How did you spend Memorial Day? Not the whole weekend, just Memorial Day itself.

With exquisitely poor taste, Dana Perino spent it having poorly executed conniptions about military matters, and John McCain spent it telling Americans what he thinks of them. (Short version: we’re all surrender monkeys. Or at least the vast majority of us who think that the U.S. should withdraw its troops from Iraq.)

La Perino did her sound-and-fury strut-and-fret in response to a blunt NYT editorial about the White House’s adamant and misguided opposition to Jim Webb‘s expanded G.I. Bill that drew bipartisan support in the Senate to pass by a veto-proof 75-22 margin last Thursday.

President Bush opposes a new G.I. Bill of Rights. …

… Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers’ lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break.

So lavish with other people’s sacrifices, so reckless in pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq, Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home.

[…]

Mr. Bush — and, to his great discredit, Senator John McCain — have argued against a better G.I. Bill, for the worst reasons. They would prefer that college benefits for service members remain just mediocre enough that people in uniform are more likely to stay put.

Dana Perino responded with a statement which started:

Once again, the New York Times Editorial Board doesn’t let the facts get in the way of expressing its vitriolic opinions – no matter how misleading they may be.

In today’s editorial, “Mr. Bush and the GI Bill”, New York Times irresponsibly distorts President Bush’s strong commitment to strengthening and expanding support for America’s service members and their families.

Too bad La Bimberino never got around to explaining what was misleading about the NYT‘s vitriolic opinions, or what they had irresponsibly distorted. Someone should sit her down and explain to her — in talking points she can understand — that conniptions work best if they are backed up by something resembling fact and substance. Stamping your foot doesn’t really cut it, no matter how good your legs may look.

As for McCain, it must be his glorious military heritage and his personal record of military service which gives him the right to insult all of us to our face on Memorial Day about our attitude to the Iraq War.

MCain was speaking about Obama, but here’s what he said:

“He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time…

“For him to talk about dates for withdrawal, which basically is surrender in Iraq after we’re succeeding so well is, I think, really inexcusable,” said McCain

It’s not the first time McCain has made the childish argument that lack of military service disqualifies Obama from having an opinion on military matters, that he has “zero understanding” of military matters, by definition.

Obama, of course, believes that we should withdraw our troops from Iraq. About 70% of the American people too have wanted American troops to withdraw from Iraq for a long time, even though we too really have no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq. Apparently, we too are surrender monkeys, and have been for a long time. Apparently, we too are not entitled to have an opinion on the Iraq war. Only those who have worn the uniform have a right to tell us what we should do in Iraq, even if they have been consistently wrong about the Iraq war from the very beginning, when it was only a gleam in Bush-Cheney- Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Feith‘s eyes.

So it’s really inexcusable of us to support surrendering in Iraq. Maybe John McCain can send us all to detention, once we have unfathomably elected him president? (Correction: it’s clear that he believes he can. Maybe he will? In the heyday of Mao‘s Red Army, they used to call it re-education, I believe.)