CBS' Reid repeated McCain's statement that Obama "impugn[ed]" his motives over GI bill, did not note McCain impugned Obama's motives
SUMMARY: In a report about a back-and-forth between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain over a recently passed GI bill, CBS' Chip Reid uncritically quoted from a McCain statement, in which McCain stated that, instead of "tak[ing] the time and trouble to understand this issue," Obama "prefers impugning the motives of his opponent." But, in the same statement, McCain himself impugned Obama's motives.
On the May 22 edition of the CBS Evening News, during a report about a back-and-forth between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain over a recently passed GI bill expanding benefits for veterans, CBS News Capitol Hill correspondent Chip Reid aired a clip of Obama saying of McCain: "I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans." Reid then noted that McCain, in a written statement, said of Obama's remarks: "[I]f Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue, he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent." However, Reid did not mention that, in the same statement, McCain himself impugned Obama's motives. Indeed, in a portion of McCain's remarks that Reid did not quote, McCain stated: "Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim."
From McCain's May 22 statement:
It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of. Let me say first in response to Senator Obama, running for President is different than serving as President. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim.
[...]
Perhaps, if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as President, the country would regret his election.
From the May 22 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
[video clip]
REID: Obama also put McCain on the defensive today for opposing a bill to pay college costs of troops returning from war.
OBAMA: I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans.
REID: McCain, who supports a less expensive version of the bill, fired off a blistering response. "If Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue, he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully," McCain said. "But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent."
[end video clip]
REID: Now, McCain may get a bit of a respite over the Memorial Day holiday. He's going home to his ranch in Arizona, but three of his guests are possible running mates, which proves yet again that politics never takes a holiday -- Katie.
KATIE COURIC (anchor): All right, Chip Reid. Chip, thanks so much.
McCain wore the uniform and served honorably. Somehow I don't think that this is a debate that Obama really wants to have.
And McCain the senator is a completely different person than Mccain the NAVY pilot.
You see..McCain flip-flopped yet again. ;>)
People who are now 80 could have easily fought in WW II.
McCain is almost 72.
McCain is almost 72.
So he says...but you know how he lies. ;>)
Kyle,
My heartfelt appreciation to your grandpa for partaking in that epic battle. As an aside, does he ever talk about it? I've seen accounts about it on TV and I can't imagine how difficult that must have been.
My point was simply that your point of McCain being a few years younger, as snarky as it was, was a little off. McCain would have been 9 at the time.
I realize this all started with a toss off line. However it is very interesting to learn about your grandfather. He is a hero in my book.
Thanks, AA. My Grandpa didn't talk much about his service when I was growing up, but lately he has been telling more fascinating stories and sharing his experiences with family & friends. Clearly, these memories are difficult for him, as he was on or near the front line for a large portion of the battle. Any time we ask if he ever shot/killed any Axis soldiers, he always replies 'I never stopped to look'. Also, he likes to show off a gun that he swiped off a fallen Italian soldier, and some really cool maps.
Anyways - you're right, I was being snarky. All too often, I find myself coming to these forums to blow off steam, and snarkiness and sarcasm tend to manifest themselves in my venting frustration.
Kyle,
Snarkiness is not a problem in my book. I revert to it often. :-)
Your story of your grandfather is amazing!
To get further off the subject, I remember as a young boy an old neighbor lady recounting to me how her father fought in the Civil War. I remember watching Spanish American War and the other Vets at the local Memorial Day Parade. We'd follow the procession to the Memorial Park to hear the 21 gun salutes.
Kyle,
You probably missed it but McCain supported the President's version, without all the extra billions porked on by the Democrats.
It is obvious McCain stayed away so he wouldn't be looking at defending a 'no' vote. Kerry's for-it-before-against-it gaffe taught McCain something.
That line of reasoning is flawed. The GAO says it would reduce retention by about 1% for every $10,000 spent on educational benefits. HOWEVER, it would increase recruitment by the same amount.
In addition, the original GI Bill paid back dividends at the rate of $7 for each $1 spent. So it really is a good investment, and the slight dip in retention is completely made up by additional recruitment.
McSlime thinks that a college education is what is making people get out? How about stop-loss? How about 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 tours of duty in a combat zone with no down time? How about their families on food stamps? Ever think that's maybe why they are getting out? Duh!
Actually, that "pork" as you phrased it included a 3.9% raise for the troops - Bush is going to veto that because it is "unnecessary". Another champion of supporting the troops.
More of the "pork" includes additional funding for the VA - more support for the troops...
Beware of using labels that are derogatory - you fall into a trap when you don't know what they mean. In this case - "pork" means anything the Dems want to spend money on that the Reps don't like. And in this case - it seems to be the veterans and soldiers needs are considered pork.
Speaking as a veteran - hogwash.
AA, he voted present something like 12 times out of the over 4000 votes cast during his time in the Illinois Senate. And it was strictly for strategic purposes.
And at least he bothered to show up...
That was my point. It looks to me that McCain's absence in this vote was strategic.
I think McCain's attendance in the Senate is fair game. Have at it.
"That was my point. It looks to me that McCain's absence in this vote was strategic."
No, McCain's absence was a statement of the fact that he has total CONTEMPT for veterans, past and present.
North Dakota's premiere liberal/progressive talker Ed Schultz http://www.wegoted.com pointed out today that Liar McCain has voted against funding for veterans' benefits since 9-11.
AA,
How many times has Obama missed an Iraq/vets bill while in the U.S. Senate?
Fried,
Dunno. Do tell.
John McCain has missed 346 votes (60.0%) during the current Congress. See a list of his missed votes since 1991
Barack Obama has missed 241 votes (41.8%) during the current Congress. See a list of his missed votes since 1991
Now y'all can see for yourselves!
"So I guess Chip Reid is on the McCain Campaign also."
You said it, I didn't. It's clear that Reid's a right wing conservative Republican seeking to give an assist/cover to Liar McCain.
FYI: Progressive Talker Ed Schultz http://www.wegoted.com noted that Liar McCain has voted against veterans' benefits funding since 9-11. I shudder to think the level of Liar McCain's anti-veterans benefits votes BEFORE 9-11.
Maybe Grampy should explain why this bill was such a bad idea instead of making stuff up about his opponent.
While on the surface this bill does seem generous, and it may have the effect of helping recruitment in the short term, it's long term effects will be detrimental to the Armed Forces.
The services incur costs of retention bonuses, enlistment bonuses, advertising ect...
It's a bad bill because as service members take advantage of the higher education benefits more will leave the service as opposed to re-enlisting. You would then need to offer even more incentives to keep the drain of experienced soldiers and sailors.
This is why the Pentagon and McCain do not support bill S.22.
It'll never happen, but if it did, we'd be out of Iraq in two weeks.
I agree! Can't you just see Chelsea C. in army green marching in formation.
I think the Gore Girls would look better in Navy Whites though. What an image. The Gore Girls on the USS Ronald Reagan, steaming away with 6000 other seamen.
http://www.reagan.navy.mil/
(By the way, sons and daughters aren't property and should make up their own mind about this debacle...I think most of them have.)
Kyle,
I don't think I'd support the draft as it was used in WWII and Vietnam, but I would support some kind of two year mandatory service whether it be in the armed forces or even the peace corps.
As far as the AS's you could put the mandatory two yr folks in support roles (clerks, admin, ect..) that would free up volunteers for tactical and combat arms roles.
I've seen the left lament on the relatively small number of people that openly oppose this war (as in 60's style protests) and why there isn't more campus activism. I'd guess that if there was a true Draft circa '68-69 we'd be out of the middle east like a shot.
that would free up volunteers for tactical and combat arms roles.
In a pigs eye that'll happen - there's too much profiteering to be had with the contractors to bring in "free" labor.
Give me a break - our country can be defended just fine without a 2-year minimum service. And don't you think the wealthy and powerful will find a way out of this?
It's a bad bill because as service members take advantage of the higher education benefits more will leave the service as opposed to re-enlisting.
So, in effect, the GI bill is actually for the benefit of maintaining the Armed Services generally and not for individual veterans?
Irony 101 posted:
"So, in effect, the GI bill is actually for the benefit of maintaining the Armed Services generally and not for individual veterans?"
It didn't start out that way Irony, but I think that is what it's morphed into. With an all volunteer military you have to have incentives to attract and maintain the force. I don't think it's unfair and it is a delicate balance.
Hmmm... and if these soldiers are joining the military for the 'incentives' (and leaving when incentives to do so are removed) then are they truly volunteers?
"According to Sean Hannity they all enlisted just to fight the terrorists in Iraq."
This is the flag-scamming chickenhawk Liar Sean Hannity who himself refused to join the military and fight in Desert Storm 17 years ago.
Chickenhawk Hannity, and other chickenhawk cons, yell the chickenhawk chant "Hell, no, you all go!"
Kyle posted:
"Hmmm... and if these soldiers are joining the military for the 'incentives' (and leaving when incentives to do so are removed) then are they truly volunteers?"
__________________________________________
People join the Armed Services for a myriad of reasons. Patriotism, higher education benefits, and sense of duty just to name a few. The Pentagon keeps data on this sort of thing and a little research will probably give you a more definitive answer.
Also incentives are not removed. The GI bill has been around in one way shape or form since '46. Not every service member takes advantage of the GI Bill. It is a voluntary program.
I don't see how you could not call the force "volunteers" at all?
take advantage of the higher education benefits more will leave the service as opposed to re-enlisting. Hog
Good - the fewer enlisted soldiers, the better. That's double the savings: a reduced miliatary budget as well as saving lives. That would also put a crimp in the ol' pre-emptive war crapola.
Your argument has the advantage of sounding like it could be true, but it has the disadvantage of not actually being true.
Since 75% of enlistees get out after their first enlistment already, how much more is to be expected from this bill and why would it be such a drain on the military? McCain and the Pentagon have no numbers on what the new percentage will be, 76%, 78%? Even if that were the case, how is that so drastically different from 75%? And what about the increase in recruiting from this incentive? Is that not likely to offset any possible decrease in reenlistment? Nobody has ever answered these questions because they have no plausible answers to them.
Jaws, please tell me you're not this naive?
Here is some reading that will get you up to speed:
http://www.armytimes.com/careers/military_careers/ONLINE.nt.REENLIST/
http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/1-292925-954557.php
Please back up your data with some credible links please.
Jawill also posted:
"Is that not likely to offset any possible decrease in reenlistment? Nobody has ever answered these questions because they have no plausible answers to them. "
_______________________________________
Read my above post again. You are correct it will help in the SHORT TERM. The Army is only 233 yr old. I think they have a few answers for you if you'd do a little research.
Actually, the GAO has done the math on this. There is a 1% drop in retention for every $10,000 in educational benefits. There is also a 1% increase in recruitment. So the whole exercise is a wash.
The baloney about it hurting the force strength is just that, baloney.
The GAO reports that retention drops 1% for every $10,000 spent on an educational benefit - and that is completely made up by a 1% gain in recruitment. Net Wash.
The argument is specious and disengenuous. We have plenty of money to give Haliburton (actually did you hear that the Pentagon is looking for $15 billion that is missing? Yes, missing) and others for a job not done - but no money for troops who in some cases have served 4 or 5 or 6 tours of duty already. I'm sorry - this is a pack of crap.
The original GI bill did not say you had to be in for zillions of years. You served one standard enlistment and that was it. Period. The original GI Bill returned $7 for every $1 spent and everyone agreed it was the best investment in people our government had ever made. So what's the problem now? McSlime has been saying that this war is not like WWII. He's right, it's not - this one was a choice and we were lied to about the reasons for it. But that's no reason to penalize the soldiers who are over there getting shot at and blown up every day.
....a convenient campaign pledge
Well that could be said of every politician in every election.
How many times have we bought into some pledge or promise?
Me? I don't believe any of them.
All this talk about high reenlistment or low reenlistment because of benifits is just stupid. These kids have gone over there and served their country. They deserve as a good a veterans package as we can give. Hurts reenlistment. GIVE ME A BREAK! Its just another example of how the right wing SAYS they support the Troops, but its just lip sevice. Reenlistment, give me a break.