The Bush campaign unveiled its sixth TV ad of the season yesterday, and like the previous five, BC04 continues to avoid referencing even one Bush accomplishment.
And what do you do when you can’t run ads touting your own successes? You tear down the other guy.
The funny thing about Bush’s latest spot, called “Troops,” is it goes after Kerry with the same charges critics have levied at Bush. (In psychology, I think they call this “projecting.”) In other words, Bush is attacking Kerry for doing the same things Bush has done himself.
Let’s take a closer look at each of Bush’s charges. They’re stunning in their duplicity.
Bush’s ad accuses Kerry of having “voted against funding our soldiers” because Kerry voted against the $87 billion expenditure the administration requested late last year for Iraq. This intentionally overlooks the fact that Kerry voted for — indeed, he sponsored — a Senate measure that would have paid for the Iraq funding through rescinding some tax cuts for the wealthy.
The only difference between Bush’s approach and Kerry’s is that Bush’s scheme added $87 billion to the deficit while Kerry’s would have been revenue-neutral. If anyone has the moral high ground here, it’s Kerry.
Next, Bush’s ad insists that Kerry voted against “body armor for troops in combat,” “higher combat pay,” and “better health care for reservists and their families.” This is the point where Bush’s campaign shifts from mendacity to insanity.
* Body armor — OK, Mr. President, maybe you can explain why the body armor funding was in the supplemental budget request seven months after you sent troops into combat? As the Kerry campaign noted yesterday:
The very fact that vehicle and body armor funds were included in this legislation – which was passed 7 months after the war began — is an acknowledgment that Bush sent our troops into combat without adequate protection, forcing military families to scramble to pay for this essential gear.
Just as importantly, the Bush administration didn’t even request the body armor funding in the bill, Congress did.
* Combat pay — Kerry didn’t oppose higher combat pay for the troops, the Bush administration did. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported in August:
The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120- degree-plus heat.
Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000 in Afghanistan will lose a pay increase approved last April of $75 a month in “imminent danger pay” and $150 a month in “family separation allowances.”
The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can’t sustain the higher payments amid a host of other priorities.
[…]
A White House spokesman referred questions about the administration’s view on the pay cut to the Pentagon report.
* Better health care for reservists — You’ve got to be kidding me. There’s a program called TRICARE that offers reservists the same health care benefits as active-duty soldiers. The Bush administration not only opposed TRICARE, but threatened to veto spending bills that included it.
And while we’re on the issue of health care and the military, this might be a convenient time to note that the Bush administration also called for cutting off 173,000 veterans from their health care under his 2004 budget request, while requiring enrollment fees and higher out-of-pocket costs.
No reasonable person can consider the substance of this campaign ad and describe it as anything but dishonest, hypocritical trash. If Bush had any sense of character or decency left in him, he’d pull this nonsense from the air. Of course, since this White House abandoned shame a long time ago, I’m sure these lies won’t phase them.