilation of quotes given by McCain over the course of the war in which he not only insists that it will be over quick, but praises Bush and Rumsfeld for the fine job they were doing, and quotes year after year after year in which he insists things like,
"We're going to win this thing or lose this thing within the next several months." (November 2006)
It's fascinating reading, in light of his recent reversals from maintaining that our troops can remain in Iraq a hundred years or more to his sounds-better-to-voters idea that the war will be "won" by 2013--just in time for his reelection. (Sounds suspiciously like Richard Nixon's promise that he had a "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam by the end of his first term.)
Although--we've got him quoted here on September 16, 2007 as saying that, "I believe to set a date for withdrawal is to set a date for surrender."
In other words, if a Democrat pulls out troops, it's SURRENDER. If McCain pulls out troops, it's VICTORY.
Got it?
But what caught my attention about the VoteVets piece (really, you should read it for sure)--is that, not only did McCain vote against adequate rest time for troops who've served multiple 15-month deployments, but that he was one of only 13 senators who voted AGAINST adding $430 million for inpatient and outpatient care for veterans.
Even as he has consistently voted to prolong this war year after year after year at tens of billions of dollars every week, putting unimaginable strain on the troops, who are returning with terrible injuries that require all kinds of care, including traumatic brain injury--the war's "signature injury"--which has overtaxed a system completely unprepared to handle the overload of patients from a prolonged war...He begrudges them a measely $430 bucks, which would be about one day of war-costs.
The most thorough analysis of McCain's war and veteran's votes that I've found so far was posted at DailyKos by "clammyc" on February 28 of this year.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/26/123532/692/322/464441
Along with voting against adequate troop rest or any end to the war whatsoever, McCain also
**voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) for health care facilities.
**voted against $430 million (mentioned above) for outpatient care and treatment of veterans
**voted against increasing veterans' medical services funding by $1.5 billion
**voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in veterans' medical care by eliminating abusive tax loopholes
**voted to TABLE an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322 million for safety equipment for forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by that same amount
**urged other senators to TABLE a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve quipment in Iraq related to SHORTAGES in helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests
**voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650 million
AND NOW, our big war-hero presidential candidate is at it again--screwing veterans, I mean.
Since the first day he took office, Democratic senator and combat-vet James Webb and Republican senator and combat vet Chuck Hagel have been working tirelessly to increase veterans benefits in the famous G.I. Bill--attempting valiently to bring it up to par with modern tuition costs.
As it is, the current bill only covers a fraction of what it costs these days to attend college. Veterans who were promised a college education when they enlisted (most of them enlist because they can see no other way to pay for college)--and who pay into the system out of their meager armed forces paychecks each month--find when they really do try to go to school that they may have to hold two jobs and take out student loans even though they are receiving G.I. Bill funds.
This is a ridiculous state of affairs for a generation of warriors who've been asked to make sacrifices unheard of in previous generations--returning again and again for extended tours of duty in hot combat zones (even WWII vets got periodic down time at the rear)--stop-loss, recalls after service ends, getting sent from one war to another, and so on.
The least we could do is help those men and women get a good college education when they are ready to resume their civilian lives.
Those who do so, among many other benefits--suffer much fewer symptoms of post traumatic stress, and they qualify for much better jobs after graduation that enables them to pay more taxes into the government--thus giving it a premium return on its investment.
But no.
It costs too much, says war-hero McCain. AGAIN. Never mind that ten years of funding for this bill costs less than one year in Iraq, STILL it's too expensive.
And he points out--again, dovetailing with the White House--that it would "hurt retention." This is the Pentagon's objection, too.
Let me get this straight.
If you join the army, you only have value as long as you provide yourself as cannon fodder for its commander-in-chief's latest war.
That means that, even if you have spent three out of four years of your service fighting in a war--the rest of the time desert or mountain-training for war (away from your family)--you only have value to our armed services if you RE-ENLIST and thus vow to spend MORE TIME FIGHTING THE SAME WAR.
But if you choose to get out, why, screw you. We only want you if we can kill you.
Does that about sum it up Senator McCain?
In spite of the fact that ***58*** senators--TWO SHORT OF A VETO-PROOF MAJORITY--have signed on to this outstanding bill from both sides of the aisle (which would, by the way, actually help with enlistment, an ongoing problem for the military)--McCain says no.
Not to worry, though. He's got his OWN G.I. Bill.
And in THAT bill...you cannot even apply for G.I. education benefits until you have served in the armed forces for TWELVE YEARS.
Which means, you can only qualify for education benefits if you are career military.
But as Sen. Webb has pointed out, **75%** of servicepeople get out of the service after their four-year hitch. (Probably has something to do with having to fight a Groundhog Day war over and over again.)
That means McCain's bill would only apply to 25% of the people serving.
Way to keep down costs, bubba!
So far, every veterans organization you can name has backed this bill. Petitions with tens of thousands of signatures have circulated the Capitol.
America wants to do this for its troops.
John McCain--big war hero--does not.
He supports WAR, you see. Not TROOPS.
As you read this, this bill is being discussed again in the Senate. You can check this website below to see if your senators or congresspeople have signed on to it.
(Obama and Clinton are both co-sponsors.)
(http://www.gibill2008.org/)
If your senator(s) have not agreed to vote for this bill, you can also get their phone numbers from this same website.
Make some calls. Make some threats.
It takes a helluva lot more to "support the troops" than simply wearing a flag lapel pin, standing in front of a flag, or giving stirring speeches to veteran's groups.
We appreciate Sen. John McCain's service to our country, but that was another time, another place, another war thirty years past.
Right now, we have brave men and women making their own heroic marks on a war that has dragged on longer than World War II.
They are proud to do it.
All they ask is that we don't forget about them when the parades are over and the cameras are turned off and the political campaigns end.
This new G.I. Bill is the best way we can do that.
And after that, when it comes time to vote for the next president of the United States, we would do well to look past the pomp and circumstance and flag-waving.
It's all well and good for a candidate to be a war hero, giving stirring speeches about "victory" and "winning" and "sacrifice."
Easy to do when married to a woman worth $100 million; that way, his own son who serves won't ever have to worry about paying for HIS college education.
But being a war hero doesn't count for much if that candidate ignores the heroes limping past him to get to an overbooked, underfunded veteran's hospital...or dashing off to make their second job so that they can afford tuition...or struggling to find a decent mental health counselor because he voted against funding for additional psychiatric care for veterans.
When it comes to turning your back on our veterans, then being a war hero doesn't count for very much at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
