The reason Bush (in his own words) plans on Vetoing this bill is ,

The President has threatened on multiple occasions to veto the emergency supplemental if it includes war timelines or other policy restrictions, or if it goes over his arbitrary budget cap. The Administration has also expressed objections to the GI Bill based on concerns about retention -- basically, they believe that if a GI Bill benefit is too good, it'll reward veterans too richly for their service and draw them away from re-enlisting. http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/86306/

And McCain is once again in step with him,

The Arizona senator opposes the scholarship measure, as does the Pentagon, because it applies to people who serve just three years. He fears that would encourage people to leave the military after only one enlistment even as the U.S. fights two wars and is trying to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps. http://asia.news.yahoo.com/080524/ap/d90s35h00.html

And if you go here,

http://www.military.com/news/article/senate-passes-webb-gi-bill.html?wh=wh

You'll see the same reasons as given by Senator Graham,


The benefit, approved by the House last week, is tailored to roughly match the original GI bill, which financed the college educations of more than 7 million World War II veterans.

Graham contended that would give thousands of troops needed in the war on terrorism a new incentive to leave the military.

"I am not going to sit on the sidelines and, under feel-good politics, create a new program that will result in hurting retention at a time when America desperately needs to increase the ability to retain this force," he said.

Reality is sad, but the good news is that they have enough votes to override a Bush Veto this time!!!

The bad thing though is by the way I am understanding it, and I pray I am wrong, is that anyone who served prior to 9/11 will not recieve the benefits of the change. So someone like myelf, who got out two years prior to 9/11, who is coming up on his ten year cap i nless than a year, will still lose all benefits because they could not take time away from caring for their family, or whatever, to use the benefits.

I agree with reinstiuting the draft. Let us get it on the books and over with. I do not agree with these same benefits being extended to any military past of present without doing at least one combat tour. Sorry, but if you weren't rotated into a combat zone the same benefits should not be offered to you as one who has take fire.

ok, what aboutthose that stayed out of fire, because they were serving in a non-deployable hospital, caring for those that came back from the war? Just as an example of course. Every single job in the military goes to assist those in combat in one way or anohter, wether they are in it or not.

Well thats a perfectly legit reason to go against the bill. Maybe they would prefer 5 yrs or service or w/e. This war isn't like WWII. We only have about a 4% mortality rate. And about 42k die from car accidents a year with about 60% of our pop driving would be around 2.3% so the wars death rate isn't even twice of what it is to drive a car.

Now don't get me wrong. I am not choosing sides. I am merely saying the opinion of the other side is valid. Because of our advanced technology, war is not as dangerous as it use to be. It still is dangerous, but we take every precaution to keep our people safe.

Fanta I applaud that you found the facts, stated them, and then said you disagreed with them. Too few people actually do that anymore. They may know whats going on, but others who read the posts dont and they don't get the full perspective of things so they can make their own opinion.

People who have never been under fire will never understand. The majority of r.e.m.f.'s should not get a golden egg. If your support job in the military brings you into direct fire with the enemy, then yes you should. If you are safely tucked away in another country, or so far behind lines (which this war really does not have) then no. I thought you said you were in a combat situation? I am trying to think what active duty army deployment there was to a hostile zone between 93 and 99.

This comment sounds like it came from a person who has never even served. Let alone in a combat Zone.
Vets dont forget their brothers no matter where they served.
If you press it with me Rob. I will get very nasty.
I will make one more post to you about this to try and explain my feelings nicely, and then.......

There were others before 9/11 that served in a combat Zone Rob, like Panama, Granada, Lebanon, Desert Storm, etc. Do you think you are that exclusive or special? I understand the bill would never reach approval by considering all Vets.

I support this bill not for me, but for my brothers. So that they may have better. What you are suggesting would leave out a lot of post 9/11 vets as well.

What about the Navy? Are they considered as serving in a combat Zone? Its not as if the Iraqi insurgents have a Navy capable of qualifying them does it? And What about the AF pilots and personnel who serve out of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other bases? Its not like the Insurgents have an AF either? Then there are those serving in S Korea and Europe. Not to mention the ones in Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo. That has yet to be declared a combat Zone.

Don't you think your statement is a little selfish?

Please rethink your post!
I am not going to post here again for awhile for I know it will lead to comments by me that will result in me being banned!

You arrogant sob. I could care less if you are friendly or nasty with me, lol. So nice of you to decide your opinion carries so much more weight than mine. Fire away all you want, you will not affect my mood, direction, or line of thinking. Have a great day Fanta, I have my dd-214, my ribbons, and my medals, I could care less what you think of my terms of service.

I do not believe I am special in any way. I do not claim any benefits at all, though I could. I know about grenada, panama, etc, but they were not between 93-99, were they? Sorry you do not agree with the fact that people who are in direct fire regions deserve benefits above, and beyond those who were support. People who pull a trigger are far more likely to suffer long term psychological efects that often increase over time. I ask nothing for myself, nor will I ever accept benefits because they are there for those who need them, and I do not, nor will I ever. So no please continue with your hateful, nasty post you are preparing for me, it just serves to appease your own arrogance, and agenda as you do not agree with my stance. Fire away brother man

The bill that passed was,according to Jim Webb,inferior to the 1 McCain has and the Dummocrats won't let that 1 be voted on.This bill doesn't transfer the benefits to family members where as McCain's does,but the Left-wing hypocritical LIARS won't let that 1 be voted on.

Very well put Fanta, and I am not gonna bothre with responding seeing as you too kthe words out of my heart and stated them far better thanI could have.

I will say one thing though. Just because an area has not been declared hostile, or war or whatever you want to call it, doe snot mean the troops there are not under fire, are not under pressure, or any of that.

Ahh heres the answer Fanta... We have ourselves a "ribbon boy".
You know, the ones who think they know more and better than every one else because they have a few ribbons on their chest, and plaques on their walls.

And before someone tries and nail me to the wall for that comment, keep in mind I had a decent chest of ribbons and awards myself when I got out of service. If I remember correctly, I had mroe ribbons on my chest than my first sergeant, when I was restationed in '95, and was waiting on authorization for two more. Ticked her off too. But in my case, I don't let the ribbons and awards go to my head and make me think I am better than others, or that I know more.

One specific reason is, I receioved an AAR (Army Achievement Medal) simply for stepping forward as a pfc (2nd lowest ranking person on site) and showing the training general around the site, when he appeared and my chain of command was elsewhere.

The General was impressed that I knew the site well enough that I was able to describe the daily routine, and what would likely happen on our part iof we were "overran". He like the fact that I was capable of taking charge when the leadership wasnt there.

Personally, every shoulder should have been able to do what I did, to a point. Yes a new soldier may nothave had as much training experience, and may have been a bit more intimidated by the Generals appearance, but still, it was my job and I did it.
So personally, the AAR that time was nothing but a slap on the back for doing my job to standards.

Why shuld the gi bill be transferred to family members? There are already bills and regulations out there that provide education benefits to family members, at different ratios depending anywhere from wether the military member served and got out, to if the service member died in the line of duty.
For example, a member who died due to duty, their children and I believe spouse, get a full ride through college. There is a cap somewhere but I dont know what it is exactly. My sister-in-law goes to college for free because her grandfather (her legal guardian from birth) was wounded in combat. I know she has guidleines she has to meet to receive these benefits, but they are already there. So no, the gi bills hould not be transferrable to family memebrs.

You have no credibility with me Daniel. Your only concern for this bill is what you could come back and suck out of the United States taxpayers for yourself. Why would you think they should make benefits retroactive when they cannot do the same with laws. It wasn't in play when you were active duty, why should you be able to take the taxpayers for a ride now?