How not to show support for the troops

June 8, 2008

The Senate has already passed a defense spending bill with billions of additional dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with the House poised to take up the measure, the president devoted his weekly radio address to the subject. Bush seemed quite anxious to present himself as the troops’ best friend in Washington, insisting that if the House follows the Senate’s lead and passes a spending bill that the White House doesn’t like, those in uniform lose.

“The Pentagon will run out of money it needs to support critical day-to-day operations that help keep our Nation safe. And after July, the department will no longer be able to pay our troops — including those serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“Our men and women in uniform and their families deserve better than this. Around the world, our troops are taking on dangerous missions with skill and determination…. Each day, the men and women of our Armed Forces risk their lives to make sure their fellow citizens are safer. They serve with courage and honor. They’ve earned the respect of all Americans. And they deserve the full support of Congress. I often hear members of Congress say they oppose the war, but still support the troops. Now they have a chance to prove it. Congress should pass a responsible funding bill that gives our men and women in uniform the resources they need — and the support they have earned.”

We’re obviously well past the point at which anyone can expect honesty and integrity from Still-President Bush, but these comments were especially annoying.

First, the main sticking point in the disagreement between Congress and the administration is the Webb/Hagel measure to expand and revise the GI Bill. In other words, Bush is prepared to reject funding for the wars because Democrats (and more than a few Republicans) want to give the troops more generous educational benefits. Somehow, the president’s radio address omitted this detail.

And second, for all of Bush’s talk about paying the troops and what they and their families “deserve,” what the radio address neglected to mention is that the Democratic Congress is trying to give the troops a raise — and the Bush administration thinks it costs too much.

Faiz explained this very well just a couple of weeks ago.

The bill includes a section to raise the pay for the soldiers by 3.9 percent – an increase of 0.5 percent over the Bush administration’s request. In a “Statement of Administration Policy” released [on May 22], the White House asserts that it “strongly opposes” the pay increase authorized by Congress…. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that the 0.5 percent increase in troop pay would mean spending just an extra $324 million in 2009:

At the same time it is strongly opposing a slight increase in pay for the troops, the Bush administration is asking for hundreds of billions more for war. To put it in all in context, the White House wants $165 billion to continue fighting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars this year, but refuses to spend 0.2 percent of that amount ($324 million) to provide the troops a slight pay raise.

Despite his opposition to a pay increase, President Bush continues to demagogue the issue of support for the troops, telling soldiers at Ft. Drum yesterday that Congress is to blame for not having passed “a responsible war funding bill.” Of course, he didn’t tell that troops that by “responsible,” he means he wants a bill that gives them less pay.

Now go back and take a look at the language in the president’s radio address yesterday: “Our men and women in uniform and their families deserve better than this. Around the world, our troops are taking on dangerous missions with skill and determination…. Each day, the men and women of our Armed Forces risk their lives to make sure their fellow citizens are safer. They serve with courage and honor. They’ve earned the respect of all Americans. And they deserve the full support of Congress. I often hear members of Congress say they oppose the war, but still support the troops. Now they have a chance to prove it. Congress should pass a responsible funding bill that gives our men and women in uniform the resources they need — and the support they have earned.”

It’d be funny if it weren’t so sad.

Post Script: Oh, and before I forget, it’s worth noting that John McCain, Bush’s would-be successor, agrees with the president’s position on the spending bill. Just FYI.

I don’t get these people. They claim better post service benefits would hurt retention yet don’t think better pay during service would help it?

  • Of course McSame supports the president’s position. Why does John McCain hate America so much?

  • Since (1), Almost-Ex-President Bush hates America more than the terrorists do—and since (2), Almost-Ex-President Bush’s shoe-shine boy, McOldGuy, hates America more than the terrorists do, then (3) it is the patriotic duty and moral responsibility of all REAL Americans to hate our true enemies—the Crawford Crack Head—and his little boot-licking poodle….

  • What is missing from this is is a full court press by the GI bill’s supporters and a frank discussion about how twisted Bush’s argument is. It’s time for him to be called out on this utter bullshit. What do they have to lose? Make THIS AN ISSUE.

    As far as I can tell the MSM is only reporting Bush’s twisted perspective. Just yesterday it was running on MSNBC’s ticker that “Bush says that troops will go unpaid starting summer because of Demcrats won’t fund war.”

  • And yet the Republicans are trying to recruit more Vets to run for Congress. How would you like to be a Vet running for office and having to defend this position?

  • Members of the armed services and their families do deserve better. Starting with a CiC who doesn’t get his rocks off by launching invasions so he can chortle over the corpses.

    I just wish that when he takes his hippophobic ass down to the ranch in January he would take the shitheads who still buy his crap with him.

  • The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that the 0.5 percent increase in troop pay would mean spending just an extra $324 million in 2009:

    But… but… if you spend that on those idiots dumb enough to join up (as Bush thinks of them), where’s the cash to spread around to all the capos and the button-men in Bu$hco???

  • This is definitely The Issue to start whacking the Republicans with. All those folks with relatives in the military and serving in Iraq will have no problem “getting it.”

    Force the damn Republicans in Congress to vote against it on override after it’s vetoed, after they voted for it at the outset (knowing the President would veto it, so they could talk out both sides of their mouths).

  • As far as I can tell the MSM is only reporting Bush’s twisted perspective. Just yesterday it was running on MSNBC’s ticker that “Bush says that troops will go unpaid starting summer because of Demcrats won’t fund war.” — zoe kentucky

    Which is exactly why Republicans twists things. They know the public doesn’t have the time or inclination to dig through complex issues, so they hide them beneath a mountain of manure. And they know the media won’t dig through it to explain it; even if the media was so inclined, Repubs would claim “liberal media bias.”

    It’s a waste of time for Dems and rational beings to try and figure out Republican logic, because that’s not the game they’re playing. It’s all propaganda all the time. Sites like TCR represent a great start at pushing back, but unless the manure machine is exposed for what it is in more mainstream outlets, truth and rationality are fighting a never ending, uphill battle.

    ‘Without further adieu, let’s give a warm welcome a true American hero, John McCain.’

  • These people think that all it takes to “support the troops” is to slap that yellow-ribbon magnet on their cars.

    Hypocrites.

  • The test will come when both houses pass the legislation (hopefully by veto-proof margins) and Bush has to decide whether he will sign it or veto it. By test I don’t mean so much for Bush, but for the Democrats. Will they pillory Bush in a well-coordinated campaign for threatening a veto? Will they cave? It won’t do this time to let a veto stand either, and what a great way to hold the Rethug’s feet to the fire.

    Ideally, if the Decider vetos and Congress doesn’t override war funding ceases. What happens then? The Dems have another golden opportunity to really hit home. Why do i think they’ll blow it. Because that’s what they do best? Yeah, that must be it.

  • That radio transmission goes to all those troops around the globe…but the omissions of truth don’t. How will they get this information with Bush’s present propaganda campaign?

    Like Bush, McCain too depends on mis information not being exposed. The follow up never being presented or if it is, making sure it is not widely spread. Bush knows that a vast majority of the troops will not hear about what he so conveniently left out of his address. We must make sure they do and sometimes that depends on just one person sharing with another. When the content of the whole bill is known then Bush’s charges become ludicrous. Notice how he masks it with praise and acknowledgment for the troops. The man is shameless.

    I will forever dislike Pelosi for refusing to take on the responsibility of making Bush accountable. It is too much for her as she knows it will all lead back to the 9/11 cover up. So much could have been prevented with impeachment.

  • This is not at all surprising. It actually provides insight into the substance and motives of Bush Inc. and “das base” (cool term). The Iraq “war” has always been about two things: plundering Iraq’s oil and plundering America’s treasury. An expanded G.I. Bill and a pay raise for soldiers is a waste of money because it will be unavailable for the war proffiteers to steal. Similarly, we need to occupy Iraq for at least 30 years because that’s how long for us to pump out all their oil.

  • This isn’t the first time we’ve been around this particular budget bush, IIRC. The last time Dems also stuck something extra into the bill, which the pResident interpreted in the same way — I’ll have to veto it and our soldiers will suffer. And the Dems just puddled up, like yesterday’s ice cream, in far of voter reprisals. Maybe, this year, with bush’s imminent departure looming, maybe they’ll hold to their legislative guns. Maybe. But I won’t be holding my breath.

    Webb was supposed to be somewhere on TV today; anyone see him? Did he push back?

  • Cue Obama. He should grab about five or six flags and wrap himself in them, and head out to the nearest large military base, and tell the troops that he would like to support the military by giving them a raise and improving GI benefits but that, regrettably, both the president and Senator McCain dislike both ideas. Then repeat at another military base, then another, and then take it over to Iraq with the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders and a brass band in tow and repeat it a few more times.

  • N. Wells, the military vote doesn’t matter. One of the groups caged in FL in 2004 were active military who were overseas. They couldn’t sign for their registered mail (because they were serving) so their votes were caged and didn’t count.

    Military only matters as pawns to the sociopath in chief.

  • I was not suggesting that he do it primarily to capture the military vote, but as a way to get great media coverage and to change the general perception that Republicans support the military and Democrats don’t. The military can’t endorse a politician, but as Reagan and Bush have shown, a military that looks supportive, such as cheering for pay raises, makes a great backdrop.

  • N. Wells, true! Very true. I wonder if he’d be able to get that kind of audience, though. I would think the goopers would block it, then say he was pandering and demoralizing the troops, then, then, then, ad nauseum.

  • Just curious. How many of the posters, or the author for that matter, are now or have ever been in military service in the USA? How many have close, or distant, family members or friends that have served or are currently serving? How many understand how the military structure works from firsthand experience due to service?

  • Bev, my ex husband was military. I am an ex military wife.

    A friend of mine, someone I love dearly was in Iraq and will be returning there soon. He was a marine for several years (when he was a teenager) and has been a reservist since. He is career law enforcement. He left his police job (of more than 20 years – and retired) to go to the war to fight terrorists (expecting to be in Afghanistan) and wound up in Iraq. He is special forces. He’s going back – willingly. And I am sick about it.

    Don’t know if that helps but there it is.

  • I was an infantryman for three years, if that helps any, too. So I have a pretty good idea on the military structure, at least from a dumb grunt’s perspective.

  • Since my father spent 35 years in the Air Force (I was born after he’d been in for 10), and my husband has been in for 23 years, my brother has been in for 26, my brother-in-law retired after 24, another brother-in-law has served 16 years in the Marine Corps, another brother-in-law served 6 years Marines before switching to the Air National Guard for 20 years, my sister-in-law graduated from the Air Force Academy and served 6 years, a niece who served 6 years (her husband is currently in his 10th year), a nephew in his 7th year, a niece and her husband in their 3rd year, a nephew in his 4th year Navy, a son-in-law in his 7th year Air Force, and a daughter and her husband in their 3rd year Air Force, I would like to suggest that before you attack how the military is treated and by whom that you might want to talk to those who serve. And before you ask, everyone of my family members currently serving (that would be 9) have been deployed at least once in support of this war, most of them twice, for six or more months at a time. They have all deployed willingly to Iraq and Afghanistan, knowing that they are making progress and helping those who cannot seem to muster the courage and strength to help themselves. They know this because they have almost all had contact with the local peoples. The “sticking point” in this funding bill is not just the Webb/Hagel GI Bill, which is to be funded by a .47% surtax on “the most wealthy citizens” and gives those who have served as little as two years AFTER basic training and tech school (so three years in service) 100% of tuition and fees “not to exceed what in-state residents would pay at the most expensive public institution in the state in which they enroll”, 100% payment for cost of books and up to $2500 a month for housing and living expenses (based on location). While this sounds terrific, it is worth noting that it takes an average of six to ten years to train a junior NonCommissionedOfficer (NCO), middle management in the civilian world. Senior NCOs (upper middle management) usually require 12-16 years. The NCOs are the backbone of the military and can not be easily replaced by simple recruitment. In addition to the GI Bill “updating”, this DEFENSE spending bill contains several NON-DEFENSE related domestic funding items. If CONGRESS cares so much about our military, then they should design a funding bill that is strictly about the military and not tack in pet projects in order to get other Congressional votes of approval and ensure a Presidential veto. I do not expect that anyone here will understand my frustration at this issue. For what it’s worth.

    • Comments are closed.