On Tuesday, in a fairly significant speech before an American Legion post, the president offered a couple of sweeping criticisms of the Democrats’ policy towards the [tag]war[/tag]. The first insisted that the Dems’ approach may have an adverse impact on troop rotations.
“Congress’s failure to fund our [tag]troops[/tag] will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines,” Bush said. “Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated. This is unacceptable. It’s unacceptable to me, it’s unacceptable to our veterans, it’s unacceptable to our military families, and it’s unacceptable to many in this country.”
Just 24 hours later, the Bush administration announced that our military families will wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines and will see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced yesterday that all active-duty soldiers currently deployed or going to Iraq and Afghanistan will see their one-year tours extended to 15 months, acknowledging that such a strain on the war-weary Army is necessary should the ongoing troop increase be prolonged well into next year.
The decision — coming three months after President Bush put forth his new security plan for Iraq, including the deployment of at least 28,000 additional troops there — reflects the reality that the new strategy is unfeasible without introducing longer Army tours.
The across-the-board extension will affect more than 100,000 active-duty soldiers and will result in the longest combat tours for the Army since World War II. It will also mandate for the first time that active-duty soldiers spend more time at war than at home.
“This recognizes … that our forces are stretched. There’s no question about that,” Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.
Hmm. On Tuesday, it’s wrong to keep the troops in Iraq longer than their scheduled tours. On Wednesday, it’s not. As House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel noted, “What a difference a day makes. Yesterday, extending tours of duty was ‘unacceptable’ to the President. Today, it is Pentagon policy.”
The White House flip-flopped on alleged “pork,” too.
On Tuesday, Bush was outraged by what he saw as wasteful spending. He excoriated lawmakers for “spend[ing] billions of dollars on pork barrel projects and spending that are [sic] completely unrelated to this war.”
As it turns out, the Bush gang didn’t mean this, either.
The official White House line was seen Tuesday when President Bush traveled to an American Legion post in suburban Virginia to lambaste Congress again for spending “billions of dollars on pork-barrel projects” and programs unrelated to the war. Yet hours later, an administration official privately expressed hope that a deal may yet be reached on the extra “security” funds in the bill and that major pieces of the added domestic spending could be considered as part of the fiscal 2008 appropriations process.
“We agree that the funding is needed,” the official said, specifically citing added funds for homeland security and to help Gulf Coast states still recovering from Hurricane Katrina. “We also totally disagree that it is needed in this emergency supplemental.”
Indeed, it’s worth noting that the president’s own budget proposal included lots of funding rests that were “completely unrelated to this war.” As Scott Lilly explained, the White House request contained “funds for federal prisons, Kosovo debt relief, flood control on the Mississippi, nutrition programs in Africa, educational and cultural exchange activities around the world, disease control in South Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe, and salaries for U.S. marshals.”
So, looking back, Bush said the troops would run out of money in April. This was false. He said Congress was denying the troops the resources they need. This was false. He said it was “unacceptable” to extend troops’ tours of duty. This was false. And he said he couldn’t tolerate extraneous spending in the appropriations bill. This was false.
Maybe the president isn’t aware of this, but his credibility is abysmal anyway. Making up demonstrably false claims probably won’t help.
On Tuesday, Bush was either lying or clueless. Maybe someone can ask Dana Perino to explain which one is right at the next press briefing.