I didn't see it but I'm sure McCain cheated.

I did catch them! I would love for Iraq to reach the goals McCain's set out, but I also agree with Obama that being there stretches our military.

I think it's unfortunate that Republicans have the rep for being strong on defense. With our troops and resources stretched thin as they are, we are in a vulnerable position, in my opinion. Same with veteran care, we think of the GOP has the party of the military, but Obama actually has a stronger record on voting to fun veteran healthcare. (I don't get that from one site or opinion. I was talking about it with my mom yesterday and spent a good while googling McCain, Obama, and Veterans and checked out quite a few different organizations, but I'll post the link to one of the better sites I found in a separate comment.)

I'm surprised there's nothing in this post about Obama calling out McCain in his speech! He said,

"One of the things that we have to change in this country is the idea that people can't disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism. I have never suggested that Sen. McCain picks his positions on national security based on politics or personal ambition. I have not suggested it because I believe that he genuinely wants to serve America's national interest. Now, it's time for him to acknowledge that I want to do the same.
"Let me be clear: I will let no one question my love of this country,"

Here's the link I mentioned:
http://www.vawatchdog.org/08/nf08/nfJAN08/nf012108-1.htm

torgleson, Thanks for the link and the quote. I missed both speeches and only saw highlights from McCains.

Shifting positions?

McCain, in June of 2003, with even Fox News noting "many argue the conflict (in Iraq) isn't over":

"Well, then why was there a banner that said 'Mission Accomplished' on the aircraft carrier? Look, the - I have said a long time that reconstruction of Iraq would be a long, long, difficult process, BUT THE CONFLICT - THE MAJOR CONFLICT IS OVER, the regime change has been accomplished, and it's very appropriate."

McCain August 18, 2008:

“Both candidates in this election pledge to end this war and bring our troops home. The great difference — the great difference — is that I intend to win it first.”

Torg, I agree with your point about our military being stretched too thin. Long before we ever went to Iraq we had troops all over the world in places they didn't belong. I strongly believe our previous military interventions are partly to blame for the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. We need to bring our troops home from places like Korea and Saudi Arabia because it causes resentment and no benefit to us. It is not our right to be there.

Well-put, torg.

Did any of the veterans or anyone else get a chance to ask McCain about his opposition to the expanded GI Bill and its increase in benefits to veterans, particularly of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Torg, thanks so much for the link - I missed both speeches. And, I think you made some great points!

Correct me if I'm wrong but, I think McCain is now trying to take partial credit for the bill that was passed. Something about his objections helped to create a stronger bill.

He is. He said he opposed the original draft because it gave so many benefits to those who were is for, say, three years, that it didn't encourage people to stay in longer. Which I suppose is valid, but he has voted against the interest of veterans too many times in my opinion.

This is not the source I orginally read it at. I'll have to find that source later. But, this is the quote I was thinking of.

"As a political proposition, it would have much easier for me to have just signed on to what I considered flawed legislation. But the people of Arizona, and of all America, expect more from their representatives than that, and instead I sought a better bill. I’m proud to say that the result is a law that better serves our military, better serves military families, and better serves the interests of our country."

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/18/mccain-vfw-response/

He should be "trying to take partial credit" for the bill that was passed. He was very vocal on many of the provisions in it.

"I think McCain is now trying to take partial credit for the bill that was passed."

That is the impression I got as well. Not very nobel of him considering he was 1 of only 20-some Senators that did not support the bill.

Stephley, that is a good point as well. McCain was saying 5 YEARS ago that we had achieved victory! Not to mention his position on Afghanistan, which has switched. I don't understand how he can try and argue against preparing to leave, when the Iraqis themselves are calling for it. He used to say that when they asked us to leave, we would.

He was vocally AGAINST the bill that was passed. Why should he get credit for that?

He didn't support certain parts of the bill, but authored an alternative addition to the GI Bill. The bill that was eventually passed included provisions from both proposed bills.

It's hard for me to give him any credit when he didn't vote for it, but that's just me.

But the bill that was passed was not the bill that McCain supported.

"VFW’s deputy director for legislative affairs Eric Hilleman: The Graham-Burr-McCain plan is “very partisan and is seen as a way to convolute the GI bill, or to slow the Webb-Hagel proposal down.”

VFW National Commander George Lisicki: “People are leaving after their first enlistment because they are tired of being shot at, and their families are tired of the frequent deployments…Whether they stay in four years or 20, we owe this newest, greatest generation the gift of education.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/18/mccain-vfw-response/

"Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and his allies have released their own GI Bill to compete with the proposal laid out by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), which is supported by 56 co-sponsors. McCain’s bill would modestly enhance the existing GI Bill. But according to The Hill, Webb’s spokeswoman said that “McCain’s bill is more focused on career officers, not the entire volunteer military force,” giving the most benefits to those who serve 12 years or more in active duty (rather than those who signed up and have served since 9/11). McCain has stated that he opposes Webb’s more generous bill because of concerns it does not have “incentives for people to remain in the military.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/22/mccain-rolls-out-his-own-gi-bill/

Not to be rude, but I don't really consider Think Progress or Webb's staff objective sources on this. I wouldn't quote Fox News or McCain's staff in giving you info.

I can see where McCain is coming from, we want to encourage military careers, of course. But I think we do still owe those who don't make the military their career education and health care and mental health care. That should be separate from additional incentives for longer service.

Actually, he didn't vote on the bill at all. As Jill had mentioned about Obama voting "present" in an earlier post, McCain either doesn't vote or votes "present" when he disagrees with certain parts of a bill, but not the bill as a whole.

And he was vocally AGAINST portions for the bill, but he was vocally FOR other portions. Why shouldn't he get some sort of credit for the portions he was for?

I agree, torg, but I don't think opposing a particular bill means McCain wouldn't agree.

I know, that's what I said. He didn't vote for it. I don't understand taking credit for something you don't vote for, but again, just my opinion.

There were over 70 Senators, democrats and republicans, that voted FOR this bill. I think they deserve the credit for what it enabled, not the people that tried to block its passage.

Agreed, Torg. I know many people who entered the military in order to pay for college, since they had no other way. I also know many people who chose the military as their career. It would be reasonable to have additional benefits for those serving longer.

That was in reference to Jill, not you, torg. (#23)

I think he can be "for" the parts that he agreed with, and his vote doesn't change the stance on the issue, but I think it is silly to give him credit for consequences of legislation he vocally tried to defeat.

Well, I guess we disagree, Jill. Their are many bills that legislators only agree with certain portions of. I don't think that should mean that they shouldn't get credit for agreeing with the portions that they support.

>I agree, torg, but I don't think opposing a particular bill means McCain wouldn't agree.

It seems to me that by voting against the first G.I. bill and not voting on the final version because they didn't do enough to encourage long military careers, that he's not making care for returning troops a priority. But interpreting how a Senator votes is clearly a matter of opinion, and I'd imagine you disagree. Senate voting records are complex.

My complaint is that he claims his objections helped create the bill that was passed. That's not true

"instead I sought a better bill. I’m proud to say that the result is a law that better serves our military, better serves military families, and better serves the interests of our country."-John Mccain

And, to clarify, McCain can have points from me for supporting certain parts of the bill. I don't think he's against education or health care for returning troops or anything. I just don't think he should get any credit for that bill.

In reference to #31, I see how you could think that based on that one vote, but if you look into McCain's history and his plans (he has a lot of them detailed on his website), you will see that he is making care of the returning troops a priority. The portions of the bill that he objected to didn't have to do with health care. (Not that anyone is saying that, I just want to make it clear.) I know you referenced this in #33, I just wanted to state that he does have many plans for returning troops.

And, just to reiterate he did in fact support the bill in its final form. Many of the provisions in the final bill were things that he fought for. He knew that his vote wouldn't make or break the bill, however, and still didn't agree with some provisions so didn't vote on it.

But if you don't vote for a bill, you are not helping everything it contains get into law. If you support some of the parts of it, by not voting on it, you are preventing those portions from becoming law.

If he suppported the bill in its final form, why didn't he vote for it? The people that took the time to vote for it are the reason that veterans get these benefits now.

(I don't always see the numbers by the comments. Does anyone else get that?)

Jill, I have that problem in IE, but never in Firefox...

I always see the numbers, but I know other people have said they don't.

Anyway, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Like you said with Obama on the abortion thread yesterday, McCain doesn't vote "yes" when he thinks parts of the bill are "wrong," especially if he knows that the bill be pass without his "yes" vote. As you have stated several times, this bill had a lot of support, so McCain knew his vote wasn't needed. So, he knew he wasn't preventing the parts he supported from becoming law.

Oops...I meant "will be passed."

What were the problematic portions? Were they related to the benefits or were they riders?

And I can see the comparison to Obama's votes on abortion, though I generally think that's such a controversial topic it sort of gets its own rules.

"such a controversial topic it sort of gets its own rules."

Well isn't that convenient?

Well, I agree that it's not the same, but I was just using that because it was a recent topic we discussed on here. I'm sure you could apply the example to any number of "present" votes or lack of votes by any number of legislators from either party.

And the problematic portions were related in part to benefits. McCain's plan actually gave greater education benefits than the version that was eventually passed to those in the military longer, but fewer education benefits to those who are in the military for shorter amounts of time.

Anyway, I am off for the day. Hopefully someone else will come along to be the conservative voice!

Well, I'm saying it's not an area where most will compromise. I'd vote for a bill that I mostly agreed with on health care or defense spending. I'd probably not vote for a bill I mostly agreed with on abortion.

I'm absolutely sure y'all can find another example of a vote Obama would have a hard time explaining. : )

Hey Jill, are you using IE6 as your browser? That might be why you can't see the numbers.

In re: to McCain and the bill, I can see where he's coming from.

I agree it seems strange b/c he didn't vote for it, but I don't see it as a contradiction that he is assuming some credit for parts of the bill that he authored.

On a di