Lindsay Graham - Looser

[SMM]

Refuses to support (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/06/lindsey-graham-uses-every-trick-in-the-book-not-to-support-webbs-new-gi-bill/) the new GI Bill, which would give the same benefits to reservists, who have served full combat tours in the hell-holes known as Iraq and Afghanistan. What is appalling is that 'war hero', John McCain refuses to support it too.

[robanga]

What exactly did he "loose?" :p

[obeygiant]

:D

I guess he is loose, but what is he looser than? lol

[solvs]

I'm guessing you meant "loser", but I have more to contribute than correcting a spelling error. ;)

McCain Is AWOL On New GI Bill (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/03/mccain-is-awol-on-new-gi_n_94791.html)

In November 2007, Sens. Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel penned an op-ed in the New York Times advocating a reformed G.I. Bill that would provide Iraq war veterans with greater educational opportunities.

The idea, which was first introduced in January 2007, was at once ambitious and benign. Adjust the current landmark law -- which requires members of the armed services to pay $1,200 in order to participate -- to better account for spikes in tuition and living expenses. Not only would there be a greater incentive for those considering enlistment, but the American economy would be bolstered by an influx of educated veterans.

"We must put together the right formula that will demonstrate our respect for those who have stepped forward to serve in these difficult times," wrote Webb and Hagel. "First-class service to country deserves first-class appreciation."

Flash-forward several months and Webb and Hagel's vision (after months of consideration) is on the cusp of codification. The 21st Century G.I. Bill may be included in the language of the next Iraq war supplemental. And while, if considered separately, it could require 60 votes for passage, more than 50 Senators -- including many Republicans -- have already signed on as co-sponsors.

And yet, surprisingly, one of those Senators who has not yet offered his support is John McCain. How could a veteran of Vietnam and someone widely touted as Congress' foremost champions of veterans' affairs not sign on to a largely bipartisan, uncontroversial measure? (Both Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are co-sponsors).

Coming from this guy though:

McCain Gets Facts Wrong On Iraq Again (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/06/mccain-gets-facts-wrong-o_n_95297.html)

:rolleyes:

It's too bad, I used to like McCain. But things like this, I just cant help but no longer support him. Now I can only hope he keeps doing this and the MSM stops covering more trivial things and focuses on it so McCain doesn't skate into the WH for what should be an easy win for the Dems. He's still seen as a maverick though for some reason. Despite being anything but at this point (http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/80724/).

More about Graham here:

Graham ducks question on GI Bill, pledges only to ’sit down’ and discuss it. (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/06/graham-ducks-question-on-gi-bill-pledges-only-to-sit-down-and-discuss-it/)

[mactastic]

I guess all you have to do to support the troops is to say you do. You don't actually have to DO anything to support them, as long as you are a Republic.

Case in point, Karl Rove can criticize Obama's patriotism for not wearing a flag pin on his lapel while Rove's lapel is absent a flag pin. So neither of them wears a flag pin, but only Obama is unpatriotic for doing so.

[Thomas Veil]

I'm guessing you meant "loser", but I have more to contribute than correcting a spelling error. ;)FWIW, that spelling ("looser") bugs the crap out of me too, if only because it's become rampant across the internet.

As to the topic at hand, I'm with the rest of you. It's shameful how we expect so much out of our troops and then guys like McCain and Graham can balk at the idea of rewarding them properly.

[SMM]

OK, I apologize for misspelling loser. At the time, I did not know how to edit the title line - so there you have it. I blew the spelling and am stupid to boot. :o

[solvs]

OK, I apologize for misspelling loser. At the time, I did not know how to edit the title line - so there you have it. I blew the spelling and am stupid to boot. :o

Which by internet rules, means it's not true and Lindsay is a wiener... er, I mean winner. :p

Anyway:

Ignoring Uptick In Iraq Violence, Lieberman And Graham Accuse War Critics Of ‘A Crisis Of Credibility' (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/07/graham-lieberman-iraq-credibility/)