Not supporting the troops
The Democrats in Congress might actually be growing a spine (although the jury is still out on that one). The House recently passed a $50 billion funding bill for the Iraq debacle, which the Republicans in the Senate promptly blocked because the bill mandated the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by the end of 2008.
In his zeal for perpetual war, the Liar In Chief said today:
President Bush warned Congress yesterday that the Pentagon soon will have to start laying off civilian employees and reducing operations at U.S. military bases unless lawmakers send him an emergency war funding bill that does not mandate troop withdrawals from Iraq.
Predictably, Bush then resorted to his usual slander of Democrats who disagree with his disastrous policies:
"[The American people] do not want the government to create needless uncertainty for those defending our country, and uncertainty for their families. They do not want disputes in Washington to undermine our troops in Iraq, just as they’re seeing clear signs of success."
Harry Reid promptly got to the heart of the matter:
Charging that Bush "refuses to fund his own war," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement: "The president demands more money to continue his failed war policy, yet he and his enablers in Congress have rejected our proposal for an additional $50 billion provided they work with us to change course in Iraq. He cannot have it both ways."
Reid said Bush and his fellow Republicans "are so afraid of being held accountable for their failed war policy that they would rather leave our men and women on the battlefield shorthanded than work with us to adjust this disastrous strategy."
Leaving the troops in the dust is part and parcel of Bush's approach to the military. While bleating about supporting the troops, he leaves them in harm's way for an ill-conceived, badly executed, and illegal war. Our soldiers' only hope of escaping this morass is then labeled "damaging." In fact, the only "undermining" that would be caused by a 2008 pullout is to Bush's already tattered legacy.
His hypocritical approach to the military as only so much cannon fodder is cast into stark relief by the treatment of our soldiers once they return home:
Under federal law, there are no protections guaranteeing that a school must accommodate a student/soldier who's been deployed. Universities and colleges are not required to readmit students when they return from overseas or to refund tuition for soldiers pulled out mid-semester--and they are even allowed to flunk students if they're not attending classes because they've been sent to Iraq.
This shoddy treatment of our soldiers could be rectified by a number of pending Democratic proposals, including this one:
In January, newly elected Democratic Senator James Webb of Virginia (one of a handful of Congress members to have a son or daughter serving in Iraq), introduced legislation to create a new GI Bill called the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act that would provide college tuition, room and board and a $1,000 monthly stipend to veterans who have served at least two years of active duty since the 2001 terrorist attacks.
Of course, Bush and the Republicans in the Senate don't support the troops enough to care about them when the guns stop firing:
The Bush Administration quickly declared its opposition to the bill, warning it would cost tens of billions of dollars and would prove cumbersome to administer. Republican senators agreed, and the bill has not made it out of committee.
If the current Republican posturing over funding for the troops mired in the Iraq debacle were even remotely honest, our soldiers would be honored with the benefits they deserve. Instead, those who oppose this administration's disastrous policies are accused of "undermining" our nation's military.
The only person undermining them lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.