Why Has John McCain Abandoned the American Soldier?

Posted May 11, 2008 | 07:23 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

George Bush, Dick Cheney, and John McCain are sending a razor-sharp message to the fighting men and women of America.

It's underlined again in bright, fresh, blood-red every time a tank in Bahgdad is blown up by an IED and shrapnel rips into another soldier's flesh.

It's written in script-letters of grimy dust along the floors and walls of fly-infested VA hospitals.

It's spelled out in the invisible ink of the GI Bill that's still not passed -- the critically-important Webb/Hagel bill, sponsored by two gutsy Senators (and veterans) with the courage not to quit in the face of cold-blooded Bush/McCain resistance.

That secret message is everywhere the American soldier and veteran looks nowadays. But it's a secret message that's not really all that secret -- it goes something like this: pssst. Hey dude and dudette. Come. Be All You Can Be. We'll sing you national anthems and write you flowery speeches. We'll solemnly call you the pride of a nation, the Best of the Best, as we Stop-Loss you back to Iraq for tour after tour. But then, goddamn it--if you DO manage somehow to keep your ass from gettin' blowed up, and find your way back home, you're on your own. Understand?

To which The Happy Warrior, John McCain, might add: This is America, "my friends!" Do what I did! Marry some billionaire Cruella-de-Ville lookin' chick, and you won't NEED health-care for your war injuries! Over and over, McCain has chosen tax-breaks for the rich over the desperate needs of our wounded GIs. Whatever his private reasons, in addition to fighting non-stop to block the GI bill, McCain has -- as reported by Aaron Glantz, author of The War Comes Home:

-- voted against nearly every effort to increase funding for healthcare and disability benefits for wounded soldiers

-- voted against the interests of disabled American veterans 80 percent of the time

-- received a D+ voting grade from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (when Obama got a B+, and Clinton, to her lasting credit, an A-)

--consistently voted against expanding mental healthcare and readjustment counseling for service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, efforts to expand treatment for injured veterans, and proposals to lower co-payments and enrollment fees veterans must pay to obtain prescription drugs.

And it goes without saying that the ex-bomber-pilot never lifted a finger to help Mary Tillman, as she struggled valiantly -- through one Pentagon lie after another -- in a lonely quest to find out what really killed her heroic son Pat.

Some maverick, huh?

For our suffering vets, the "Straight Talk Express" is a runaway train bound to Nowheresville.

Many peace groups make it clear that while they oppose the war, they support our troops. McCain's real campaign slogan ought to be: I support the war, but I oppose our troops.

 

Comments
44
Pending Comments
0
Post a Comment

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:

PART III

McCain has been none of these things, done virtually nothing to advance the rights and needs of our veterans in this arena.

"Hundred Years War" McCain is demonstrably no friend of the veteran, and it shows in his egregious voting record, as surely as he is no friend of We The People, which shows just as conclusively in his relationships with Charles Keating and the K Street lobbyists, and his slavish devotion to the GOP in all of its corruption and cronyism.

As surely as the GOP has conclusively proven itself to be the most corrupt and inept political party movement since Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall, McCain has shown that he cares not one iota about his fellow veterans, their care needs, or the needs and obligations of We The People. McCain remains a staunch partisan of the GOP, and all that that entails, as surely as his voting record has silently spat upon the service of every deserving veteran who has legitimately sought treatment at their local VA, and was turned away.

As hypocritical as his party has been on the subject of "family values," so too has McCain been a complete and utter hypocrite on veteran's care.

Senator John "Hundred Years War" McCain has earned my unrestrained contempt, his war record be damned.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:09 PM on 05/12/2008

PART II

It is this voting record that has led me to conclude that John McCain is a traitor to every one of those who have served our country in uniform, as much as he is a traitor to the needs of We The People. By opposing the health and mental health care benefits and the new GI Bill, Senator McCain has proven himself no friend of the veteran, and, given IMHO the absolute moral imperative upon We The People to properly care for those who sacrifice in the service of our nation, a traitor to We The People by so egregiously not seeing to the fulfillment of this very obligation by implementing proper care for our vets through the VA system.

IMHO a real hero, a true American war hero in Congress, would be a tireless crusader for veteran's rights and care, a veritable tiger in pursuit of reforming the Veteran's Administration hospitals, a person incapable of tolerating for a second the current deplorable state of affairs, from vermin-infested facilities, to inadequate care for disabled vets, to inadequate mental healthcare for those vets scared in mind as well as body by their experiences in our nation's service.

Such a genuine war hero turned senator would be relentless is seeing that only truly caring and qualified medical and psychiatric professionals get anywhere near our sick or disabled vets, professionals who place their patients' care front and center ahead of bureaucratic red tape and politics.

END PART II

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:09 PM on 05/12/2008

Sir,

I am an independent voter, the son of a WW2 US Marine, and the equally proud nephew of a WW2 US Army veteran who served in General George S. Patton, Jr.'s 3rd Army in the German Campaign. In my lifetime I have counted many friends, acquaintances, professional colleagues, and other family members who have served our country, in many cases in combat. More than a few I've met were decorated for their service.

I have studied war and soldiering all of my life, starting with family stories of "those times."

I was taught to respect those who serve our country in uniform as unconditionally as possible, no matter how passionately I may disagree with them otherwise on matters of politics, et al.

Whatever service John McCain performed in the past IMHO has been well-and-thoroughly rendered irrelevant by his shameless self-aggrandizement while a member of the US Senate, from his blatant involvement with Charles Keating to his apparent relationship with Vicky Isemann and the K Street lobbyists to this, his voting record contrary to the needs of our troops.

END PART I

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:08 PM on 05/12/2008

Something everyone should see about McCain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y395Tftgz0E

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:07 PM on 05/12/2008

Watched the video..........George Soros personified.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:10 PM on 05/12/2008

Oops. Guess I jumped the gun in thinking you were interested in sincere debate.

This is a tactic of the intellectually dishonest (on the left and right): If you can't rebut the material, lob some buzzword or name that your side will identify with.

Are you somehow trying to deny that McCain said those ridiculous things? Why don't you address the evidence instead of trying to distract with irrelevancies?

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:50 PM on 05/12/2008

[Not sure why I can't reply directly to your message. Perhaps the moderators (rightly) feel we're getting offtopic here. Or maybe we've reached a software limit on the meta-ness of a discussion.]

You might as well have used my name instead of Soros'; I contribute to moveon. Probably not quite as much as he though. Unlike you, I consider it a patriotic act to do so.

As for your comments on the video: WEAK! Are you trying to fill Johnny Cochran's shoes?

Jeez, Louise, McCain himself is shown acknowledging that his comment about the safety of the streets of Iraq was off-base. While he's a welcome relief from the Republican chicken hawks like Cheney and GW Bush -- I would've voted for him in 2000 -- he's seem to reached a point where he feels like his past contribution to the country forgives and justifies any behavior.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:08 PM on 05/12/2008

To begin, notice there were no credits at the end. Why? The clips used were brief snippets, certainly not containing enough info to determine how well or improperly used..........can't refute anything on uncertain ground. Further, they were from multi time spans and everyone says and does things over extended periods that (we) all can regret, or wish we could take back. Then there is my comment about Soros that you, by proper intimation, feel I've lobbed a clinker, to you.Obviously I should have mentioned Soros in a different vein, like his main sponsorship of a new 527 specifically intended to blur McCain's shiny image with the American public. And Soros has for years divined MoveondotAmericaisabadplaceandshouldbedestroyed.
(I can throw elbows at the gut with the best of 'em.)

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:50 PM on 05/12/2008

HuffPo screener: I submitted a contribution pointing out the scurrilous attack upon McCain regarding his opposition to the new GI Bill, pointing out that he wants a provision on eligibility based upon time in service. The orginal GI Bill encompassed those who had fought in WWII but has now been watered down to where 6-month served weenies are covered. Too bad you did not allow my counter to Eskow's massive distortion of Senator McCain's position. Eskow's writing here represents the worst of America's current Democrat political duplicity. Attacking Senator McCain, a proven American military hero, as being anti military is damnable and should be denounced by HuffPo rather than featured.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:38 AM on 05/12/2008

Six-month weenies eh? I say YOU are the traitor.

This bill would be THE MOST FAIR AND EQUITABLE bill to ever come out of our government. You can read the full text here:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s22is.txt.pdf

The easiest way to sum it up would be to say that for every month served on active duty you will receive one month of education benefits.

In actuality, if a veteran qualifies, which could be as little as 90 days of active duty, they will receive 36 months of education benefits. HOWEVER, they only receive a proportion of benefits based on time served on active duty. In order to receive 100% of benefits they will have had to serve 36 months of active duty.

Now, if they only served a fraction of the 36 months they will receive a fair and equal proportion of benefits. Here is the breakdown of benefits earned based on months of AD:

>36mo=100%
30-36mo=90%
24-30mo=80%
18-24mo=70%
12-18mo=60%
6-12mo=50%
90d-6mo=40%

This levels the playing field for reservists who have served any number of months in this war.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:24 PM on 05/13/2008

Good point Marine, though I would be careful to tie it to character of service.

As we well know not all Marines, Soldiers or Sailors are created equally and more than one has been invited to swim home. And rightfully so.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:43 PM on 05/13/2008

Based on my readings of the legislation, only those who are honorably discharged will be entitled to benefits. There are also exceptions for medical discharges.

Also, any type of discharge based on misconduct would be a disqualifier. I am assuming that would entail anything including or below a "General, Under Other Than Honorable Conditions" discharge.

So only "Honorable" or "General, Under Honorable Conditions" would qualify.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:38 PM on 05/14/2008

"down to where 6-month served weenies are covered. "

Care to explain (1) how one can serve only six months other than being discharged for medical or other reasons, and (2) how that makes them "weenies?"

What if a person in our nation's Armed Forces enlists, is injured in basic in a training accident, permanently disabled and in need of lifelong care? Are they somehow *unworthy* of care through the VA in your view? Does their being injured make them a "weenie" in your humble opinion?

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:21 PM on 05/12/2008

Hi comrade: read down flor my further answers to your valid questions.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:32 PM on 05/12/2008

Read them, "Comrade Casey." While we could debate whether Reagan's buildup (started by Carter BTW) was about supporting our troops or supporting defense contractors (remember the "Multi-Directional Impact generators?"), I have *always* supported the principle of taking care of our own, *especially* those in uniform who serve honourably.

Those dishonourably discharged or discharged for other valid reasons such as unfitness are a separate issue; those who get booted deserve IMHO*only* the boot.

Those injured during training through no fault of their own however are IMHO due for all proper care We The People can provide; they signed up, took their chances, and got hurt (trying) to serve their country.

*Senator* John Mccain (R), Arizona, IMHO has failed to live up to the John McCain of Hanoi Hilton fame in this matter. It is one thing to oppose a bill, it is another to oppose a bill and offer a positive alternative, which AFAIK he has not done, nor offered to do.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:22 PM on 05/12/2008

First of all, the GI bill isn't free. The servicemember has to contribute $110 a month for twelve months (at least they did in 1996). Then once they fulfill the minimum requirements to be considered a veteren (3yrs) they can use the benefits. If they are discharged in less than a year for medical reasons then they should be able to get their contribuitions plus interest back. If they are booted out, then they shouldn't get the benefits associated with an honorable discharge. So "six month weenies" shouldn't get jack crap. In my days those six month weenies were worthless pieces of sh*t who don't deserve to be called Veterens.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:29 PM on 05/12/2008

Indelicate, but apt. You have an admirable way with words.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:49 PM on 05/12/2008

FLguardsman,

thank you for your service to our country.

IMHO as a civilian and taxpayer, this is wrong -dead wrong- as it gets. Those who serve our country in uniform should not have to pay into the GI Bill, like it's some sort of corporate 401K plan. If they stay in a reasonable length of service, and are discharged honourably or are discharged due to injuries sustained while in the service of our country, they have IMHO earned the right to GI Bill educational benefits.

Anything less IMHO is simply not good enough, a failure to take care of our own the very people we depend upon to defend our nation.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:33 PM on 05/12/2008

*Dishonourably* discharged personnel I agree, do NOT deserve anything by a boot in the butt straight out the gate.

Those injured in training however, IMHO do indeed deserve at least the minimal care the VA can offer if they are permanently disabled, including vocational retraining if possible. Such honest recruits who become disabled IMHO deserve such care, for the simple reason that they at least were *trying* to serve their country.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:27 PM on 05/12/2008

Care to provide a link to info on the reasons you claim McCain opposes the new GI bill?

Is it even possible to enlist for a period as short as 6 months? (I seriously doubt it.) And if so, why should such a person be considered a "weenie"?

The reasons for McCain's opposition that I've seen cited are 1. It'll cost too much. 2. Making the educational benefits too attractive will hurt retention rates.

Also, I'd like to hear more about why McCain should be considered a "miltary hero". Yes, I know he was taken prisoner and suffered greatly. What about that is heroic? Given his week-kneed stance on the whole torture thing, it would seem that his military service has done little to inform his politics.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:43 PM on 05/12/2008

I have no link regarding McCain's (main) reason for opposing a new GI Bill, other than common news stories I've read. His supporting reason of being too costly follows the term of service in determining extent of eligibility, in effect, the longer the service the greater the benefits. And yes, a person can currently qualify based upon six-months honorable service and discharge. Google the VA on this. (Not enough room to describe all the reasons anyone would have left military service after a short period.)
A "military hero"............. the whole scenario of McCain's service is heroic, but let's merely center on multiple sorties into North Vietnam, delivering munitions on target while locked on to it with tracers comin' directly at your sweaty nose. That is, after successfully outmaneuvering SAMs,.......... try it sometime.. Then, as a prisoner of war, refusing repatriation, enduring torture plus deplorable conditions as a prisoner, AND KEEPING FAITH WITH FELLOW PRISONERS. Some may dismiss McCain's military service as what was expected and it may have entailed the risk of capture. These people forget that merely making that decision to face the hardships and dangers is itself, heroic.
I agree with you about McCain's weak-kneed stance on water boarding. Further, I'm really bent outta shape with his naive approach for a civil campaign for the prez office. Obama, a street fighter able to survive successfully in the vicious Chicago political arena, is gonna shred McCain.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:48 PM on 05/12/2008

Wow. Cool. It's refreshing to have an intelligent conversation here for a change.

I would still like to know more about McCain's opposition to the new GI bill. I can imagine some cases (accident, etc.) where I think someone who served for 6 months should be treated as well as most others.

I find the idea of limiting educational benefits in order to enhance retention extremely shortsighted.

Gotcha on the hero thing. I guess I was skeptical because I don't think he's behaved honorably as a civilian.

I think it will be very interesting to see how the election plays out. I do think that Obama will shred McCain in debate. However, I think McCain will have plenty of allies lobbing artillery. I think that it is actually a better approach for McCain. He's not nearly as artful at backstabbing as Senator Clinton and any maliciousness on his part would look either clumsy or bad-tempered.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:45 PM on 05/12/2008

It wasn't just his POW status. John McCain was aboard for the USS Forrestal fire. He was trying to rescue another pilot when ordinance exploded, peppering him with shrapnel on the legs and chest. Later as a POW, when his father ascended to the position of commander of that region, he expressed solidarity with his fellow POWs and refused early release. His subsequent torture was the price he paid. Truly, only POWs can truly judge their heroics in captivity, and most seem to agree he's a hero.

Of course, war-time heroics shouldn't preclude us from criticizing policy. I fear capture and waterboarding by Iranians if only because we've now established that this activity is kosher, and the strongest advocate against torture should have been John McCain. On this and many other policies, this man has seemingly sold his soul.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:16 PM on 05/12/2008

As an Independent I, too, have my doubts about McCain, but based upon his political career only. His stance on water boarding is different than mine.
Any history buff will relate how capture in any MidEastern country usually meant far worse than waterboarding so fearing a use of it is shortsighted. Worry more about the most heinous and painful sadistic treatment.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:59 PM on 05/12/2008

should have read not there.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:50 AM on 05/12/2008

McCain has son's in the military, In the air ,on the ground or in a tank it's still dangerous. John McCain is an American hero and we should be honored to have him as President. Obama and Clinton would never serve this country.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:43 PM on 05/12/2008

John McCains son's have nothing to do with their father's fitness to occupy the White House. We are Americans, and do not judge the fitness of one member of a family based upon the deeds of another. John McCain's sons must write their own chapters in our nation's history, if in fact they are destined to do so.

John McCain's service over 35 years ago is a separate matter from his fitness to occupy the White House. His voting record, his partisan loyalty to the GOP, the runaway hypocrisy of his party and its equally runaway cronyism and corruption speak far more loudly and clearly to this independent voter about his thorough *lack of fitness* to be our next President.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 PM on 05/12/2008

Yes he is very heroic as we can all see from this youtube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y395Tftgz0E

He was traumatized for 5 years and was forced to do all sort of things for the enemy. But he bounced right back and here he is all ready to be a hero again. To lead a (free) nation into another war. This time with Iran.

A war hero is useless without a WAR. That is what they are good for. What use is a war hero if we are not at war. Let's start another war so we can have more war heroes.

FYI, the GI bill would really have helped those who could not serve their country any more. Like those soldiers who came home after 1 month with one less leg or hand or eyes or parts of their bodies.

Those are the guys that are not eligible for free education so that they can find another job according to John McCain. They served less than 6 months so they are wooses or weenies as CASEYBABES call them and should not be given a chance to make something of their lives.

Are those who DIED after 2 days in Iraq or Afghanistan LOSERS? Is that why their coffins cannot be photographed? Is this the type of respect we expect from the McCain presidency with regards to patriotic soldiers who is fighting bush's war.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:57 PM on 05/12/2008

Any military member suffering from in-the-line-of-duty injury or disease receives compensation commensurate with the degree of their problem, no matter the length of service.
You are sadly, probably willfully, uninformed.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:01 PM on 05/12/2008

Don't worry--we get your meaning--and appreciate your contribution.

John Eskow

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:02 AM on 05/12/2008

Big difference. between; being on the ground or in the air, or better yet no there!

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:49 AM on 05/12/2008

Answer to the title question: for precisely the same reasons every member of the current administration has.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:59 AM on 05/12/2008