For a columnist in the New York Times to make the argument that a presidential candidate does not support the troops is a rather daring thing, given the utter lack of support for military personnel shown by that pathetic liberal rag over the lat four decades.

But when the claim is that a seditious weasel like Bob Herbert to challenge the credentials of John McCain on that score in a mendacious column straight from the DNC talking points is outrageous!

At the top of the list of no-brainers in Washington should be Senator Jim Webb’s proposed expansion of education benefits for the men and women who have served in the armed forces since Sept. 11, 2001.

Oh, really? Why Webb's bill? Why not some other proposal? Because Webb is a Democrat? Or because it is the most costly, most complicated proposal designed to encourage short-term enlistments rather than military careers?

It’s awfully hard to make the case that these young people who have sacrificed so much don’t deserve a shot at a better future once their wartime service has ended.

And no one -- outside of the same left-wingers who don't support the troops -- is making that argument.

Senator Webb, a Virginia Democrat, has been the guiding force behind this legislation, which has been dubbed the new G.I. bill. The measure is decidedly bipartisan. Mr. Webb’s principal co-sponsors include Republican Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John Warner of Virginia, and Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey.

(All four senators are veterans of wartime service — Senators Webb and Hagel in Vietnam, Warner in World War II and Korea and Lautenberg in World War II.)

Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are on board, as are Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, and Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House.

So what?

Who wouldn’t support an effort to pay for college for G.I.’s who have willingly suited up and put their lives on the line, who in many cases have served multiple tours in combat zones and in some cases have been wounded?

We did it for those who served in World War II. Why not now?

Actually, nobody argues against or fails to support an effort to pay for college for such folks. For Herbert to imply that anyone does not is to set up a strawman. But even if one were to oppose it, you could distinguish between an all-volunteer force like we have today and the draftee armed forces of WWII. But as I have said, no on disagrees with college benefits.

Well, you might be surprised at who is not supporting this effort. The Bush administration opposes it, and so does Senator John McCain.

Bullshit, Bob. Tall, steaming piles of partisan liberal bullshit. What they oppose is Webb's proposal, not paying for college for servicemen and women.

Reinvigorating the G.I. bill is one of the best things this nation could do. The original G.I. Bill of Rights, signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, paid the full load of a returning veteran’s education at a college or technical school and provided a monthly stipend. It was an investment that paid astounding dividends. Millions of veterans benefited, and they helped transform the nation. College would no longer be the exclusive preserve of the wealthy and those who crowned themselves the intellectual elite.

As The New York Times wrote on the 50th anniversary of the G.I. bill: “Few laws have done so much for so many.”

“These veterans were able to get a first-class future,” Senator Webb told me in an interview. “But not only that. For every dollar that was spent on the World War II G.I. bill, seven dollars came back in the form of tax remunerations from those who received benefits.”

Well, no one can disagree here -- though Democrats insisted upon watering down that benefit decades ago. Today it is a matching funds program, not a grant program. Webb's bill will not change that I guess he doesn't care about the troops so much after all, does he?

Senator Lautenberg went to Columbia on the G.I. bill, and Senator Warner to Washington and Lee University and then to law school.

The benefits have not kept pace over the decades with the real costs of attending college. Moreover, service members have to make an out-of-pocket contribution — something over $100 a month during their first year of service — to qualify for the watered-down benefits.

This is not exactly first-class treatment of the nation’s warriors.

But then again, Webb's bill does not significantly change that, according to any source I have seen.

The Bush administration opposes the new G.I. bill primarily on the grounds that it is too generous, would be difficult to administer and would adversely affect retention.

Sort of -- the Bush Administration opposes the bill because it sets up a complicated scheme that makes benefit levels vary from state to state and institution to institution, and creates a larger bureaucracy to do so -- and also provides incentives to leave the military rather than continue to serve. That is just bad policy.

This is bogus. The estimated $2.5 billion to $4 billion annual cost of the Webb proposal is dwarfed by the hundreds of billions being spent on the wars we’re asking service members to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. What’s important to keep in mind is that the money that goes to bolstering the education of returning veterans is an investment, in both the lives of the veterans themselves and the future of the nation.

Notice, Herbert can't refute the claims of the administration -- so he dismisses them as irrelevant. Always a sign of a dishonest argument.

The notion that expanding educational benefits will have a negative effect on retention seems silly. The Webb bill would cover tuition at a rate comparable to the highest tuition at a state school in the state in which the veteran would be enrolled. That kind of solid benefit would draw talented individuals into the military in large numbers.

Not necessarily. And the problem remains that the legislation would still encourage folks to leave the service immediately, not stay and make a career of it.

Senator Webb, a former secretary of the Navy who specialized in manpower issues, said he has seen no evidence that G.I.’s would opt out of the service in significantly higher numbers because of such benefits.

So what he wants to see is an actual exodus of personnel before he will acknowledge he is wrong -- followed by endless whining about "taking away benefits from the troops" if his plan proves to be a disaster for our military.

Senator McCain’s office said on Monday that it was following the Pentagon’s lead on this matter, getting guidance from Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Under pressure because of his unwillingness to support Senator Webb’s effort, Senator McCain introduced legislation with substantially fewer co-sponsors last week that expands some educational benefits for G.I.’s, but far less robustly than Senator Webb’s bill.

“It’s not even close to the Webb bill,” said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, an advocacy group.

So, does the number of co-sponsors indicate the merits of a bill? Also, why doesn't herbert mention that hte expanded benefits -- which are still significantly more generous than the current configuration of the GI Bill -- includes more generous benefits for career military personnel, as well as provisions for allowing career enlisted personnel who don't use their benefits themselves to assign them to a son or daughter. Notice that Bob Herbert doesn't bother to tell you what McCain actually proposes -- after all, the facts might get in the way of your drawing the right Left conclusion. Just a quote from someone from one of the small veteran's organizations. What's wrong -- couldn't he get someone from the American legion of VFW to speak out against McCain's proposal?

Politicians tend to talk very, very big about supporting our men and women in uniform. But time and again — whether it’s about providing armor for their safety or an education for their future — we find that talk to be very, very cheap.

And the talk of newspaper columnists smearing a true American military hero is even cheaper, Bob -- and slimy even for a seditious rag like the New York Times.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, A Blog For All, Faultline USA, third world county, McCain Blogs, Right Truth, Kodera's Korner, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog's Weblog, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Dumb Ox Daily News, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.