(Updated) Why Is John McCain So Determined To Sell Out Our Iraq & Afghan War Veterans?
John McCain has showed himself to be a welter of contradictions, but nowhere is this more apparent – and troubling – in how he repeatedly invokes his prisoner of war past to validate his righteousness while at the same time selling out today’s veterans.
This sell-out has taken several forms: Voting against increased funding for health care and education benefits, being absent for key votes on veterans’ issues, and working to undercut the progress the Veterans Administration has made in meeting veterans’ needs by pushing to privatizing its services.
McCain’s rationalizations are very much like the Bush administration’s own: Giving soldiers their due by enhancing educational and other benefits under a bipartisan bill that passed the Senate last week will encourage them to leave a military it has done so much to break, so lets force them to remain enlisted as long as possible if they can’t afford to attend an expensive four-year college until they have “earned” the right to do so on the government’s dime. (Ten Republican senators broke with Bush and McCain to give the bill a veto-proof margin.)
As if that isn’t coldly calculating enough, let’s treat the men and women who return home from Iraq and Afghanistan with problems not as humans who have sacrificed but like so many cost centers whose care should be downsized and outsourced to the lowest bidder, very often politically-connected administration cronies.
McCain’s contradiction is rather delicious insofar that it is another test of his fealty to Mr. Twenty Three Percent, who is both his albatross and link to the withered right-wing Republican base. In this instance he’s going with the prez and ruined an otherwise perfectly good Memorial Day (Observed) speech to rationalize why he is again selling out veterans who must fight anew to get decent physical and mental health care and educational and job opportunities.
There is an epidemic of suicides among these veterans and the shocking possibility that more will die by their own hands than did on the battlefield.
As it is, about 1,000 veterans try to take their lives each month by the VA’s own admission and upwards of 300,000 suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and other major forms of depression, but McCain doesn’t seem to notice.
I will not try to plumb McCain’s emotional depths. There is no question that he suffered greatly during five-plus years in a North Vietnamese POW camp.
But there must be some explanation for the disconnect between his own experience and the experiences of today’s vets. Why else would he not only not take the lead in advocating for them but instead put obstacles in their way?
McCain supporters expressed outrage when it was suggested earlier this month in a New York Times Magazine article that he did not experience the disillusionment of soldiers like John Kerry, Chuck Hagel and Jim Webb because he was locked away in the Hanoi Hilton for most of the war. The catharsis that these senators experienced on the battlefield and afterwards over the fundamental wrongness of the Vietnam War rather logically led them to oppose a war that McCain so slavishly embraces.
When McCain returned home he got a White House reception (small photo) and received the best care money could buy because he had been a POW and was the son and grandson of celebrated Navy admirals. (In fact, his father was my commanding officer during the war.)
There were specialists to help McCain heal his physical wounds and confront his mental demons. There were no long waits for care, no inadequate and shabbily maintained facilities or bureaucrats who saw his disabilities as detrimental to their bottom line. And there was never any question that he would be get a great job and otherwise make a soft landing in the civilian world.
Could it be that for all his experience John McCain has only the most tangential ties to today’s veterans and that selling them out is less a conscious choice than yet another example of where the presumptive Republican nominee is out of touch?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
43 Responses to “(Updated) Why Is John McCain So Determined To Sell Out Our Iraq & Afghan War Veterans?”
[...] Why Is John McCain Selling Out Our Vets? The Moderate Voice – USA John McCain has showed himself to be a welter of contradictions, but nowhere is this more apparent ? and troubling ? in how he repeatedly invokes his … See all stories on this topic [...]
Senator Obama had campaigned on free college for everyone. Who do the Democrats reconcile having an all-volunteer force while supporting free college for all?
Second, Senator Obama had voted consistently to limit the pay raises for the military to the same pay raises given to civil servants. How do the Democrats reconcile the idea of helping service members while giving people who sit in cubicles all day at the Social Security Administrations the same pay raises as guys in conveys in Iraq?
On the batllefield there are two types of soldiers.
Them that come home and suffer from ptsd and them that don't.
I think you have a Doctor here that probably knows more about this then I do but from what I have seen of life long friends who went to Vietnam and essentially saw the same bad stuff. Some are absolutely fine, having lived a decent productive life free of any at least outward symptoms of PTSD while others are pretty much messed up and have had a life long battle with the ill effects of that same battlefield.
I think John McCain falls into the latter. He seems to not have had any debilitating effects of his trauma. In other words he just got over it. His thinking probably goes along the lines of “NO one could have had it rougher then me and look how I turned out. Get over it.”
I know cause I've listened to my buddies say I just dont understand why it affects them so. I've listened to the others saying, people just don't realize how much this has messed me up.
I think it is why the government was so long in recognizing PTSD as a serious illness due to combat related exposure and why today it is difficult to diagnose without some timeline of history by the soldiers coming back.
In other words PTSD is an Illness that needs time to diagnose. It needs time for the Doctors to see behavior that reflects someone suffering PTSD. Its not like you can ask a few questions, take a few Xrays and diagnose PTSD the day after a traumatizing event. In many cases it takes, months and years for the real effects to ravage ones soul.
There is only one person in congress who literally votes on every piece of legislation like he preaches. Ron Paul. NO I am NOT a Ron Paul supporter but at least he is consistent. He votes NO on everything.
John McCain is trying to be a conservative while secretly a liberal. Its made him very confused as a politician. There is nothing confusing in his voting record. He works deals. He tries to be a consensus builder. His problem? Hes about as suave as a pig eating slop. Barak Obama just wishes he could be like McCain and in fact if Obama had a voting record and if it looked anything like McCains then I might give him the benefit of the doubt when he says he wants to get along.
One would almost reflexively expect the man with the war record to advocate more fervently for veterans than the man without the war record. Clearly in the case of McCain and Obama that isn't so. I expect we'll see this contrast brought more to light in the coming months… as well it should be.
Cite?
Again, care to even make an attempt to support that claim?
davebo,
For the pay, see http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3544833 that says The bill would boost military pay by 3.9 percent, a move that likely signals a similar pay increase for civilians next year.
For college: from barackobama.com
Obama will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Obama will also ensure that the tax credit is available to families at the time of enrollment by using prior year's tax data to deliver the credit when tuition is due.
Thanks Davebo for calling “Superdestroyer” to task to back up his allegations with facts. Superdestroyer's approach to super-destroy those of the opposing Party is so in-line with the Limbaugh-Coulter tactics.
Superdestroyer, you do realize that neither cite supports the claim you made.
You went from free college for everyone to a tax credit that will cover 2/3rd of tuition for those who qualify.
And from holding military pay raises to civilian ones to… well nothing really.
Talk about the silent bigotry of low expectations.
Neo=
“I think John McCain falls into the latter. He seems to not have had any debilitating effects of his trauma. In other words he just got over it. His thinking probably goes along the lines of “NO one could have had it rougher then me and look how I turned out. Get over it.”
Primarily because Poppa Sydney had gotten John the best care available,the best therapists around for treatment- added to that John was wooing Cindy ( while his then-wife suffered a tragic accident leaving her comatose) to jump on the Anheuser Busch wagon. Some veteran. I knew a vet from Nam who was a house painter. The guy drove a fuel truck in Da Nang-anybody who could do that deserves a shot at more than painting houses.
“Ace” McCain lost the US Navy 5 Planes- did he pay them back with Cindy's money? Don't think so.
“Doriancito,
You may want to look at http://hoyer.house.gov/newsroom/index.asp?ID=1103, keeping civilian pay increases the same as military pay increases has long been a policy of the Democratic party.
It is hard to say you really want to help the veterans when the people working in the federal buildings around L'enfant plaza are all getting the same pay raise as the military who are in Baghdad.
President Bush actually proposed giving the military a bigger pay raise than the civil servants but the Democratic majority will never go along with something like that.
davebo,
Since the Democrats favor giving civil servants the same pay raises as the military, the military has to make up the differences with reenlistment bonuses. The service members get more pay but it does not count toward retirement. See http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/05/military_…
Also, from what the generic news stories said, the G.I.Bill would be set for tuition at a state university in each state. That means it benefits a state like Mass. or Maryland with every high instate tuition but shorts states like Texas and California with lower instate tuition. However, I guess since the high tuition states are the blue states, they was part of the design.
[...] but nowhere is this more apparent ?? and troubling ?? in how he repeatedly invokes his prisonerhttp://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blogitics/19928/why-is-john-mccain-selling-out-our-vets/Longer lifespans, medical advances have zoos caring for more special-needs species Island PacketAt [...]
Again, lets stick to your original claim shall we. Obama isn't “The Democrats”. He's not responsible for instance, for what Steny Hoyer does, or Hillary, or any other democrat.
Keep digging. And also you're data on tuition rates in Texas is outdated. Currently college tuition rates at state universities in Texas are in the upper half of the national average.
davebo,
The media is making the proposed changes to service members benefits into an Obama Versus McCain. So people should evaluate what effect Senator Obama's policy proposals have on the all volunteer force. How will a massive increase in government entitlement affect recruiting and reenlistments? If you look at the Army Times article, every expansion of civil benefits will need to be match and exceeded by the military.
Please give a reference for your claim on in-state tuition rates. I looked for such a reference but it did not seem that easy to find.
Also, image one single payer health insurance would do for an all volunteer force. If a hippie bicycling around Moab gets the same healthcare as an active duty service member, fewer people would joint the military.
davebo,
I would one reference for instate tuition http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/c…
and Texas was in the bottom half. Not surprising, the top ten are all blue states. Once again, it the G.I. bill being setup as a subsidy for high tax states.
SD
In 2003, political leaders in Austin pushed through a tuition deregulation bill that gave control over college costs to university officials instead of elected state lawmakers who are accountable to taxpayers. I voted against that bill because I knew the inevitable result would be what we see today — countless South Texas families who can no longer afford to send their kids to college.
Tuition and fees have gone through the roof since the deregulation bill passed — up more than 38 percent at the University of Texas-Pan American, 59 percent at the University of Texas-Brownsville, 50 percent at the University of Texas-San Antonio, and 28 percent at Texas A&M-Corpus Christi. Costs at the University of Texas at Austin have more than doubled, according to recent news reports, which put the increase at 111 percent since 2003.
http://www.caller.com/news/2007/nov/21/moratori…
davebo,
If you look at http://www.hecb.wa.gov/research/issues/document…, page 5, it compares flagship universities. UT-Austin is in the top half. However, how many veterans would be attending UT-Austin versus UT-Arlington, North Texas, Houston, or US-San Antonio? They seem to be cheaper than UT-Austin as shown on page 5 of the reference.
I'm not sure what needs reconciliation here.
And you make free college for all sound almost criminal. It seems logical to me that a well educated country will do better economically than a dumb one.
Edit: And McCain is definitely full of it when it comes to “supporting the troops.” It's another shocking betrayal along the lines of his support for Bush's torture regime.
PTSD seems to affect those who witness or kill people close up. Fighter pilots don't see those who they kill/bomb. McCain also needs to appease the fiscal conservatives, forget about his band of brothers.
Bottom line is that McCain doesn't believe 3 years of active service (and more in active reserves) qualifies one for a free education.
Keep in mind we are talking minimum 2 12 month tours, and that's assuming you don't get stop lossed and that you don't make a tour during your active reserve period.
How did all of those WWII veterans survive PTSD? Must be some BS disease.
ChrisWWW,
The question is how will an all volunteer force exist while entitlements are increasing.
When people joint the military, they get health care, tuition assistance on active duty, the G.I. Bill, tax free housing and food allowances, they do not pay incomes taxes while in SWA, and they get other bonuses. When everyone gets money to go to college, free health care, and a government job, why would anyone joint the military?
The progressive movement wants to make much of adult life an entitlement. Why would anyone make hard choices when the their standard of living is unaffected by their decisions.
Audie Murphy suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after his return from the war.[2][3] He was plagued by insomnia, bouts of depression, and nightmares related to his numerous battles.[2] His first wife, Wanda Hendrix, often talked of his struggle with this condition, even claiming that he had at one time held her at gunpoint. For a time during the mid-1960s, he became dependent on doctor-prescribed sleeping pills called Placidyl.[2] When he recognized that he had become addicted to the drug, he locked himself in a motel room where he took himself off the pills, going through withdrawal for a week.[2]
Always an advocate of the needs of America's military veterans, Murphy eventually broke the taboo about publicly discussing war-related mental conditions. In an effort to draw attention to the problems of returning Korean and Vietnam War veterans, Murphy spoke out candidly about his own problems with PTSD, known then and during World War II as “battle fatigue”[2] and also commonly known as “shell shock.” He called on the United States government to give increased consideration and study to the emotional impact that combat experiences have on veterans, and to extend health care benefits to address PTSD and other mental-health problems suffered by returning war veterans
Then again, everyone knows Audie Murphy was just a wimp trying to get federall freebies.
Wow McCain wanrs to tie in the amout of assistance to length of service. That Bastard!!! Really though whats wrong with that? sounds reasonable on it's face. Others may disagree or have what they believe is a better plan but to say that it's a sell out is disgusting and amoral. It seems to be not about about the issue but politics and how someone can twist and warp an issue and it's wrong. This garbage is what's screewing politics up as much or more than anything.
God knows you caint care about something if you don't throw unlimmited amouts of govt money at it. Hey! See Bush does really care about the people of Iraq!
In 2005, he voted in favor of an amendment to provide an additional $500 million for veterans' mental health care for each year between 2006 and 2010. McCain voted for the successful passage of H.R. 2528 in 2005, which provided funding for veterans' benefits and service for FY 2006. He voted in favor of an amendment in 2004 (S. Amdt. 3409) proposing a guarantee of funding increases for veterans' health care adjusted for inflation and population increases. Also in 2001, he voted in favor of a yearly increase of $1.718 billion in discretionary funding for veterans' health care, That bastard!!!
The proper word is welfare not entitlement.
But anyways, you fill the ranks of a “volunteer” force by paying them. If free college isn't enough, then you just give them more money.
You're living in some perverse world where we should not educate our people because it threatens the size of our standing army.
So what is the argument against a sliding scale that rewards reenlistees at a higher level than those who serve one term of enrollment? The Pentagon's position is that the training costs are so high that there's already a huge investment in each recruit. I'm certainly sympathetic to the idea that veterans should be amply rewarded, but I can understand too the need to increase retention and reward those who make even greater sacrifice.
CS – Serving one term could mean a death sentence. When soldiers risk their lives, how does one quantify their investment. Should a logistics/quatermaster MOS be treated equal to a demoliution MOS?
I think there's a reasonable discussion in that, Rudi, but how do you quantify the risks? And I think that some people will feel that a three year commitment in wartime warrants the higher education benefits, and that's reasonable too- but what's not intellectually honest is to misrepresent the opposition to the Webb bill and to ignore the investment costs and need for retention as well as recruitment.
Personally I think I'd favor a compromise of the two approaches- make the benefits more generous for the one termers (esp to bring the benefits more in line with current costs for college) but only offer the 100% package to reenlistees.
And it's interesting that you brought up the risk of death, because from what I understand the education benefits in the Webb bill aren't transferrable while the alternative bill that Graham floated does allow those benefits to transfer to spouse or child- so in that sense, it actually takes into account the potential sacrifice of life; while there's no way to put a price on that, shouldn't the surviving family members receive the benefit of education? I'm having trouble verifying the facts about that, so correct me with links if I'm wrong (or maybe there's some other existing benefit that kicks into effect in the event of death?)
The anti-war stuff gets old. And everyone with an IQ above fifty (granted, that leaves quite a few Dem voters ripe for exploitation) knows McCain is no clone of Bush, and that little to none of the typical anti-war stuff regarding Iraq or in the past regarding Vietnam was honorable or sensible. And why the low-level emotive choice of “selling out” rather than “shortchanging,” assuming even the second term really is appropriate?
Anything to see Obama, the anti-warriors' Messiah, win, right? [sigh]
* * *
“How did all of those WWII veterans survive PTSD? Must be some BS disease.”
A major cause of “PTSD” is experiencing killing. If you were to read one book on the subject, “On Killing” by Grossman (he has a Web site, killology.com where you can read more) he describes how in World War II, for example, people traveled home over days to weeks aboard ships, not rapidly home right after combat, and they had time to talk things through, “decompress,” resolve better if at times by no other means than counseling each other the effects of their exposure to killing — not only if they killed other people (which is traumatic) but saw their comrades killed.
The “traumatic stress” is at shock level. Would you rush to disparage a woman's emotional and behavioral debilitation, perhaps with classic “flashback” recollections, weeks, months, or years after being raped?
Those of you who have visited this site for a while should recall T-Steel's story about the gangland “enforcer” who could stomach nearly everything except killing.
“how someone can twist and warp an issue”
Oh, it was no surprise that Bush was blamed on this site for Benazir Bhutto's assassination — n a t u r a l l y . . .
“And everyone with an IQ above fifty (granted, that leaves quite a few Dem voters ripe for exploitation)…”
– DLS
Have some class. Anyone can throw around those kinds of insults. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean you have to categorically insult the intelligence of a large segment of the US poplulation.
I'm confused about where this debate is leasing.
Are we rewarding service with this bill or buying pseudo-patriotism?
i make this FALSE dichotomy only to point out that debating ways and means does tend to divert attention from goals or to move the goalposts.
Back when the Iraq war itself was debated in its beginning stages, the proposition that volunteerism was ttargteed on the economically disadvantaged was met by hoots and hollers. Remember how Kerry was attakced? Experience has changed the picture and the argument by now. Lowering admission standards and increasing bonuses have brought it back into the economic class area.
I wonder, then, at what point does this change into a sublle form of draft, after all.
I know there are exceptions and counter arguments, btw, so don't bother piling on about that.
Still, is there a ever a point whene bribing for reenlistment is not okay? I would think that capping the benefits at the enfd of the first term would settle that question. The person would then have a clear, uncoerced choice. That,, to me, seems llike the least we can do for someone who has allready served his coountry with more at risk than most will ever dream of.
While, again, making allowances for exceptions and nuances, there is something coercive about the benefits-for-reinlistment approach.
If we're to have a volunteer military, then let it be voluntary!
“Have some class.”
I'll prod those deserving of it any time I choose. Pretty ironic words of yours given so much Bush-bashing and other febrile stuff that is correctly deserving of them, instead.
“Just because you don't agree with someone”
Superficial.
My words are chosen for definite purposes. In fact, it's not even so much the factual errors or delusions when I encounter these that move most of my harsher words, not even poor content, but the classless style (and what they may expose, reveal, if not merely imply).
McCain is no Bush clone, not another Bush, and being rabid and truly classless about either man (or about anyone in the way of Obama or another anti-war PC darling candidate on the Dem side) is a legitimate target.
“While, again, making allowances for exceptions and nuances, there is something coercive about the benefits-for-enlistment approach.
If we're to have a volunteer military, then let it be voluntary!”
Yeah and there is something coercive about work for pay too because they should do it just for the love of country right? Give me a break! Why shouldn't the military be like every other employer out there? When do you get fully vested in your 401? Do you get increasing vacation and bonuses? Why shouldn't the military be at least slightly competitive? I know many people in and who have gotten out and all are proud to have served, but they still had bills and families. It isn't one or the other. It isn't risk death for collage. It's getting help with collage while doing something that you want to do. If this was peace corp offering a tuition package connected to time of service would it be an issue? Of course not because that is something to respect, the military is something people must be bribed and tricked into joining.
ChrisWWW
There is a maximum that military pay can be increased because Steny Hoyer, Democratic Majority leader will never let the military pay increase be greater than the civl service pay increase.
Also, in reading about the new G.I. Bill it can be interpreted that it will reduce bonuses to fund the new educational opprotunities. If they is what is occuring, it is a very bad idea. Remember, many service members never use their G.I.Bill benefits. Also, universities have a bad habit of just reducing any other financial aid pack by the amount in the G.I. Bill so that it works out being a wash for the veteran.
You should always look for the hidden agenda. Senator Webb represents more civil servants than he does service members. He is getting the civil servants a higher pay increase as part of the Defense funding bill.
there is something coercive about work for pay too”
Yes, and that's why we try to disintguish between work-for-pay and exploitation..
As i said, I'm still thinking about this, but it's not nearly as clear to me as it is to some others.
It just looks too much like a back door draft, when an economic class of people is targated. It may work out, but then I'm back to thinking about our emerging class system: the warrior class, and the cheap-labor class sustaining the whole pyramid.
The idea used to be that a laborer could work himself out of his class atnd up to a higher level.
Shouldn't the same opportunity be given to the military? How much service time is enough ime to earn an education and upward mobility?
The answer has to be pragmatic, I agree. Pragamtism doesn't require one to act blindly, though, There should be full awareness of what it iis we are doing. I'm just not sure where we are heading,. I wouldn't like it to be cynicism.
[...] The Huffington Post News Editors wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptWhen McCain returned home he got a White House reception (right) and received the best care money could buy because he had been a POW and was the son and grandson of celebrated Navy admirals. (In fact, his father was my commanding … [...]
runasim,
There are many careers that the rich have abandon: Law Enforcement, teaching, nursing, almost all of healthcare, industrial base (running production facilities). The rich seem to limit themselves to jobs in law, finance, the media.
The military is actually one of the best places for blue collar and lower middle class to work themselves into a higher class. The military is an organization were hard working people can move up in the organization. The military gives tuition assistance to people on active duty and is a place where a 25 y/o will be given much more responsibility than in most of the private sector. Most senior NCO have college degrees and even graduate degrees. Many hard working enlistees get a college degree and become officers. It is much easier for an individual from blue collar rural or exurb America to move up in th e military than trying to do it on Wall Street, K Street, or in LA.
[...] CalperniaUSA wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptWhen McCain returned home he got a White House reception (small photo) and received the best care money could buy because he had been a POW and was the son and grandson of celebrated Navy admirals. (In fact, his father was my commanding … [...]
“The military is actually one of the best places for blue collar and lower middle class to work themselves into a higher class”
———————————————————————————T
That's a very tone deaf way of stating the case. for the military.
Improve your life, if you manage to have one at the end of the contract! !
Get an education, if you still have a functioning brain!
Some sales pitches are so dumb, they drive ustomers away in droves.
Wait a minute- I read that article on Steny Hoyer's site and it said “Federal pay parity is a long-standing, bipartisan-supported principle…”, etc. Not a long-standing Democratic principle.
Do you really think that the Democratic majority leader cares at all about bipartisanship. His district has one of the highest concentrations of federal government civil servants. He will do whatever helps them. When the Repubicans were inthe majority, they proposed a higher pay raise for the military. Hoyer was against it. The Repubicans who wanted pay parity were Tom Davis who is now a political has been and whose seat will soon be a safe Democratic seat. Davis also had a high percentage of civil servants.
runasim,
Colin Powell attended City College in NYC. If not for the military no one would know his name and his son would not have been chair of the FCC. It has been stated that being a Marine Officer is an easy way to being a corporate officer than going to an Ivy league university.