The 'Earmark' Card and other Bush nonsense

I just got a chance to read the transcript of Bush's post-veto speech. Did I call it, or did I call it?

Third, the bill is loaded with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror. Congress should debate these spending measures on their own merits -- and not as part of an emergency funding bill for our troops.

When exactly was it that Bush decided he couldn't abide earmarks? Oh, yes, now I remember. It was right around the time that Democrats took control of congress. Prior to that, he had no problems with them. In fact, as we have been reminded ad nauseum today, this is only the second veto Bush has issued during his presidency. The first was to soothe the religious right over embryonic stem-cell research. This means that for six years, he signed every lard-laden spending bill the GOP shoved in front of him, including those which funded the occupation of Iraq.

But such spending has been part of Iraq funding bills since the war began, sometimes inserted by the president himself, sometimes added by lawmakers with bipartisan aplomb. A few of the items may have weighed on the votes for spending bills that have now topped half a trillion dollars, but, in almost all cases over the past four years, special-interest funding provisions have been the fruits of congressional opportunism by well-placed senators or House members grabbing what they could for their constituents on the one bill that had to be passed quickly.

[...]

The president's own request last year for emergency war spending included $20 billion for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery, $2.3 billion for bird flu preparations, and $2 billion to fortify the border with Mexico and pay for his effort to send National Guardsmen to the southern frontier.

The Republican-controlled Senate tried to load the 2006 bill with $4 billion for agricultural subsidies, $1.1 billion for the Gulf Coast fishing industry, $594 million for highway projects unrelated to Hurricane Katrina, and $700 million for rerouting a rail line in Mississippi.

Suddenly, however, fiscal discipline is one of the reasons he is forced to insist on an open-ended commitment for "our troops" in Iraq. Please.

Bush accuses Democrats of playing politics, but everything he does and says, including this dishonest speech, is the cheapest of political theater.

And apparently, "our troops" really is the rhetorical button they have decided to push to get the American people on their side. They're not even trying to be subtle. Bush used the expression, or some variation thereof, fifteen times in a speech that lasted, what, ten minutes? Nothing like a little empty sentimentality to shave off a few self-identified independent poll respondents, I guess.

- Twelve weeks ago, I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave men and women in uniform with the funds and flexibility they need.

- First, the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq.

- After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would dictate the terms on which the remaining commanders and troops could engage the enemy.

- This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops.

- Congress should debate these spending measures on their own merits -- and not as part of an emergency funding bill for our troops.

- And now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need.

- Our troops are carrying out a new strategy with a new commander -- General David Petraeus.

- We need to give our troops all the equipment and the training and protection they need to prevail. That means that Congress needs to pass an emergency war spending bill quickly. I've invited leaders of both parties to come to the White House tomorrow -- and to discuss how we can get these vital funds to our troops. I am confident that with goodwill on both sides, we can agree on a bill that gets our troops the money and flexibility they need as soon as possible.

- Without a war funding bill, the military has to take money from some other account or training program so the troops in combat have what they need.

- Without a war funding bill, we add to the uncertainty felt by our military families. Our troops and their families deserve better -- and their elected leaders can do better.

- Yet whatever our differences, surely we can agree that our troops are worthy of this funding -- and that we have a responsibility to get it to them without further delay.

- Thank you for listening. May God bless our troops.

The President of the United States used to ask God to bless America. Times do change, don't they?

Add to all this another shameful attempt at conflating those we are fighting in Iraq with those who attacked us on 9/11, and it's pretty much the whole Bush trick bag.

Pretty pathetic, if you ask me, but we'll see how it plays.