digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

See the original image at thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.… —

John McCain's abysmal record of voting AGAINST our troops

thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.… — McCain voted to TABLE an amendment for $322,000,000 for safety equipment for US forces. I guess McCain feels that our troops don't need safety equipment. And he has the audacity to attack Obama on such levels?

show profanity settings
expand all
  • PHiZ187, on 07/28/2008, -14/+122And he voted against the new GI education bill, and then took credit for it in the same week. He says that Obama is getting all the media coverage, well he should be GLAD for that!
    • KLBP, on 07/28/2008, -6/+43Actually McCain didn't vote at all on the GI education bill but he did speak out against it before the vote, which is even worse. He was against the bill, but knew it would pass anyways so by not voting he could exercise a little revisionist history when it suited his needs.
      • Cuchanu, on 07/28/2008, -16/+3You are right. Part of me wants to give credit to him for speaking against it knowing the bill would pass and that his opposition would be unpopular. I mean his reasoning is solid, but the way I see it is that your average person goes into the army not to defend their country but because they feel like it's their ticket out of a bad situation. And before this I think the Armed forces were happy to let them think that way when in reality it wasn't normally true. But with this bill I think it makes those thoughts a little more realistic.
      • MacEnvy, on 07/28/2008, -2/+12@Cuchanu
        His reasoning is NOT solid. He said he was against it because a study had said that there would be 16% fewer soldiers who would re-up when their contracts were up ... conveniently leaving out that the same study said there would be a 16% increase in new recruits due to the better deal it offered veterans.

        It was a dishonest argument and almost no one called him on it. The media should be ashamed.
      • Cuchanu, on 07/28/2008, -3/+2@MacEnvy

        I think his main concern is that there would be less 'career military' people if the bill passed. Not that there would be less people in the Army. Even if he is right he is not thinking about what's best for the troops.
      • arvvvs, on 07/28/2008, -1/+5And if Cuchanu if you remember your history, people protested because they were unemployed and could not pay for their education post-WW1.
    • wacki, on 07/28/2008, -12/+4Since the pentagon sided with McCain on this one, I wonder how many US Generals did as well. Troop retention and all.....

      I'm all for giving troops benefits. But lets be sure we don't sabotage our military with premature golden parachutes. There's a reason why the pentagon and McCain wanted a graduated scale.
      • BrandonWicks, on 07/28/2008, -0/+5Speaking from the perspective of someone who wants to jump out of planes... the LAST thing I'd want is a golden parachute. We're sabotaging our military now by reducing that standards and allowing people with for more extensive criminal histories than ever before join, rather than providing an incentive to join. And there IS a graduated scale on the new GI Bill, so if they wanted that, they got it.
    • Rich711, on 07/28/2008, -13/+6Oh please nutroots, cant you even attack McCain intelligently? Trying to paint McCain like he hasnt supported the troops is like saying Obama doesnt support Abortion rights.

      voting against a bill often means the bill needs to be sent back and re-written or contains something sneaky that doesnt belong in the bill.

      It's arrogant how stupid you think people are and evil that you wish to take advantage of those that may actually be.

      • dinot, on 07/28/2008, -4/+4Ok. If that's your stance, then you're not ever allowed to digg down articles about Obama voting against a bill, since he's just sending it back for revision.
      • cawpin, on 07/28/2008, -4/+4I don't know why you're being dugg down. That's the exact reason McCain spoke against the bill. There were amendments tacked on towards the end that he didn't support. Amendments to bills should be done away with. If you want to make it a law, introduce it as such.
      • BrandonWicks, on 07/28/2008, -2/+3BUT, the reason he cited wasn't the amendments(which I'm against), rather it was that it would hurt retention by 16%(same study shows it would increase recruiting by 16%). Also, although one might wish to vote against those amendments, as they had no place in the bill(extending unemployment benefits, etc.) someone who truly supports the troops would vote for the bill anyway, as the new GI Bill is more important that stopping those amendments.

        Finally, as Senator McCain WAS a pilot in the Navy, he should be held to a higher standard and be under more scrutiny as far as supporting the troops, not less.
    • injest, on 07/28/2008, -12/+2John McCain's abysmal record of voting AGAINST our troops


      You do realize this title is a double negative?
      Your not that stupid are you?
      • mgraham80, on 07/28/2008, -2/+11"You're" not "your." If you're going to challenge grammar, get your own house in order, first, mmmk?
    • jabberwolf, on 07/29/2008, -3/+1They were able to ammend it and guess what they got what they wanted.
      Longer stay in order to get more benefits.

      Not part time military getting full benefits, but full service.


      OOPS Sorry for spoiling things with facts.
    • zjbird, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Sorry to snipe to the top, but had to say, way to go on "audacity."

  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/28/2008, -10/+45Actually, the purpose of the bill was to defund the reconstruction of Iraq.

    Statement of Purpose: To provide an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.
    • Cuchanu, on 07/28/2008, -2/+15Iraq has Oil up the butt they should make the oil companies pay for the reconstruction.
      • CptBuck, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1They tried to do this earlier this year by giving no-bid contracts to oil companies so they could increase their infrastructure rapidly. That was criticized in the U.S. and the iraqis started the long and arduous bidding process.

        Some No-Bid contracts are bad, but sometimes the inefficiency is worth it, like when you're trying to rebuild a country.
    • Kabloink, on 07/28/2008, -0/+8Most of the money for reconstruction in Iraq seems to go missing anyhow. I rather see the money spent on the soldiers.
    • evilcaptain, on 07/28/2008, -2/+4I'd rather spend it myself :)
    • postaldave, on 07/28/2008, -2/+4screw you and your facts, this is digg damn you!
    • SkAleRt, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Yes, let's put more money in the pockets of "reconstruction companies" who can't even build a working school. Let's see how much more they can overcharge the US taxpayers with their greedy half-worn smiles. Investing in our troops' safety is such a bad idea compared to puffing up the profits of the richest 1% of America. Let Iraq pay for reconstruction themselves. They have oil, and they even have our companies guarding their damn pipelines.

      McCain makes me ill. I think I just threw up a little bit - pictured him as Prez with his Cruella millionaire wife. Ughhh. Gross.
  • conpenn, on 07/28/2008, -41/+18A shame Obama has no record to pull anything from...
    • bababoosh, on 07/28/2008, -5/+14Hahahahahahahahah ::gasp:: hahahahahahahahahaha ::gasp:: hahahahahahahaha

      you see it's funny because it's so unoriginal.
      • KH47, on 07/28/2008, -13/+4It's not funny at all, it's not original, and yet it still is a valid point.
      • bababoosh, on 07/28/2008, -4/+7it's not a valid, it's misinformation. Just because he doesn't and hasn't voted in a way that you may agree with doesn't mean that he has no record.
        It's just another example of the stupidity of you people who can't even gather your own information, spoon-feeding yourselves with the vomit spilled from the mouths of idiot propagandist. People who hate their fellow Americans to the point that they are willing to lie, cheat, and steal JUST to win an election. People who are more willing to pay for war than they are to help the people suffering in their own country.
    • dcmjzero, on 07/28/2008, -0/+6the internet disagrees: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_i ...
    • jabberwolf, on 07/29/2008, -2/+1Yeah because retarded sheep mean more than actual facts.
      Go on and read the link DCMJZERO start with defense.

      The internet AGREES that Obama basically authored and co-authored just about nothing!
  • DDMX, on 07/28/2008, -10/+82I'll be honest guys - I'm not a Barack Obama supporter. I'm a republican - who doesn't support McCain. What I don't understand is how we can spend tens of billions of dollars fighting this war but we cant spend a few hundred million to keep our troops safe.
    • Tyrghast, on 07/28/2008, -18/+10Stop calling it a war. It's an occupation.
      • Typhoon2009, on 07/28/2008, -2/+12Same *****. The US and Iraqi forces are fighting a common enemy, the insurgency. People are dying. Call it what you want but it doesn't change the fact that soldiers and civilians are still getting wounded and killed.
      • h3lx, on 07/28/2008, -1/+6It is an occupation, but the distinction between war and occupation has had it's ass wiped by media you can't tell heads from tails... the fact that it is an occupation should infer the end of emergency war powers, it should infer the end of emergency supplemental monetary bills. Being no longer a war, a definitive rotation schedule and suspension of all stop-loss orders. Start allowing Private corporations to foot the bill for their own security who will fall under the jurisdiction of the nations in which they operate, in addition to liabilities which may be tacked on as US Treaties allow. That is, in sum, a return to normalcy. The fact that Iraq now teeters on the edge of internal annihilation from fanatical tribes of fundamentalist factions is no problem of ours, We didn't openly make them hate one another, though funding one faction of another has led to a pseudo-stability and a somewhat tangible strand you might misconstrue as progress... to which we should cut our losses and leave them to their own devices... We've meddled enough.
      • JoeVet, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Actually its more of a police action. We are policing a civil war between the Sunni and Shia. What a stupid thing to get in the middle of.
    • Cuchanu, on 07/28/2008, -1/+6The White House makes it sound like if you defund the war that troops go hungry and fight naked with their bare hands. The reality is that most of the money goes to other things, so if the troops suffer it's the White House's choice.
    • tomarocco, on 07/28/2008, -7/+6The fact that you can't understand the fiscal policies of your republican administration fully supports your assertion that you are a republican.
    • dcmjzero, on 07/28/2008, -0/+6the people in office who call themselves republicans are no longer so. the party has left you (and me and lots of others) behind. guess it is time to find a new party.
      • Cuchanu, on 07/28/2008, -1/+4The Libertarians would be happy to have you. I think their future lies in the fact that Bush has made being a Republican an embarrassment. Congress' failure to crucify him has made being a Democrat a little embarrassing too.

        I'm still voting for Obama but the Dems have let me down.
  • diggstown, on 07/28/2008, -34/+10Damned if he doesn't, damned if he does. Give it a rest.
    • bababoosh, on 07/28/2008, -3/+18No. Not when he feels the need to constantly chastises Obama for not caring about the troops. Even to point of recently making that stupid add skewing the truth of what happened with Obama and the injured troops in Germany.
    • JoeVet, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Guess he's damned then since he seems to want it both ways.
  • lewhich, on 07/28/2008, -7/+44Why would anyone vote against keeping our troops safe? I mean where does all the money go to ...ahem..ahem.. contractors, blackwater
    • ClassicCon, on 07/28/2008, -11/+2You mean the same blackwater that just provided security for your messiah on his world "where am I again" tour? You kids on the left are so cute when you act grown up.
      • mummbleswers, on 07/29/2008, -3/+2Obama named his tour after a McCain slogan?
      • lamiaconfitor, on 07/29/2008, -2/+4You are a whore, the government (right or left) shouldn't be using outside contractors for additional security. if they feel they need to train/hire better troops, they should do it through the appropriate channels, just because you are sucking a blackwater employees ***** doesn't mean we all have to like them too. and I find it funny that anyone who states something they don't like immediately decides the other individual is on the far left or right. I prefer my system where I assume you are just a *****.
      • SkAleRt, on 07/29/2008, -1/+3Guys, Guys - I think he's just confused. Let's get the man some Aricept and a remote control to change the Fox News channel.
  • jarjarwang, on 07/28/2008, -12/+21More like John McPain! As in a real "pain" in my rear-end! That fact alone is why even though I am a Republican, I am going to vote for Barack Obama this November!
    • Treoinmypocket, on 07/28/2008, -11/+5LOL - You have no idea what the Republican party stands for nor do you care.

      I think mccain sucks but Obama? Exactly how does he get your vote? What value are you choosing to surrender in order to vote for him if you are a Republican?
      • Treoinmypocket, on 07/28/2008, -5/+5Dugg down but not answered.

        Let me fill in a few possibilities...

        You, a Republican, are willing to surrender:

        -to bigger government (I know Bush grew it but Obama can't have all those programs and shrink it now can he?)
        -to higher taxes (Universal Healthcare, increased capital gains tax, income redistribution, higher minimum wage, Global Poverty Tax, subsidies for alternative energy, higher fuel costs (no increase in domestic supply), increased social services for illegal aliens, increased school budgets (higher teacher pay, federal funding of no-child left behind, increased resources for teaching English speaking children to learn Spanish)
      • joseguia, on 07/28/2008, -1/+4@Treoinmypocket: LOL -

        Some would refer to it as American values, unfamiliar concept to 08-Repubs

        Jus sayin'
      • theaceoffire, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1So you are saying that McCain is an example of Republican Values?

        If so, then I can not be a part of that.

        However, I believe that there are lots of Republicans who do not agree with McCain... and I will hold onto that belief until proven otherwise.
      • sizzzzlerz, on 07/28/2008, -1/+6LOL - You have no idea what the Republican party stands for nor do you care.


        Illegal spying, torture, lying, massive federal spending and deficits, tax cuts for the very wealthy, hatred of the poor, environmental rape, superstition over science.

        Did I miss anything?
      • Treoinmypocket, on 07/28/2008, -2/+2Funny - no one actually refuted what I said or answered my question.

        Sizzler - what was done and what the party planks are aren't the same currently. Those of us who are disappointed with Bush and reject McCain still hold core values. None of which are represented by Obama.

        theaceoffice - i did not say that at all, tho you may have inferred it. Jarjarwang said 1) he's a Republican 2) He's voting for Obama. I asked what he has decided to compromise on that would have him voting for Obama who represent NO Republican ideals.

        Josequia - some might call the Republican ideals "American" but since the Democratic Party does not hold those dear, that would be a fallacy.
      • schtick01101, on 07/29/2008, -1/+1Treo: I think the only person that can answer your question is the person you directed it at, not the three people you attacked in your response.
      • mummbleswers, on 07/29/2008, -1/+2@ Train
        I was sitting here at work deciding if I was gonna take on your points, but then I realized you lost focus in there somewhere, unless you meant that if Obama took office we would surrender "higher fuel costs (no increase in domestic supply), increased social services for illegal aliens, increased school budgets (higher teacher pay, federal funding of no-child left behind, increased resources for teaching English speaking children to learn Spanish)"

        So I can't really argue that, you don't even proof-read your own *****. How am I supposed to truly argue with someone of that nature?
      • Treoinmypocket, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1@Mummbleswers

        I'm not sure where the confusion is here but to clarify, I meant to convey to jarjarwang that as a self proclaimed Republican he would willingly accept these results. So yes, if Obama becomes President, these are going to be the results (unless the dwindling Republican minority somehow manages to thwart his & the legislature's plans):

        -to bigger government (I know Bush grew it but Obama can't have all those programs and shrink it now can he?)
        -to higher taxes (Universal Healthcare, increased capital gains tax, income redistribution, higher minimum wage, Global Poverty Tax, subsidies for alternative energy, higher fuel costs (no increase in domestic supply), increased social services for illegal aliens, increased school budgets (higher teacher pay, federal funding of no-child left behind, increased resources for teaching English speaking children to learn Spanish)
  • rmxz, on 07/28/2008, -11/+13We already spend a lot on keeping the troops safe. The question politicians need to struggle with is how much is the right amount. If the spending is already extremely high; it's not an obvious thing that increasing it more would keep troops much safer (which is what the media likes to suggest). Perhaps people voting against these extra funds think the troops would be better served spending the money they're already allocated more wisely.

    If anyone really cared about keeping the troops safe they'd bring them home. Not sending more money.
  • EarlOfLade, on 07/28/2008, -5/+11It's a disgrace the way USA treats it's soldiers who they can not be fast enough to invoke oral support for and claim that anyone who do not do the same are not patriots and for then in the next breath, dump the vets on street and create another underclass and a future problem much larger than what was the result of the Vietnam war.

    If you at least had been a civilized first world country with UHC and paid-for re-education, the vets would have been taken care of, but I know, you don't like the librul socialists things they do in Europe, so you will have to deal with a new social problem for the next 3-4 decades. Good luck!
  • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/28/2008, -8/+9McCainwas often honestly trying to be conservative and fight the
    overspending(that is the true source of the bad dollar and oil prices
    and I bet hedamned well knows it.) But since Bush turned the Party
    into Hawks heis caught in an difficult trap. Bush has been the Worst
    Republican inHistory!!
    • muckemuck, on 07/28/2008, -5/+5 .. so he was going to pinch pennies and put the troops in harms way, all while he sang "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" and talked about keeping said troops in Iraq for 100 years? Nice.

      But you are right that the foreign imperialism of the US is bankrupting it and our government is devaluing the dollar to pay off the debts. It's a hidden tax.
    • Plughie, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2Reduce spending? This proposal was a net-zero expenditure. $322mil away from reconstruction, into safety equipment for our troops. How does this fight overspending?
      • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1Right,welost0.3 billion dollars either way with that one. Maybe there
        is nowaytodefend him anymore. Or are you a big Lockheed Martin
        stockholder?
  • cliffzdude, on 07/28/2008, -15/+7Digg is being gamed by Obama shills, there is NO way the same stuff could make it on top over and over and over. Not because its wrong per se, but because there is no way people really want to read the same things over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over.
    See, you didn't like reading "over-over" that many times, did you.
    I kid.
    Seriously though. Every single Blog article that is Anti McCain makes it to the front page.
    I think McCain is a dolt, but this piling on is making me want to vote for the idiot out of spite.
    Funny thing this piling on, it has a tendency to backfire.

    Go ahead Shills and Digg my comment down as swiftly as you can, else an opinion make it out of the depths.
    Sigh...

    • apothekari, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3If you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen!
      Name anything the Republican party has done for ANYONE in the last 8 years that did NOT put the interests of the super wealthy or big business FIRST.
      Go ahead I'll wait.
      • carabou, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2shut up and go cash your 600$ check you bot!
  • Tyrghast, on 07/28/2008, -2/+30Anyone remember the big story back when we went in to Afghanistan about soldiers wearing vests left over from as far back as Vietnam? I remember a lot of families scraping the money to together purchase friends and family in the service modern kevlar vests.
    • SSCrow, on 07/28/2008, -0/+6I found that entire situation shocking. We are one of the most militaristic countries, in both action and spending.
      How do we not have our main military fully geared?
    • Tamisin, on 07/29/2008, -1/+2Yet at the same families were sending troops Nike underarmor thinking they were helping when all that did was cause and person wearing it 3rd degree burns if they were caught in any sort of blast or explosion. The military had to ban this type of underwear. newest is not always best. I do agree the troops do deserve the best they can get but some of the reasons may not be readily apparent when items are not as up to date as we might like.
  • deadbaby, on 07/28/2008, -5/+16McCain is guilty of using the troops as political pawns. He should know better... he was used as a political pawn himself due to his father's military position while he was captive. It's really sad to see a good man have this public meltdown of integrity. Being President isn't worth what McCain is doing to himself right now.
    • Tamisin, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2McCain is using them as pawns? Obama refused to meet with wounded soliders when he was told no photos of it, and he has said that he would rather win the election than the war. Neither of these candidates deserve to be President
  • HotSaucePanCake, on 07/28/2008, -7/+10What a twisted view, It wouldn't be because he completely opposes pork barrel spending would it? Plain and simple, when you are trying to pass a bill to save troops lives, lets not include a bridge in the middle of no where to no where be included on it...
    • jack104, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2I agree, with these bills all you see is the major stuff but those little things that can slip in, in fact, aren't so little. And i'll tell you who I really feel bad for....McCain having to standby and be crucified for doing the right thing. Makes me sick.
  • rudieboy, on 07/28/2008, -4/+13So spend 322 million on rebuilding Iraq.
    Or on our troops.
    Gee why dont we let Iraqs oil money pay for their own reconstruction?
    And we take care of our own?
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/28/2008, -3/+8Halliburton needs their oil money for other purposes. Sorry about that.
      • denizen42, on 07/28/2008, -1/+5"Sorry about your kids." -Halliburton
  • radicaldementia, on 07/28/2008, -11/+28Ok, I'm really getting tired of this. You copy and paste some voting records without any explanation of the bills themselves or even list McCain's reasons for his votes. I've said before, I'm no fan of McCain, and I'd really like to know more about these votes, but I've had enough with these subjective, biased blog posts that really don't do anything to help educate us about the situation. Where do you think this money comes from? Chances are most of these bills would have taken money away from something else, so to simply criticize McCain for voting against them is only looking at one side of the situation.
    • ancientshoes, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3EXACTLY
    • ferkmeh, on 07/28/2008, -5/+1I dont see what you are talking about. These are all situations where he voted against helping American soldiers. I'm no fan of either candidate, but McCain cant keep his stuff straight. Why cant Mccain do what all old people do and die?
      • jack104, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Money doesn't grow on trees, its all got to come from somewhere.
    • HypocriteDigg, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2Did you even read the story? There's a link to each bill!!!!!
      • radicaldementia, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2This is exactly what I'm talking about. Linking to the bill doesn't say anything. Ok, yes, I can go look at every bill and read through it myself, but then what's the point of posting this blog in the first place? The blogger was trying to show that McCain is "voting against our troops", but failed to give any evidence except for the titles of these bills, which obviously do not fully explain the content of the bill. All the author did was look at this in the most shallow way possible.

        In fact, I looked through the amendment that would " increase Vet-medical services $1.5 billion in FY2007" and it was actually part of a much bigger amendment that would have increased the budget by over $10 billion. So how can you say it's voting against the troops when it was really voting against a slew of budget increases?
  • kenedamick, on 07/28/2008, -7/+13Now that Obama is back from Iraq, does that mean that McClown is going to treat us to another leisurely stroll down Bagdhad lane with 100 of his heavily-armored friends?
    • jack104, on 07/29/2008, -1/+1McClown, McBush, Mcstupid, McIdiot, McDonalds......we get it, be professional. And why shouldn't he have lots of body guards, most insurgents would trade their left nuts to kill him because he is their worst enemy. If McCain gets elected it means the heat isn't going to be taken away from them.
  • ElectricKetchup, on 07/28/2008, -12/+7At least McCain didn't vote to give Bush immunity from treason like Obam did!
  • skrowl, on 07/28/2008, -10/+15Digg is getting harder and harder to read. I really don't want it to be another DailyKos, but it's getting closer and closer every day.
    • darkciti2, on 07/28/2008, -2/+2Uhm, it's an election year dude. It'll subside significantly by February 2009 (assuming the voting machines let us down).
    • m301, on 07/28/2008, -1/+0Yeah, there's at least a couple anti-McCain, pro-Obama articles in the top 10 each day, and the articles keep getting stupider and stupider, like the one that criticized McCain because he didn't know the exact price of milk. And everyone on Digg hates Fox News because they're so biased...
    • arvvvs, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1If John Mccain gets elected or Obama screws up the constitution, then there will be blood, post Jan-20.
  • Dan11023, on 07/28/2008, -10/+5McWar FTW
  • datastorageguy, on 07/28/2008, -12/+10What is Obama's plan for our troops? More Clinton like troops reductions leaving service men and women without employment and on food stamps? Where is Obama's plan? I am sure he was working on that plan when not visiting troops in Germany.
    • neognostic, on 07/28/2008, -2/+3Since all you can do is whine, I did the research for you.
      http://www.barackobama.com/issues/defense/
      • datastorageguy, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2I meant a PLAN, not a fairy tale.
      • neognostic, on 07/28/2008, -2/+1@datastorage - See the title? It says plan, how much more specific do you want it to be? Which day he starts each line?
        Barack Obama's Plan
        Invest in a 21st Century Military

        * Rebuild the Military for 21st Century Tasks: As we rebuild our armed forces, we must not simply recreate the military of the Cold War era. Obama believes that we must build up our special operations forces, civil affairs, information operations, and other units and capabilities that remain in chronic short supply; invest in foreign language training, cultural awareness, and human intelligence and other needed counterinsurgency and stabilization skill sets; and create a more robust capacity to train, equip, and advise foreign security forces, so that local allies are better prepared to confront mutual threats.
        * Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground: Barack Obama supports plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families.
        * Leadership from the Top: Barack Obama will restore the ethic of public service to the agenda of today's youth, whether it be serving their local communities in such roles as teachers or first responders, or serving in the military to keep our nation free and safe.
        * Lighten the Burdens on Our Brave Troops and Their Families: An Obama administration will create a Military Families Advisory Board to provide a conduit for military families' concerns to be brought to the attention of senior policymakers and the public. Obama will end the Bush administration's stop-loss policy and establish predictability in deployments so that active duty and reserves know what they can and must expect.

        Build Defense Capabilities for the 21st Century

        * Fully Equip Our Troops for the Missions They Face: Barack Obama believes we must get vitally needed equipment to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines before lives are lost. We cannot repeat such failures as the delays in deployment of armored vehicles, body armor and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles that save lives on the frontlines.
        * Review Weapons Programs: We must rebalance our capabilities to ensure that our forces have the agility and lethality to succeed in both conventional wars and in stabilization and counter-insurgency operations. Obama has committed to a review of each major defense program in light of current needs, gaps in the field, and likely future threat scenarios in the post-9/11 world.
        * Preserve Global Reach in the Air: We must preserve our unparalleled airpower capabilities to deter and defeat any conventional competitors, swiftly respond to crises across the globe, and support our ground forces. We need greater investment in advanced technology ranging from the revolutionary, like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and electronic warfare capabilities, to essential systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft, which provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power.
        * Maintain Power Projection at Sea: We must recapitalize our naval forces, replacing aging ships and modernizing existing platforms, while adapting them to the 21st century. Obama will add to the Maritime Pre-Positioning Force Squadrons to support operations ashore and invest in smaller, more capable ships, providing the agility to operate close to shore and the reach to rapidly deploy Marines to global crises.
        * National Missile Defense: An Obama administration will support missile defense, but ensure that it is developed in a way that is pragmatic and cost-effective; and, most importantly, does not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public.
        * Ensure Freedom of Space: An Obama administration will restore American leadership on space issues, seeking a worldwide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites. He will thoroughly assess possible threats to U.S. space assets and the best options, military and diplomatic, for countering them, establishing contingency plans to ensure that U.S. forces can maintain or duplicate access to information from space assets and accelerating programs to harden U.S. satellites against attack.
        * Protect the U.S in Cyberspace: An Obama administration will work in cooperation with our allies and the private sector to identify and protect against emerging cyber-threats.

        Restore the Readiness of the National Guard and Reserves

        * Barack Obama will provide the National Guard with the equipment it needs for foreign and domestic emergencies and time to restore and refit before deploying. He will make the head of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ensure concerns of our citizen soldiers reach the level they mandate. He will ensure that reservists and Guard members are treated fairly when it comes to employment, health, and education benefits.

        Develop Whole of Government Initiatives to Promote Global Stability

        * Integrate Military and Civilian Efforts: An Obama administration will build up the capacity of each non-Pentagon agency to deploy personnel and area experts where they are needed, to help move soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines out of civilian roles.
        * Create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC): An Obama administration will set a goal of creating a national CAC of 25,000 personnel. This corps of civilian volunteers with special skill, sets (doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police, etc.) would be organized to provide each federal agency with a pool of volunteer experts willing to deploy in times of need at home and abroad.

        Restore Our Alliances

        * Engage Our Allies in Meeting Our Common Security Challenges: America's traditional alliances, such as NATO, must be transformed and strengthened, including on common security concerns like Afghanistan, homeland security, and counterterrorism. Obama will renew alliances and ensure our allies contribute their fair share to our mutual security.
        * Organize to Help Our Partners and Allies in Need: An Obama administration will expand humanitarian activities that build friends and allies at the regional and local level (such as during the response to the tsunami in South and Southeast Asia), and win hearts and minds in the process.

        Reform Contracting

        * Create Transparency for Military Contractors: Barack Obama will require the Pentagon and State Department to develop a strategy for determining when contracting makes sense, rather than continually handing off governmental jobs to well-connected companies. An Obama administration will create the transparency and accountability needed for good governance. Finally, it will establish the legal status of contractor personnel, making possible prosecution of any abuses committed by private military contractors.
        * Restore Honesty, Openness, and Commonsense to Contracting and Procurement: An Obama administration will realize savings by reducing the corruption and cost overruns that have become all too routine in defense contracting. This includes launching a program of acquisition reform and management, which would end the common practice of no-bid contracting. He will end the abuse of supplemental budgets by creating a system of oversight for war funds as stringent as in the regular budget. He will restore the government's ability to manage contracts by rebuilding our contract officer corps. He will order the Justice Department to prioritize prosecutions that will punish and deter fraud, waste and abuse.
    • theviceroy, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2If you were being honest you'd concede that Clinton was just continuing the policy set by George Bush Sr. But I'm sure that's too much to ask from a troll.
      • jack104, on 07/29/2008, -0/+0No because that would mean the giant budget surplus Clinton had was inherited from policies implemented by Bush Sr. And honestly, we both know what you said isn't true. Our military may not have grown in numbers during Bush Sr's administration, but that doesn't mean the funding was dropped. Our military stopped being strong in numbers and became strong technologically. Which do you fear more?
  • TinternAbbot, on 07/28/2008, -2/+7Well, most of his votes on those issues seem pretty in line with Republican attitude toward the given pieces of legislation, so that shouldn't really be surprising. Additionally, I challenge you to read the text of each piece of legislation. Most of it isn't about the troops at all.
  • mnocket, on 07/28/2008, -12/+10Front page with 292 diggs??? Digg needs to act a bit more Fair & Balanced don't you think?
  • thegreenspanput, on 07/28/2008, -8/+6why are people still going on about Obama? Is it not perfectly clear by now that he is one of them? zzzzzzzzzz... buried.
  • akchrs, on 07/28/2008, -11/+6Is this another piece of legislation that Obama voted "present" on?
    • neognostic, on 07/28/2008, -3/+1Ignorance is bliss, do the research. He voted "present" in the Illinois house, not the Senate of the United States.
  • zombie210, on 07/28/2008, -0/+10One thing people outside of the USA should know is that all american bills contain provisions that usually have nothing to do with the title. So a bill that is about "GI education" contains politically charged spending on all sorts of pork, but vote against that and people say you are "against the troops" or something equally silly. BOTH the democrats and republicans are guilty of this.
  • SOS84, on 07/28/2008, -9/+10Most Republican's regularly vote to hurt our troops. This is not surprising.
  • zacharytelschow, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3These bills are all painted in very simplistic terms; it reminds me of the "DirecTV hates puppies" commercial.
  • Maevirko69, on 07/28/2008, -5/+7I hear McCain was asking the generals to bring back summary execution for desertion and sodomy. I also hear that McCain wants to invade Canada. And that he eats babies. Obama doesn't eat babies (Muslims are forbidden to eat babies). Vote for Obama.
  • Cuchanu, on 07/28/2008, -10/+5Obama voted to kill our troops!

    And McCain wants them to be stupid if they leave the armed forces!

    /s
    • arvvvs, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1How did he vote to kill our troops?
      "And McCain wants them to be stupid if they leave the armed forces!"
      When did you flip flop? you were against the GI bill.
      • Cuchanu, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1I wasn't against the GI bill, I don't care about it one way or another. If you are referring to my other post I was just being the devil's advocate.

        And Obama didn't vote to kill our troops, but he has voted to spend less money in Iraq which the Republicans always like to imply hurts the troops, when it's more likely hurting war contractors and making the white house probably think twice about needless contracts.

        Truth be told I put the /s there because I was making a joke.
  • Incognito2008, on 07/28/2008, -4/+8McCain hates black people ......
  • MrAwesomeMan, on 07/28/2008, -6/+17Okay, first of all, I'm not a McCain fan. Second of all, this is ridiculous.

    The fact that people are bashing him based on a completely biased blog post is just ignorant. It's fairly common knowledge that the title of the bill doesn't necessarily describe the bill itself. There's always a crazy amendment slipped in there somewhere. So, while the title may be "Save our troops, they are awesome", the bill might actually call for increased taxes, giant lasers to melt the ice caps, and human sacrifice during full moons. When McCain votes "no", all the anti-McCain bloggers write how McCain now hates the troops, and does not think they are awesome.

    How about we Digg unbiased articles? I'd like to see a list of bills that Obama voted against. I'm sure someone can find one that is equally condemning.
    • maestroh, on 07/28/2008, -2/+3No, they can't
    • DrVonNugent, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Excellent point. However, I think we're doomed to suffer through the HufPo/thinkprogress spam machine for a few more months. Hopefully imitators such as this site don't continue to spread.
  • dalittle, on 07/28/2008, -1/+6Pork barrel spending does not make the troops more safe. Getting them out of Iraq would actually make them safe. Which candidate is going to make the troops more safe in the only true way?
  • doubl3d, on 08/28/2008, -2/+5I heard he voted for the destruction of innocent kittens.
    • darkciti2, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3Close - he voted against a spending bill that would have provided protection for the kittens; which ultimately causes kittens to die.
  • superkendall, on 07/28/2008, -10/+5And as bad as it is, it's still better than Obama.
    • neognostic, on 07/28/2008, -2/+1See @swashbuckler below for the truth, instead of trolling with ignorance.
  • diggydougie, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3Here's the irony. Bush has the power to put the troops anywhere, but congress has the power to pull the funding if they disagree. But congress won't cut the funding because it makes them look very bad to the public for not supporting the troops. So the president gets whatever he wants. I think that only funding for plane tickets home should be approved.
  • TheSwashbuckler, on 07/28/2008, -2/+6Perhaps McCain would like to explain his D grade in supporting the troops from the non-partisan Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. He can then contrast his grade with Obama's B+ from that same group.

    http://www.iava.org/full-ratings-list
    • wettap, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3non-partisan?

      Who directed their promo video? Move-On? The videos hijacked from Al-Jazeera? The script straight from the DNC?

      I especially was fond of the Obamessiah meet and greet!
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1Yep, non-partisan. And there ain't nothing wrong with their video. It just highlights the problems our vets face. Conservatives just want vets to disappear after they've served, libs want to help them.
    • OffPiste, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2Non-Partisan????????

      Please.
  • madblunted, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2Hmmm and this guy is suppose to be doing a "Support the Troops" thing at The Buffalo Chip during the Sturgis Rally...
  • spiderworm, on 07/28/2008, -9/+4OMG JOHN MCCAIN WANTS OUR TROOPS DEAD AND HATES KITTENS AND CHILDREN AND RAINBOWS AND SUNNY DAYS!

    Here's some news for all you Obamocrats: McCain or Obama, it'll be the same *****, different politician.
    • provost, on 07/28/2008, -3/+2you are right.. If I were you I would make a point on voting day by staying home and dressing like a clown.

      Meanwhile, the rest of us trying to improve our country are going to do something about it.

      • misfit410, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2Well dumbass if you want to improve our country, you won't be doing so unless you are voting third party, because McCain and Obama are both the same old *****.

        You don't need to bash McCain because nobody really likes him to begin with, but it amazes me that people can get behind Obama so passionately and most people have no idea what he even stands for (and I'm not so sure even he does).

        I know one thing, his voting record is nothing short of pathetic for a first term.
      • spiderworm, on 07/28/2008, -2/+1I don't know why you assumed that because I don't endorse McCain or Obama I'll be "staying home" on voting day. Believe it or not there are other candidates, one of which I do endorse and support. Get over the fact that I didn't pick the media's darling for my next president.
  • misfit410, on 07/28/2008, -3/+7I'm no fan of McCain but you people need to consider one thing, how many raises and crap spending are thrown into "Troop Support Bills" just so Senators either get the money they want for the things they want, or they just go on an accusation spree on how the person who voted against their armor for the troops and $100,000 a year raise for themselves are not supporting the troops.
  • ancientshoes, on 07/28/2008, -6/+4i'm willing to put money on it that the only reason he didn't approve those things are because the democrats porked the bills up with their own amendments to where the original intent of the bill was lost. besides, democrats accusing a republican of not supporting troops? thats like a pig accusing a germophobe of being unclean.
    • TheMajikMan, on 07/28/2008, -3/+1No, you're right. The Democrats are the only ones who add amendments later. Pork billing is only a Democratic tool to get their stuff through. Republicans are saints.

      And God forbid mention that this might be why Obama voted one way or the other one something. He obviously is just soft on terror, hates the troops, and doesn't care what we think.
      • ancientshoes, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2thats not what the conversation is about, it's about a liberal tabloid blog accusing a particular individual of voting down bills for specific reasons
      • TheMajikMan, on 07/29/2008, -2/+1You mean just like how conservative tabloid blogs accuse Obama of voting down bills for specific reasons?
    • mike4444r, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1ancientshoes...you are EXACTLY right. Problem is, your comment will get buried by every Obamabot on here who are too misled or have their heads too far up their asses to know what the heck is going on truly with this election.
  • wettap, on 07/28/2008, -4/+5WEEEEE!

    I was getting sick of all the Hillary attacks there for the last months. Thank God/the Obamassiah (or whatever deity you choose to worship) the ObamaNation has moved onto greener pastures!
  • raysaagar, on 07/28/2008, -2/+2"And he has the audacity to attack Obama on such levels?"
    he does doesnt he.
    he can't hold a good position, he lost voters a long time ago and is trying to fight for them back.
  • gtoben, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2The Obama camp needs to take note of this and turn the tables. I'm tired of them sitting on their heels while McCain splutters out exaggerated claims of Obama's record.
    • Tamisin, on 07/29/2008, -1/+2Obama has no record, 143 days as a Senator? Could someone run a major Corporation with that much experience?no yet people think he can run the country.
  • Blasphemous88, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3I think McCain and Bush's shortcomings are something we can all come to a bi-partisan agreement on - they are totally and utterly not good for this country. You don't have to like Obama, back him, or even agree with him at all to see just how dead this country will be under a McCain administration.
    • SchmuckofNI, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2It could be worse, Bush could get reelected if he somehow got congress to repeal that law that a president can't get elected more than two times. All kidding aside, Digg needs to be more balanced and show more unbiased (besides the fact hes black and "Muslim") criticisms of Obama instead of just focusing on Mccain.
  • OffPiste, on 07/28/2008, -2/+2Arggggh full speed ahead CPT Obama on the USS Swiftboat.
  • algaeturd, on 07/29/2008, -3/+0This man is one of the biggest hypocrites in the history of politics.
    I don't believe for one second that anyone who supports him uses any kind of logic or reasoning in their decision.
    It's all mindles, 'I AM A RIGHT WING RETARD...MUST VOTE RIGHT WING EVEN IF IT DESTROYS OUR ECONOMY AND EVENTUALLY THE WHOLE COUNTRY.'
    You can guess the next words: Ignorant sheep.
    See how easy that was?
  • withears, on 07/29/2008, -2/+2This is a bad guy. I'm stunned that some people (the minority, thank God) don't see it.
  • sethorama99, on 07/29/2008, -1/+3There was nothing in those bills about money for orphans and puppies. Therefore, John McCain hates orphans and puppies.
  • wonderlandpr, on 07/29/2008, -3/+1McCain only knows one thing well : War. He has no experience in anything else and he will continue to grow our wars IF we are fool enough to elect this out of touch, ailing, ill tempered,
    anything but civil candidate.

    JOHN MCCAIN JUST VOTED AGAINST THE GI BILL IN OUR CONGRESS. JOHN MCCAIN THINKS SUPPORTING THE TROOPS IS CONTINUING TO LET THEM DIE FOR A WAR THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED. Can anyone remember why we went to Iraq? Forget the SURGE...IF Obama had his way, 5,000 Americans would be alive today or serving to get Bin Ladin in Pakistan while securing Afghanistan.

    IF JOHN MCCAIN IS ELECTED TRILLIONS WILL GO TO IRAQ and WE WILL HAVE ZERO FUNDS FOR OUR OWN PEOPLE.

    McCain got a thumping and it mad because he pushed Obama to go abroad, and Obama was greeted by the world's leaders with great respect and participation.

    DUH, MCCAIN WENT TO IRAQ, BRITAIN, FRANCE...A FEW MONTHS AGO, SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? McCain made gaffes in Iraq, blunders galore and no one came to see him, AND THAT'S WHY MCCAIN IS TRYING TO RUIN OBAMA'S TRIP RECORD.

    McCain got punked by Obama ...and it's McCain's own fault. He thought Barack would stumble, but it was McCain who was left in the dust last week. McCain reaped what he sowed.

    IF YOU WANT YOURSELF, YOUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS, GRANDCHILDREN TO BE DYING ON FOREIGN SOIL FOR NO REASON...PLEASE VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN.
    • carabou, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2you are just a jerk! You seem to think that your hopeless ideas are rite? i am glad people like you are safe here on digg with the other bots!
    • mike4444r, on 07/30/2008, -0/+2the ramblings of an idiot...if you read this garbage and believe the lies about McCain (A WAR HERO) then you are a bigger fool than Obama himself.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.