After Jim Webb's historic "21st Century GI Bill" passed both houses of Congress overwhelmingly last week, McSame apologists are coming out in full force as they try to explain why the two of them support the far inferior bill being offered by Senator Lindsey Graham. So when The New York Times published a scathing op-ed chiding President Bush for his absence of leadership on this crucial issue, who better to defend the administration than the stooges from "FOX and Friends"? In this particularly egregious example of White House shilling, the entire panel uncritically advances Bush-approved talking points, while Brian Kilmeade argues that this GI Bill is different from the WWII-era one because these troops volunteered, and therefore don't deserve the same benefits.

Download Download (h/t Bill W)

After all this is different. People point to, "Well, look what they did after World War II." Well, after World War II, people were conscripted. They said "You’re joining." They said for doing that and winning the war, here’s a college education. Now people are saying "I want to be a military person. I am signing on in a volunteer force."

Kilmeade's argument is so full of holes, it's hard to know where to begin.

On a funnier note, Bill W. writes: "How bad is it when you need Brian Kilmeade to help you pronounce 'vitriolic'? Gawd they are all so stupid."

Agreed, Bill.