The New York Post On Senator Obama's "GI Posturing"

For a good illustration of just how vulnerable Barack Obama apparently feels on national security, look no farther than the fight he picked with John McCain on the Senate floor last week. ... McCain, of course, has his reasons - most significantly, the fear that the measure would encourage battle-toughened soldiers and Marines not to re-enlist at a time when their skills are most needed. Not that this matters to Democrats in general - and Obama in particular - for whom veterans' compensation forms an all-too-convenient smokescreen to cover their utter lack of substantive ideas when it comes to the thing our troops care about the most. That's to say: victory." -- The New York Post

Bam's GI Posturing
Editorial
New York PostMay 25, 2008

For a good illustration of just how vulnerable Barack Obama apparently feels on national security, look no farther than the fight he picked with John McCain on the Senate floor last week.
Obama lashed out at McCain over the latter's opposition to an expansive, $52 billion benefit package for War on Terror vets. The bill would grant tuition assistance up to the cost of the most expensive in-state public college to any vet who's served at least three years since 9/11.
"I respect [McCain's] service to our country," Obama said, "but I can't understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI Bill."

McCain, of course, has his reasons - most significantly, the fear that the measure would encourage battle-toughened soldiers and Marines not to re-enlist at a time when their skills are most needed.

Not that this matters to Democrats in general - and Obama in particular - for whom veterans' compensation forms an all-too-convenient smokescreen to cover their utter lack of substantive ideas when it comes to the thing our troops care about the most.

That's to say: victory.

To be sure, partisan calculation isn't the whole story: The measure's co-sponsors, Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), are both Vietnam vets themselves.
But even so, some historical context is sorely needed.

The measure, which passed the Senate 75-22 as part of a broader war-funding bill, is explicitly modeled on the 1944 GI Bill - which also provided a free college education to returning veterans.
The difference being that that war effort required the mass conscription of millions of men called upon to sacrifice years of their lives - with none of the vast incentive system in place for those who join today's all-volunteer military.

The GI Bill, for instance, already offers tens of thousands of dollars for vets' college education, and re-enlistment bonuses can be equally generous - especially for service members with critical skills.

That's not to mention the world-class - and often-transferable-to-civilian-life - education American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines and women are getting on the job.

It goes without saying, of course, that Americans should always be vigilant in seeing that their troops are justly compensation for their sacrifices and service.

But the country's far beyond the point where veterans' compensation is fair game for a cheap political attack.

Or it should be.

So one wonders: Is Sen. Obama trying to compensate for something?

Read The New York Post Editorial