Of all the things the Bush campaign does to annoy me — and that is one heck of a long list — the thing that really gets under my skin the most is when they falsely attack John Kerry of doing something that Bush actually has done.
The latest in this series was yesterday, when Bush accused Kerry of being irresponsible for announcing that he would try to reduce troop levels in Iraq six months after taking office.
“We all want the mission to be completed as quickly as possible. But we want the mission completed,” the president said. “The mission is not going to be completed as quickly as possible if the enemy thinks we will be removing a substantial number of troops in six months.”
But, once again, what Bush didn’t mention is that it was his own administration that, not long ago, talked openly about removing a substantial number of troops from Iraq, just as Kerry proposed.
Last November, the Bush administration announced a plan to reduce U.S. forces in Iraq by 27,000 over a six-month period and by an additional 50,000 by mid-2005. In other words, Bush proposed a troop reduction plan last fall that is even more ambitious than what Kerry suggested this week. The difference is, when Bush does it, he considers himself a great leader. When Kerry does it, Bush considers it an example of undermining the war effort.
I wish I could say this was the first time this has happened, but it actually happens with stunning frequency.
Bush, for example, accused Kerry a few months ago of opposing body armor for troops in Iraq, when it was Bush who sent troops into battle without the armor they needed in the first place. Indeed, when the infamous supplemental budget request reached the Hill seven months after the war started, the Bush administration didn’t even request body armor funding; Congress did.
Likewise, Bush accused Kerry of opposing higher combat pay for the troops, when it was actually the Bush administration that did so. And Bush attacked Kerry for blocking better health care for reservists when it was Bush administration that opposed the program that offers reservists the same health care benefits as active-duty soldiers. (It was also the Bush administration that called for cutting off 173,000 veterans from their health care under the president’s 2004 budget request, while requiring enrollment fees and higher out-of-pocket costs.)
Perhaps the quintessential example of this came via Bush’s criticism of Kerry’s vote on the $87 billion Iraq package last year. While Bush now insists that the bill was “necessary” for the troops, he fails to mention that he personally threatened to veto this “necessary” legislation.
The Bush administration threatened for the first time Tuesday to veto an $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan if Congress converts any Iraqi rebuilding money into loans.
As Judd Legum recently explained:
Kerry voted against the funding package because Bush didn’t provide a way to pay for it. His concerns have been proven well founded. This year the nation’s deficit is expected be $455 billion. The bill Kerry preferred would have simply passed the funding but offset it by rolling back tax cuts for those making over $200,000 a year.
[…]
If the money wasn’t provided in exactly the way Bush requested, he threatened to veto the bill. In other words, Bush did the exact same thing that he is criticizing Kerry for doing. Bush argued for a particular set of requirements for how the money would be appropriated and was willing to oppose the funding package if he didn’t get his way.
Bush’s offensive tactics might be funny if they weren’t so ridiculous.