Senate deals Bush a defeat on Iraq war spending

Defeat for Bush? Defeat for reason. I thought it was good that Bush had vetoed this bill as it was overloaded with funding for every pet project every dreamed of and they hid all their pork behind the skirts of veterans.

why dosent bush come clean and make iraqi oil pay for the war like he said was going to happen in the frist place

George W. Bush wanted to deny veterans from receiving money to pay for a four-year education at a public institution and he wanted to deny Americans an extension of jobless benefits by 13 weeks.

After all these vets has been through, seems Bush's talk of taking care of vets is just spittle in the wind.

And if there was no Iraq "war" what could all of that been spent on.

The GI Bill 2008 just passed the Senate. Something like 75-22.

McCain, notably, was absent

First, however, lawmakers left Washington for a weeklong Memorial Day recess." But of course, a whole week!

McCain, notably, was absent" What about the other Pres candidates?

George W. Bush wanted to deny veterans from receiving money to pay for a four-year education at a public institution and he wanted to deny Americans an extension of jobless benefits by 13 weeks." Ok, hold on. He is not denying them money for college, the GI Bill has alway been there and its is not, nor were there any chance of, it going away. I've used it. Sure its messy but it did help. So, your statement is a lie. (No, I am not a Bush supporter - you just flat out lied.

After all these vets has been through, seems Bush's talk of taking care of vets is just spittle in the wind." Now on this one, when did a politician really care about troops anyway? You think the Dems are going to be any better? I was in during the Clinton years - nope they weren't any better.

For those who are bashing Bush's veto on this bill a few things to consider:

The GI Bill changes that were in this bill now give a vet up to the cost of full tuition for an in-state college tuition. The reason many did not want this, was because if you give these benefits only after you depart the service, then more people will opt to get out after their initial obligation. The other proposal to the GI Bill would have increased the benefits for vets, but not covered as much as the one approved. I have received GI Bill benefits for my education, and it is a good deal. I agree the progam should be re-worked, but not to this extreme.

Like other have said, this spending bill had more pork in it than any piece of spending legislation passed by the Diet here. It is not right to tack on other bills to defense matters, and for once "W" was trying to do the right thing and not approve this, but alas he is blasted for doing so. I believe that the bill also had a farm measure in it to give farmers greater leeway to let more "illegals" work under the guise of seasonal workers.

So, before you go and bash "W" on his non- support of the troops, please reseach. The Dems were not too good to the military. It is because of Bill Clinton, the military has been reduced to the size it is now, relying on contractors to do much of the work that military members used to do.

You think the Dems are going to be any better?

WHO CARES??!?!!??!

I'm sick of the "we're no different" excuse. Bush should be bashed for what he's done, same as any Democrat should be for doing something similar. If society spent more time holding people to their responsibilities, and less time brining up the other side, we might actually see some accountability. Eventually.

Enough with the distractions and apologism. Deal with the world the way it is before you deal the way it probably would be.

thanks alphaape. Your post brang out the questions I had but didn't have the time to look for. You are correct, they people will opt to get out after the initial and that can do a lot of damage

I liked this point: "the military has been reduced to the size it is now, relying on contractors to do much of the work that military members used to do." So fast did he want to reduce the Military, they actually paid me to get out.

What about the other Pres candidates?

Both Clinton and Obama were present. And voted for the Bill.

McCain, notably, was absent.

McCain was not for the revised GI Bill as it stood in the current bill. He is not for giving further increases, but just not the method that was approved in this bill. His beliefe along with "W" was that that a more generous and expansive GI Bill would create an incentive for troops to get out of the military and go to college.

I am all for changes in the GI Bill, since I still have some education benefits left. But I want them to be well thought out. Just throwing out a larger increase in cash is good, but how will it be done? Now, I can go to school online and get the full tuition covered for the class. With this new measure, it will pay the full in-state tuition. So does that mean that I have to be a full time, physically located student? That means that I would have to quit work, and I would loose more money by doing that than the present method.

Like many of the bills and laws that get passed, some are not well thought out. I forsee many people leaving the military after their first term to get the college benefits.

Sushi: "George W. Bush wanted to deny veterans from receiving money to pay for a four-year education at a public institution and he wanted to deny Americans an extension of jobless benefits by 13 weeks.

After all these vets has been through, seems Bush's talk of taking care of vets is just spittle in the wind."

And not only does he not give a rat's a$$ for the vets whatsoever, he has admitted that one reason for denying the education to vets is that it, "might thwart their efforts to get the people to sign on for more tours".

Another dirty trick, and sad reasons to hold back money to where it SHOULD be going.

Anyway, watching Bush flail about in the twighlight of his reign is amusing, and proves just how much of an utter failure he is. Even loyal Repubs. are fleeing the sinking ship.

I get a little over 1000 a month G.I. bill for school full time, that's along with working full time. Obviously this bill is meant to cover only junior colleges, because the state/private colleges I go to are nowhere near as cheap as 1000 dollars. Heck, that doesn't even cover one class, let alone books, other classes, and other fees.

rjd jr: it depends on the state too. Some states such as Penn., offer completely free Education to vets.. When I got out, I moved to Cali because my brother setup a residence for me there. So, at the CC level, I only paid something like $10 a unit. I used my GI bill after which did me well. I had of course saved and invested a lot while I was in. I do know others, and a cousin in fact, who got out without a penny saved.

Ask Iraq tp pay? Have people not thought about reparations? Under international law Iraq as the invaded country can sue for reparations. The situation s it is now is ideal for the US.

Alphape: I don't your reasoning in defense of McCain. The GI bill as it stands right now is more scam than reality. Most of the veterans that apply for it get stiffed through one way or another. It's so full of sudden clauses that most GI's end up with offers to enroll in night school or community college. McCain should be ashamed of himself.

unscrejects : "The GI bill as it stands right now is more scam than reality." I wouldn't put it past anyone in making it into a scam. But, I have to say it worked well for me.

Most of the veterans that apply for it get stiffed through one way or another." You are correct, yet not correct. The schools they go to, and particular are the trade schools they go to are also at more than half at fault.

It's so full of sudden clauses that most GI's end up with offers to enroll in night school or community college." Unless you had time to take college course while you were active duty, you should only expect to start your college career off at a CC or if you happen to be able to get accepted to a state university with high SATs and CLEPs. If you are talking about private U's, then its a different animal.

McCain should be ashamed of himself." I don't want to come and sound like I am defending him. But, if you look back at the history of the GI Bills and it predecessors, you wouldn't say that. The history of it itself is quite ugly.

Alphaape > The reason many did not want this, was because if you give these benefits only after you depart the service, then more people will opt to get out after their initial obligation.

That's just too bad that they get out. Like you stated > people will opt to get out after their initial obligation.

Maybe more people need to enlist. If george bush hadn't started this damn war we wouldn't be scrambling to get more people to enlist.

adaydream - "Maybe more people need to enlist. If george bush hadn't started this damn war we wouldn't be scrambling to get more people to enlist."

I don't think the war supporters on JT have understood this point yet.

But hey, it's only been 5 years. Probably they need another 5 years...

“When it comes to Iraq, it appears that money is no object for President Bush,” said the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. “Yet when it comes to important priorities here at home, he turns into Ebeneezer Scrooge.”

(cough)

Sen. Byrd sometimes claims that he is in favor of fiscal restraint. However, the senator currently has more than 30 public works named after him - seriously undermining his pleas for budget responsibility. http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_byrddroppings

"Liberals" want GI's to go to college so they can have them around to spit on.

super_delegate: "Liberals" want GI's to go to college so they can have them around to spit on."

I can't spit that far, and anyway, you're wrong; I want them to get an education because they were duped into joining an idiotic war for all the wrong reasons, and the fact that an education would probably help them realize that all war is wrong to begin with. But you guys don't want that -- you might have to actually get up from your chair and fight YOURSELF instead of laughing at your fellow Americans dying while you reap the benefits (well... guess the oil heist has only worked out for the actual companies, not the consumers).

Uhm, heh, super d,

Is this Bush defeat in the senate symbolic?

"Is this Bush defeat in the senate [sic] symbolic?"

I'd say it's fairly representative of the system we have. Republicans had their chance, they wasted alot of political capital on stupid sh*t like the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere."

You need only look at history to see that after 8 years of a Republican prez the country is going to think the Dems' ideas are worth trying.

adaydream, I am not all in favor of the actions that McCain did on the bill, what I am against is how it is being spun in the news. At least with him, I know where I stand as far as what he thinks education benefits should be. With others like Obama and Clinton, they are just voting to get "on the bandwagon" to support the troops. If Obama is for the troops, then how about standing up and saying the war was wrong, but we are going to get tough and try to work it out rather than saying if I am elected, I will pull you guys out. I am sure my friends there want to go home, but I don't need a leader who's first job is to cut and run.

What I think needs to be done, is a total revamp of the VA system. Like many have stated about vets trying to get benefits but getting screwed, yes it happens. Due to archane rules and regulations the bueracracy that is the VA is slow moving. Just look at how the wounded vets coming back were initially treated.

A good book to read on the subject of the GI Bill is called "Over Here: How the GI Bill Transformed the American Dream" and it goes into detail of how this great program started and some of the rocky patches. For instance back when my uncles tried to us it, a lot of the state schools in the south would not let them in because of the color of their skin, or adminstrators of the program only pushed for them to go to vocational schools and not regular university. However, through changes in the program, it has gotten better. And I think, that is what needs to be done. Yes add money, but let's make sure we are adding it in the right direction, and just not giving away more "stimulus checks" to our vets. I think we deserve it, and I plan on using the remaining portion of my allowances, but I just want to make sure it is done fairly.

I can't spit that far, and anyway, you're wrong; I want them to get an education because they were duped into joining an idiotic war for all the wrong reasons, and the fact that an education would probably help them realize that all war is wrong to begin with."

I don't believe Mr. Smith would spit on a soldier. Mr. Smith does have a point that they were duped into joining an idiotic war - it should have been catching AQ (don't know if he agrees with that though). But being duped into joining the military has been around since the days recruiters stepped foot in high schools; I was told I could be a hospital admin! I ended up being nothing more than a medic. However, Mr. Smith still won't bring himself to believe that there is a threat out there. "But you guys don't want that -- you might have to actually get up from your chair and fight YOURSELF instead of laughing at your fellow Americans dying" who, may I ask has been laughing? You seem to portray yourself as an educated guy, why don't you join, become an officer, get some cred, run for office? After this bill, all colleges, especially private, will increase their tuitions. What then? more cash when all they had to do was save about 30% of their paychecks, which would be enough to get by as a full time student for four years as they have their schooling paid for? Don't get me wrong, I am all for them in getting more cash but honestly - are you?

super_delegate: "You need only look at history to see that after 8 years of a Republican prez the country is going to think the Dems' ideas are worth trying."

I applaud this much more down to earth comment, but want to qualify it a little; they've not only simply had 8 years of a Republican prez and are curious about change, they have had a president who has caused utter DISASTER.

Anyway, my hats off to you for a much more down to earth post.

Skipthesong: It seems you guys on the right have given in to more objective and as such arguable posts, and I applaud you for it. To your points:

I would never spit on anyone, let alone a soldier. I do respect, to an extent, the uniform, but not always the people that stand behind it (be it government, which I DEFINITELY don't!, or the individuals who commit atrocities behind the uniform). Still, I wouldn't spit on them. I can understand why some would feel the urge to, but not why they would take the urge to the next level and do it. Control is what separates us from animals.

I agree with catching members of AQ, but it's also not so simple as that, and I certainly don't agree with the lies put forth to do so; had plenty of chances to catch the CIA trained Bin Laden, but shifted the focus from him when he couldn't be caught to innocent people who could easily be trampled (thus opening a vacuum for actual AQ to fill, and to recruit at a rate the US military must truly envy).

I KNOW there's a threat out there! but I know all of the places the US is currently warring with never posed any threat to the continental US at all, while those who potentially do suddenly warrant aggressive debate (NK, Iran, etc.). What's more, much of this threat has been created by US threats. You've gotta learn, threatening something/someone usually offers nothing but reciprocity. There were no rose-pedals to US threats of invading Iraq... instead, the roses bloomed in the form of wounds to US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocents. Threats beget the same, as violence begets violence, bottom line. Who started it is the whole chicken and egg thing.

I am an educated guy, and for that reason I am 100% war and its idiocy, which is why I stated part of the reason Bush doesn't want free ed. for vets is that they can be easily called up again. Anyone who is educated and fights in a war is a walking contradictory; war makes no sense, and is a total waste. Run for office? That would be cool, perhaps, but I much prefer guiding young people and waking up those not so young to the fact that there is no need for violence or war, and giving them to run for office and change the face of the politicians that seem to believe war is the only option to 'gain' the resources one wants.

Well, perhaps systems like the US one should look at systems like in France, where education is free, or even in Canada where it is much more subsidized than down south. The US seems hell bent on screwing itself over from health care to education, where so many successful systems exist that could be modelled upon. Since that's not likely to change though, with the powers that be raking in the profits, I am still not against vets. getting free education for their woes. Not at all. In fact, at some military schools in Canada, you get the free university education FIRST, with the stipulation that you stay on and serve for some time after. I am not for them getting cash, I am for them being educated. There are ways to ensure that the cash is only used for tuition, so it's not like they're being passed a fortune of green backs to put towards education themselves.

Anyway, skip... nice questions... much more debatable.

Point #4 should read "...I am 100% AGAINST war..."

Researching further and looking at this weeks issue of Navy times, here is what the crux of the McCain vote no and the Bush veto:

"The main Pentagon objection, and there are several, is that the benefits package does not include an administration proposal that would blunt the draw of leaving the service to use GI Bill benefits by giving those who stay for six years or longer the option of transferring benefits to a spouse or children."

In other words, yes the bill will give vets more money and that is good, but the Pentagon wanted to make sure that it would not result in a force drain of people opting out to use it. They along with the White House wanted to add a provision that would allow those who stay longer than the initial tour, to transfer the benefits to a spouse or child. Now that would really be an incentive! Since so many here like to say that the military draws from the lowest segment of American society, can you imagine now of one of us "deck apes" had the GI bill, but since we were too dumb to go to college and ended up in the military, and now have a family that may add positively to the gene pool, how about sending them to school instead of me. I would be all for that. Spouses don't get many of the benefits and some have made sacrifices, so letting them go to school on me if they wanted to use my benefit would be fine by me. If I had two kids and they wanted to go to college, now instead of worrying about two tuitions, I would have one paid for from my benefits, and just deal with the other the best I could. That is far better than trying to pay for both.

As I said before, there is normally a lot to the story that gets reported. True the McCain proposal would have been less money, but I think the draw to that would be to let the family members get it. That in itself is tremendous. Let's face it, in most of the military specialties, especially the techincal ones, the amount of job training that you get will get you pretty close to most certifications needs in the civilian world. True you will have to pay for some out of your own pocket, but it can be done.

One thing people here may not know, that while you are on active duty, you also get TA (Tuition Assistance) that will pay for your class while you go to school. This is not part of the GI Bill benefit at all. You get a max of $7500 per fiscal year (for the Navy) and that does help you knock class costs down. True, you owe the Navy an extra year obligation if you accept, and if you flunk a class (which I did) you have to pay it back, but it is there.

So with a benefit like that, any military member could get their education if they really wanted. The GI Bill is there to help out and assist, not be a free education. I would have gladly accepted reduced tuition coverage, if I had the option of giving it to my spouse so she can finish her education with minimal impact on us financially or to my kids. Trust me, from once being a poor college student, if someone was able to give me the 1,100 a month (what the GI Bill pays to full time students) I would have been in "Seventh Heaven."

" I am an educated guy, and for that reason I am 100% war..."

You disappoint me, smithin japan.

I want them to get an education because they were duped into joining an idiotic war for all the wrong reasons,

How odd. Many state universities don't want recruiters anywhere on campus. Perhaps this is because military members get some real education in the real world. The professors, who have never had a real job, quake at this thought. Imagine the challenges to their Leftist pap.

"Is this Bush defeat in the ( Senate ) symbolic?"

Hey, you gotta lose one ONCE in a while. Heh.

alphaape--it was channey under 41's watch that cut the defense budget,and reduced the size of the military.41 and 43 have be trying to pass that buck for a while and thay both know it's bs and you would to if you paid attention.

1proudamerican, I have been in the military for 20 years. The drawdown that started under Bush 41, was due to the fact that the USSR fell and there was a "peace dividend" at hand. Then the 1st Iraq war, and there was a slight buildup. Aftwards, many of the older platforms were replaced with more expensive systems that had been proven in the Gulf War.

When Clinton came in, with his Sec Def Les Aspin, that is when the real drawdown began. I know many persons who took the VBI (Voluntary Buyout Incentive) and ran from the military as fast as they could. Well into Clinton's second term did this continue, and do you remember all the confusion of the base closures. I seem to remember Subic closed in '92 or '93. True, Bush 43 did try to make cuts, and contract many of the service out, but the whole process started back in earnest with Clinton.

As far as this GI Bill goes, they are only presenting one side of the story. Ok McCain did not vote for the bill, but they should at least explain why. As I pointed out, he wanted different provision as did the White House, and not because he has a "screw the vets" mentality.

alphaape-- thank you for your service. the fact is 41 started the draw down that 42 inharited because it made sence after the ussr fell,but ever sence then every rightwing apologest has tryed to pin it on 42,even after 43 tryed to lower the ranks thats all im trying to say. politics/truth are like oil/water. simple 43/us public

Uh, sarge,

"Hey, you gotta lose one ONCE in a while. Heh."

Once? GWB's entire history is one of Failure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm

Heh.

Or better:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushmiserablefailure.htm

Pictures really do speak a thousand words.

even if he loses one, he's shown he's willing to steal one or two (00)(04)

Thanks for the comments from those in the military. I didn't know the GI Bill was used to any real extent. A friend of mine enlisted to help pay for the cost of medical school and he's a doctor now, but that's the only story that I've ever personally heard. My cousin was a pilot in the Navy and went on to fly for American Airlines, but that's a bit different.

skipthesong, Penn offers free education to vets? Might have to check that one out.

Seems to me the best way around all this baby killer vs smarty-pants stupidity is to re-institute the draft.

Smith,

So as an educated guy, please enlighten us as to the cause of war.

At least some of the Democrats we have are willing to admit they lied to the American public:

"We really in this last election, when I say we...the Democrats, I think pushed it as far as we can to the end of the fleet, didn't say it, but we implied it. That if we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody was a good student of Government would know that wasn't true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts...and people ate it up."

Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa), admitting Democrats lied to win back Congress in 2006

Video available - http://jeffemanuel.net/paul-kanjorski-pa-11-admits-democrats-lied-about-being-able-to-end-war-in-iraq

"At least some of the Democrats we have are willing to admit they lied to the American public"

No quite the same as "mushroom clouds over NYC".....neh?

Amazing that the Democrats crow about victory on one bill, then get smacked in the face on another (redeployment of troops), when it is defeated with similar authority. And I'd like to know which DEMS are willing to admit they lied to the American People. Nancy Pelosi? Don't think so! She promised the "cleanest" House in 12 years when she and her cronies were elected into power, and the corruption has only gotten worse. Harry Reid? Ditto for him and the Senate, promising gold to the people, but giving nothing more than fool's gold. And with regards to their pledge to "end the war?" Laughable!!! Every time a vote has come up to end funding for the war, they've totally backed off!!! Who, again, is willing to admit that they lied to the American People????????