Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Dan K. Thomasson notes that GWB has discovered the veto, finally. (He fails to discuss signing statements and other methods the Administration used to circumvent Congress.) While applauding Bush’s attempt to scuttle the farm subsidy bill, he says Bush should not veto a bill to reform the outdated GI Bill of Rights. Bush’s rational, supported by John McCain, is that improved college benefits for vets would encourage desperately needed soldiers to quit when recruitment is lagging. The administration takes this position despite predictions that additional people will enlist to earn future benefits and offset any decline in retention. Regardless of any effect on recruitment, Thomasson ... More »

Dan has great credentials which he must have relied upon to float an analysis with no attribution. The issue of retention is complex. After three years of military experience the benefits kick in, this could create an exodus of those who otherwise would have looked to Uncle Sam for additional training. I am however pro the legislation and know there are offsetting reasons to retain troops beyond stop loss orders and the kind of re-enlistment bonuses they are paying these days to keep troops in theater.

Not only is this an excellent article substantively, it also raises the important question of wider concern: what is McCain thinking?

The story meanders around the question of mccain opposing education benefits for surviving returning soldiers. This issue could indeed lose him votes among veterans, if the press covers such stories. The reason given for opposing the benefits does not sound genuine, but Thomasson does not press into that aspect.

I think any time a article mentions Bush the natural tendency is going to be negative. As the article points out McCains siding with Bush is unexplainable. Over all quite fair

Article deals with one issue well. It includes historical precedents. Specific and informative.

It just adds to the claim that McCain doesn't really care about veterans. His own military record is troubled. Why the press are still not reporting on McCain the collaborator, and his involvement with the fire on the USS Forrestal in which 234 Naval personnel died is astonishing.

This opinion piece has modest journalistic merit. The author has not checked the topic properly, or he would know that the armed services have been exceeding enlistment and re-enlistment goals. Thus the basic premise of his opinion piece is false.

It is a great topic but fails to draw out with clarity the rebuttal to the McCain rationale for his opposition. It was the very same report that McCain quotes as saying "...a possible 16% reduction in recruitment..." that also said it would offset by a 16% draw. That McCain could have found the first item and missed the second is unlikely. In my mind this speaks to his character as much as his position itslef and is half the story which the author left as a single line reference. On the other hand, in bringing up the moral issue, which many news outlets have ignored, the author does well.

A little more context and research could serve this opinion piece well...nonetheless, especially since it is an opinion piece, this is a nice reflection on the nature of McCain's haphazard (and at times nonsensical) political stances.

This is obviously an opinion piece. However I do think this topic should get more play. This is an important bipartisan piece of legislature and if McCain wishes to distance himself from Bush ,this is not a good start.

Nothing new on this story; opinion piece about the new GI bill and that McCain is wrong to oppose it. The writer did support the veto of the farm bill, but thinks the GI Bill should pass, so not a total Bush supporter. It's fine as it stands, but again, nothing new.

This is an extremely important op ed that should be read by all. Shows the true side of the republican candidate and the hypocrisy of those who opposed this bill and their continued non support of the troops. As a Viet Nam veteran I am appalled at the actions of the 22 members of the Senate who voted against this important piece of legislation, hopefully, it will "come back to haunt all of them" in November.

Althought it is something of an attack article on McCain, the points are clearly outlined and the comparisons to Goldwater are apt.

The column is not balanced but it shows the author's side and uses fact to support it. Unfortunately there is little to support McCain's position for the sake of balanced.

Dan brings forward key mistakes being made by the Rethugs as a matter of their standard platform. This article cuts to the heart of their maladjusted platform of ' Nothing For The Little Guy ', and brings this particular facet of that policy into clearer focus. More to follow. -ralph