Fear of encouraging a troop exodus caused quite a debate over a generous expansion in the education benefits of the G.I. Bill.

The Congressional Budget Office, in its cost analysis, estimated that the proposed improved benefits would result in a 16 percent drop in re-enlistments.

During yesterday's debate on the enhanced educational benefits, Obama picked a fight with McCain. Obama threw the first punch on the Senate floor when he questioned McCain's opposition to the increased benefits:

"I can't understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI Bill," he said. "I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans."

McCain's response was swift and highlighted Obama's lack of military service:

"I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did," said McCain, a former naval aviator who was held as a prisoner of war for more than five years during the Vietnam War.

"Running for president is different than serving as president ... the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend," McCain said.

McCain's full statement is available here.

Obama got it wrong from the moment he threw the first punch at McCain. McCain did not line up behind President Bush on this issue. According to the New York Times, "the Bush administration threw its support behind an alternative bill introduced last month by Mr. McCain and two other Republican senators, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Richard M. Burr of North Carolina:"

That benefit is also generous, increasing the monthly tuition benefit to $1,500, or roughly the average cost of public university tuition; it would rise to $2,000 for those who serve for 12 years. After new amendments, some as recent as Wednesday, their legislation would also include $1,000 a year for books and fees. The overall cost, Senators Graham and Burr said at a news conference, would be $38 billion over 10 years, financed by an across-the-board cut of a half percent in discretionary spending.

The main difference, though, is the provision to allow service members to transfer the benefits, up to half after 6 years of service and all after 12 years. Echoing the Pentagon’s arguments, they said that would encourage more service members, especially noncommissioned officers, to make the military a career.

I don't understand why Obama always has to distort McCain's positions. Why is Obama afraid to debate the issues based upon the truth? Are his arguments so weak that he feels he must resort, as numerous non-partisan factcheckers have found Obama has, to "distortion," "rank falsehood, "seriously misleading" statements and "outright lying?"