... because if we wanted ranting and ravings from the looney left we would not go to the flagship of all newspapers, we would go to the mothership of all loons - Moveon.org.
The NY Times posted an editorial on May 26, 2008 that contained the following:
President Bush opposes a new G.I. Bill of Rights. He worries that if the traditional path to college for service members since World War II is improved and expanded for the post-9/11 generation, too many people will take it. He is wrong, but at least he is consistent. Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers’ lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break. So lavish with other people’s sacrifices, so reckless in pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq, Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home.
You are liars and purveyors of manipulation and distortions. I often wonder whether you understand that what you write is a lie or whether you believe it to your core despite the facts to the contrary. Why do people not buy your paper, why are they dropping you like flies - its isn't the internet, for that explains only 16% of your drop over the last year ... the other 8% cannot be accounted for, but I would suggest it is easy to follow - 8% can't stand your blatant bias.
It would make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to believe that Bush would deprive the servicemen and women of access to funds to pay for college in order to keep them trapped in the army. So John Kerry of you.
I will have to inform the dozen or more students I have and have had and tell them they aren't getting more money - well, as it is, I believe the amount is over $35,000 to be used within 10 years. I suppose, from your outburst that Bush must want to abolish the program and eliminate that funding! He must be for the NY Times to publish an editorial attacking the president. Must. ?? Yes?
What if I wanted to embarrass the president so I wrote a bill in which the soldiers funds $35,000 are not held by the soldier in the event of his death, and instead transferred to a general fund that congress can access. After all, the military secures its funding from congress and congress must reauthorize the bill, but so much money and congress likes to control funding so ... attach a rider to a bill that deprives veterans of transferability of funds, and then attach the bill as a rider to another bill - send it to the president who will veto it. NOT because it increases moneys to veterans, but rather because they lose control of the funds in the event of death or other incidents ... so he veto's it, and then the NY Times screams about how he doesn't care about the military. Isn't that such a neat and cozy image.
Except it isn't true and I would expect the editorial board at the NY Times to be able to grapple with complex thoughts and ideas. Apparently not.
The president has proposed a whole slew of ideas and bills for the military and veterans. The chief issue members of the armed services raised was the ability to transfer the funds from service member to spouse and child. The president sent that initiative to the congress to debate. Further, proposals to provide better funding for those members who remain in the military. unlike the NY Times that despises our military, the president would like to provide them with greater benefits for serving their country. This is what the NY Times finds so appalling - to trap them in the cycle of death and army. That is unfortunately how the NY Times regards those men and women who serve in our armed forces - like Kerry, trapped by Bush.
And the Democrats picked up on this, attached the bill for payments to another the Democrats wanted passed and the president vetoed it. Nothing to do with veterans. This administration has repeatedly increased funding for hospitals, medicines, therapy, and other benefits for our veterans despite the lies to the contrary. The veto had nothing to do with the GI Bill and you, at the NY Times, should be deeply ashamed, although I fear you have no conscience to enable shame.
The NY Times has done nothing but attack the president personally - a whole series of ad hominem attacks in the editorial, but it has to be doesn't it? One of the remaining vestiges Bush holds is the mantle of national security and the military. Strip that away and you will have disembodied the man from the office. So, the NY Times has become the hatchet man for the Democratic party and this editorial is proof.
.
Posts
