BF2S Forums Another silent thread about OBAMA

LividBovine wrote:

If you read the text of the cases where McCain voted against the bills, it becomes obvious they are leaving something out and only telling about the good part of the bills.    Go read the bills he voted against, then decide he doesn't like you. 

Of course McCain is against veterans, makes perfect sense.

LividBovine wrote:

Of course McCain is against veterans, makes perfect sense.

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIs' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL for his own benefit, apparently. FUCK HIM. He's just swung his last and final strike out as far as Im concerned. Of course you wont hear thi as a topic this week in the news, it will be brushed under the carpet.

No this isnt from an evil right wing source, tbh.

New York Post wrote:

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Secretary Robert Gates
Secretary of Defense
September 14, 2007

The complexity of managing the flow of units, individuals and capabilities to two active combat theaters is enormous and does not lend itself to simplistic, or to simple, legislative prescriptions…The cumulative effect of these kinds of things, we think, would, frankly, increase the risk to our men and women in uniform over there.

*

Fred Kagan
The American Enterprise Institute
September 14, 2007

The amendment as offered earlier this summer (when it garnered 56 votes in the Senate) would present a nightmare in execution…This amendment would insert a rigid inflexibility into the military planning process…If the commander of American forces in Iraq or Afghanistan concluded that some event were likely to require the deployment of additional forces to his theater, even for a brief time, this amendment would severely constrain the pool of units and personnel that could be sent…If American commanders are constrained to have only those “units and members” of the services in theater who have spent the requisite time at home, then a time will almost certainly come when they do not have the forces they need to accomplish their missions…

*

General Peter Pace
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
September 14, 2007

[i]t’s just not simple math. So when people start picking at pieces of the process, it impacts parts of the process that you really don't even see until you try to react to that and make it work.

*

Senator John McCain
Republican Senator from Arizona
September 15, 2007

Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that the Congress decides how long people will spend on tours of duty and how long they will spend back in the United States? It's blatantly unconstitutional…Is this all about helping the men and women in the military having a lighter burden, or is this another way of achieving a goal that they can't get, a straight up or down vote on withdrawal?

*

James Carafano
The Heritage Foundation
September 16, 2007

The goal of this legislation is to limit the options available to (Secretary Gates), thereby tying Pentagon planners’ hands and forcing a de facto drawdown of U.S. force levels in Iraq. This legislation would undermine how America fights wars...Congress’s mandating deployment schedules would put U.S. forces and Americans at risk unnecessarily. Mandating deployment schedules would limit the Commander in Chief's flexibility during war and would be the first step toward cutting and running in Iraq.

God Save the Queen wrote:

I completely disagree with his reasoning against the approved GI Bill.  Completely.  Its a load of crap.

Last edited by Spearhead (2008-09-16 14:19:45)

God Save the Queen wrote:

usmarine wrote:

yes but what will obama do for the GI bill?  bring it back to clinton era?  i had to deal with that and it was bullshit compared to what we have now.

Obama co sponsored the new GI Bill, he's already done more in that regards for vets than McCain.


What did clinton do to the GI Bill?

I also want to express my concerns about the authorizing legislation included in this emergency supplemental regarding veterans' educations benefits, commonly referred to as the Webb bill. There have been a lot of misrepresentations made about my position on this issue--not only on the Senate floor by the majority leader, who has alleged that I think the Webb bill is ``too generous,'' which is absolutely false, but most recently in an ad by VoteVets.org, which offers a complete misrepresentation of the facts and is a disservice to our Nation's veterans. I will once again attempt to set the record straight.

I believe America has an obligation to provide unwavering support to our veterans, active duty servicemembers, Guard and Reserves. Men and women who have served their country deserve the best education benefits we are able to give them, and they deserve to receive them as quickly as possible and in a manner that not only promotes recruitment efforts, but also promotes retention of servicemembers. I would think we could have near unanimous support for such legislation and I am confident that we will reach that point in the days ahead. But adding a $52 billion mandatory spending program to this war funding bill without any opportunity for amendments to improve the measure is not the way to move legislation nor will it expedite reaching an agreement in an efficient manner. Our vets deserve better than this.

On numerous occasions I have commended Senators Webb, Hagel and Warner for their work to bring this issue to the forefront of the Senate's attention. Their effort has been for a worthy cause, but that does not make it a perfect bill, nor should it be considered the only approach that best meets the education needs of veterans and servicemembers. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that if their bill is passed, it will harm retention rates by nearly 20 percent. That is the last thing we need when our Nation is fighting the war on terror on two fronts.

Senators Graham, Burr and I, along with 19 others, have a different approach, one that builds on the existing Montgomery GI Bill to ensure rapid implementation of increased benefits. And, unlike S. 22, we think a revitalized program should focus on the entire spectrum of military members who make up the All Volunteer Force, from the newest recruit to the career NCOs, officers, reservists and National Guardsmen, to veterans who have completed their service and retirees, as well as the families of all of these individuals.

We need to take action to encourage continued service in the military and we can do that by granting a higher education benefit for longer service. And, we need to provide a meaningful, unquestionable transferability feature to allow the serviceman and woman to have the option of transferring education benefits to their children and spouses. S. 22, unfortunately, does not allow transferability. As a matter of fact, 2 days ago, Senators Webb and Warner agreed that transferability is a serious matter that merited change. What they proposed, however, does not go far enough and would only provide for a 2-year pilot program. Their efforts underscore the need for debate and further discussion on this important issue. But I applaud them for acknowledging the Congress needs to take a proactive stance and allow transferability of earned education benefits to a spouse or children.

We cannot allow this important issue to be hijacked by the anti-war crusade funded by groups like MoveOn.org and VetsVote.org who are running ads saying that that I do not ``respect their service.'' The accusation is wrong, they know that it is, and they should be ashamed of what they are doing to all veterans and servicemembers. I respect every man and woman who have been or are currently in uniform.

It is my hope that the proponents of the pending veteran's education benefits measures can join together to ensure that Congress enacts meaningful legislation that the President will sign and as soon as possible. Such legislation should address the reality of the All Volunteer Force and ensure that we pass a bill that does not induce servicemen and women to leave the military; but instead bolsters retention so that the services may retain quality servicemen and women. It must be easily understood and implemented and responsive to the needs not only of veterans, but also of those who are serving in the active duty forces, the Guard and Reserve, and their families. Their exemplary service to our nation, and the sacrifice of their families, deserves no less.

As we move forward with consideration of this supplemental appropriations legislation, we must remember to whom we owe our allegiance--the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines fighting bravely on our behalf abroad. These brave Americans need this appropriation to carry out their vital work, and we should have provided it to them months ago. The Congress, which authorized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has an obligation to give our troops everything they need to prevail in their missions. Unfortunately, it seems we have failed to live up to this obligation today, instead producing a bill fraught with wasteful spending more attuned to political interests instead of the interests of our military men and women.

CamPoe wrote:

It stands to reason he would want to be the one negotiating the withdrawal from Iraq rather than the retards who went in in the first place. They'll just end up tying his hands with imperial possessions like 'permanent military installations' and whatnot.