Cant Keep Quiet!

Sometimes you have to call them as you see them. In this particular instance, I have to say “Bull!”

Yesterday Bush held a story conference in the Rose Garden. Sorry, but I can’t call what Bush did news.

Here’s the transcript from the photo and story telling op. If you want to watch the story being spun you can watch a video of it here. Both are provided by the White House. The only problem with the video is the sirens heard in the background.

Now, Bush sprinkles in just enough truth and news to make it seem like he’s telling nothing but truth and news. Instead, much of what he says is bullshit.

Let’s just take a single paragraph. In particular, this paragraph:

The bottom line is this. Congress’s failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. And others could see their loved ones headed back to the war earlier than they need to. That is unacceptable to me, and I believe it is unacceptable to the American people.

You can watch Bush say that single paragraph if you don’t feel like reading his whole speech or listening to the whole thing by clicking on the YouTube link below.

So where’s the bullshit? Well, think all the way back to Bush’s speech in January about having a “surge” of troops into Iraq. During his speech he didn’t say how he was going to “surge” the troops, but it was discussed shortly after the speech by military officials. According to an article posted by CNN.com in January,

To implement the Bush plan, which he outlined in a speech to the nation Wednesday night, officials said soldiers will spend three or four months longer on their Iraq tours, and the Pentagon is expected to have to activate more National Guard and Reserve units. – emphasis mine

Also, back on March 16, 2007, before Congress settled on a bill, the Army announced that they were sending their 3rd Infantry Division back to Iraq ahead of its original schedule.

Since Bush was already forcing military families to “wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines” and to “see their loved ones headed back to the war earlier” in order to provide the human resources for his “surge,” how are the Democrats to blame?

Also, if Bush vetos the bill, just who is keeping the funding from the troops? The Democratic Congress that approved the bill with the needed funding and sent it to the president? Or the president who vetoed the bill because it contained non-binding benchmarks?

What was that? Did I write that the bill contains non-binding benchmarks? Why yes, I believe I did.

From an article supplied by AP to CNN.com on March 29, 2007

In a mostly party line 51-47 vote, the Senate signed off on a bill providing $122 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also orders Bush to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage while setting a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008. – emphasis mine

Yes, the beginning of the withdrawal is not non-binding. However it is 4 months from the signing of the bill if Bush would stop being a petulant child and sign the bill. If Bush really wants to call this a temporary troop “surge” then beginning to redeploy troops in 4 months would be in line with his terminology. Surge, after all, means temporary not permanent.

Bush needs to stop passing the blame to others and open his eyes to the reality he is facing. 59% of Americans support a troop withdrawal bill. Not the other way around.

Cross posted on Bring it On!