I still don't get you. Seems to me that someone who's served in the military would be the first to step up when they see the military being treated unfairly at best and like fodder at worse. People like Wesley Clark and Jon Soltz.

But in this case, you seem willing to allow McCain to do some political grandstanding on a bill that already has 55 votes in the Senate.

Maybe I missed it, but I have yet to see a post of your's that voices any kind of frustration at how our troops are treated.

From Walter Reed, to Haliburton, to the story this week that some of the missing funds that we have sent to Iraq have made their way into militias hands so they can buy weapons.....and the list goes on and on....



>What people? The people who don't bother to research?
>
>http://www.dailypress.com/news/nationworld/dp-now-webbmccain.0415,0,5616790.story
>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=4652517&page=1
>
>I have read messages here on the UT where Dems have received support for not signing or supporting bills when their primary reason was that they wanted a slightly different, better bill (in their opinion). Perhaps they wanted more time, additional constraints or conditions, removal of items, or whatever suited their fancy. We could start with the Columbian trade agreement and then there are many more that could be listed. Funny that the same allowance is not allowed the Repubs.
>
>
>>Another circular argument. We have to stay in Iraq because they fight us. Ignoring even govt reports that say they fight us because we are there:
>>
>>http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/15/relying-on-bogus-argument-mccain-opposes-new-gi-bill/
>>
>>And people are still trying to figure out why McCain will not sign onto Webb's GI Bill.