The better question is, just who was first responsible for making changes to the long standing Montgomery GI Bill that helped pay the cost of the returning veteran's education at 100%? As a returning Viet Nam era veteran I was informed that I had only 10 years to take advantage of the long standing bill as new legislation was in place called the Veterans Education Assistance Program that required a co-pay from the veteran. If I am not mistaken LBJ wanted to do away with college assistance programs in the 60's because he said anyone could take advantage of the vast scope of the War on Poverty assistance programs, but he reluctantly signed into law an extension of the popular Vet Program, sometime between Johnson's administration and the Reagan administration the Veterans Benefit programs were gutted and reestablished with far less "actual" benefits, it could have only came at the hands of a liberal congress as they held total control of both houses well up into the 90s, now we are to believe that it is the conservatives that are to blame for such wanton disregard for veterans and their benefits?

All anyone has to do is look into history actual to conclude exactly which group of politicians are found guilty of stripping all the monetary benefits from the dept. of defense they can so as to redistribute them into the social arena. Now the drums are beating again, of course close to a general election, indicating just how concerned the liberals are for the welfare of the returning war vet.....HAVING LIVED THOUGH SUCH A CONFLICT AND HAVING THE FUNDS VOTED OUT FROM UNDER OUR MILITARY TO LIMIT OUR SUPPLIES WHILE WERE STILL IN A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT, I for one can attest to the loyalty of any liberal congress when they believe a few votes are at stake, as they voted in the early 70's to limit the funding going to support combat troops in the field, thus all I have to say is.......YEA RIGHT!, they certainly have the best interest of our veterans in their hearts. Hell, all you have to do is look at recent history, just who was threatening to withdraw all funding form our troops while they still were in a combat situation, just in the past two years? Who do they believe they are fooling with this election year ploy? BD

Many of the returning Vets are being denied an education by schools because they did serve in the war on terrorism.
We need expanded hate crime legislation.

__________________
Drill offshore now

BNoth sides use them for political tools and true concern for the well being is pretty rare. The people suporting war surely dont give a fuck. Those opposing sometimwes blame soldiers for it. They cant get a break from most people.

__________________
Cussing out low class inbreds isnt uninteligent, its honest

Good typing is not inteligent its dexiteritous.

Everything you just said is total bullshit

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V8Ek...eature=related

They sure are used as political tools. It is a crime that they are so poorly paid and have such lousy benefits.

That's a fuckin' fact. Veterans and the elderly are cast aside once they are no longer considered useful. Government takes care of the minorities though, even the illegals. It's all fucked up and it isn't part of Obambas "change" to fix the problem.........

__________________
http://www.resist.com/other/border_patrol.swf

Bluedog?
-Thank you for your service and sacrifice by serving in defense of this country.



History, as always, has shown us what TO DO and what NOT TO DO if we are intelligent enough to pay attention. Do not repeat yesteryear mistakes in how we treat our returning GI's. It's your RIGHT to dislike a war but it is your DUTY as a citizen to pat the GI on the back, welcome them home and be as understanding as possible while they re-establish themselves from wartime role to our civil care-free lifestyle back here in America. By the mere fact they served is testiment that they deserve a hell of a lot of respect.

Spewing anti war crap to a returning verteran is much like telling a female rape victim she was dressed provocatively so she deserved it.

It must be their fantasy of returning to the wrath of the libtard masses which keeps these Bushbots from enlisting...

I'm not one to complain, as I did take advantage of the generous Montgomery Bill, as was my right. I attended school and still hold a 60% whole body impairment rating which qualifies me for about 1/2 pay of an actual retirement. But I continued to work full time as long as my body held out, well into my late forties at which time I have taken a partial retirement and work as an independent consultant in the Industry of Coal. I have no boss as I have a small company and set my own hours. I help in sales, investments, and in the area of production safety, in helping keep track of the federally mandated safety programs. Sometimes it indeed gets difficult to explain to "empty suits" that have only dollar signs attached to a bottom line, that their greatest assest is their "work force" and the experience thereof.

I am a strong believer in the "blue collar" element that is responsible for the very construction of this nation. And I will always defend the Solider and Veteran as well, as I work several times a month counselling young veterans who are now facing the reality of coming home to a not so forgiving society in relation to the promises that were made. The layers and layers of bureaucratic red tape alone is enough to give anyone "PTSD". I merely point them in the right direction and tell them what "i"s need dotted and what "t"s need crossing in the long drawn out process.

I have been helping one solider that served in the first gulf war and has an appeal of a rejected claim that has been open for 10 years without having any answer to an "original" appeal, hell, one could have requested an audience with the US Supreme court and gotten a quicker answer. It took 5 years to be granted a hearing on the appeal held in 03, and as of yet, no resolution to the minor point that was well within the veterans rights of request. The VA system is self contained and answers to no outside source, there are no time limits placed upon them, there is no mandated oversight, as even US Senators are informed that the legislative branch has no authority over the "executive" branch which establishes policy. This is why they did not want any attorneys introduced into the system, as the only representatives allowed until just recently was people such as myself that have taken a few courses on procedure. It's very frustrating at times. In fact I gave up my position within the DAV for just such a reason, they sided with the government in the fact of any need of "private" representation, i.e. Lawyers. I would much rather get 80% percent of some earned entitlement than 100% of NOTHING. I told one of the politically appointed suits in DC that if he fell from a window it would take him two weeks to hit the ground. As 90% of the supervisory staff have never "sniffed" a uniform and are politically appointed, just riding the backs of taxpayers, awaiting their retirement. It's just typical functions of the Government, they live by a completely different standard of time and non-empathic decision making than does the rest of the society. Enough ranting. But the whole system sucks in terms of efficiency, and now we are saddled with the very real possibility of this same government having control of our entire health care industry? All I can say is "good luck" if you have any serious illness that requires immediate attention. BD

Monday May 26, 2008
Twice In One Week: The White House Goes After The Media

First, the White House spoke out against NBC News and its editing of Richard Engel's interview with President George Bush.

And, today, the White House takes on the New York Times editorial page for its editorial, "Mr. Bush and the GI Bill."

From the White House statement:

Once again, the New York Times Editorial Board doesn't let the facts get in the way of expressing its vitriolic opinions - no matter how misleading they may be.

In today's editorial, "Mr. Bush and the GI Bill", the New York Times irresponsibly distorts President Bush's strong commitment to strengthening and expanding support for America's service members and their families.

This editorial could not be farther from the truth about the President's record of leadership on this issue. In his January 2008 State of the Union Address, while proposing a series of initiatives to support our military families, President Bush specifically called upon Congress to answer service members' request that they be able to transfer their GI Bill benefits to their spouses and children. In April, he sent a legislative package to the Hill that would expand access to childcare, create new authorities to appoint qualified spouses into civil service jobs, provide education opportunities and job training for military spouses, and allow our troops to transfer their unused education benefits to their spouses or children.

As Congress debates the best way to expand the existing GI Bill, Secretary Gates has laid out important guidelines to ensure that legislation meets our service members' needs and rewards military service. First, since our servicemen and women have regularly requested the ability to transfer their GI bill benefits to their family members, legislation should include transferability. Second, legislation should provide greater rewards for continued military service in the all volunteer force.

There are several GI bill proposals under consideration in both the House and Senate. The Department of Defense has specific concerns about legislation sponsored by Senator Webb because it lacks transferability and could negatively impact military retention.

The President specifically supports the GI Bill legislation expansion proposed by Senators Graham, Burr, and McCain because it allows for the transferability of education benefits and calibrates an increase in education benefits to time in the service.

Though readers of the New York Times editorial page wouldn't know it, President Bush looks forward to signing a GI bill that supports our troops and their families, and preserves the experience and skill of our forces.