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.

1,000

Thanks to that link from Eschaton, this blog just logged 1,000 hits for the first time ever in a single day.

Obviously, I don't expect this kind of traffic to sustain itself, but it made it a nice day. My blog has been building its readership (very) slowly but steadily over the past two years and change. I have gone from, literally, zero hits per week to several dozen per day. It has been satisfying to watch happen.

There are some bloggers who rocketed to superstardom and thousands of visits per day within weeks or months of going online. I'm thinking of folks like Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher. More power to them. They're great writers and I love reading them and they deserve all the attention they're getting.

I started this blog as a daily writing exercise. Now, I just do it because I have to. I don't always succeed, but even on days when I don't have time between my full-time job and my family to write long posts, I try to at least link to news stories I find interesting. And even if nobody ever visited again, I don't think I could stop. If you blog, you know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, it was a good blog day, and I'm glad I got to share it with you.

Veto, Pt. II

History will record that congress approved the funds to wind down the occupation of Iraq to a foreseeable end, and that George W. Bush vetoed the legislation for the pettiest of political motives.

Harry Reid's reaction:

"A bipartisan majority of Congress sent the president a bill to fully fund our troops and change the mission in Iraq. The president refused to sign this bill. That's his right, but now he has an obligation to explain his plan to responsibly end this war. ... But if the president thinks that by vetoing this bill he'll stop us from working to change the direction of the war in Iraq, he is mistaken."

Mitch McConnell's reaction:

"This veto is the first step toward quickly passing the legislation our troops asked for. The president's call for a quick turnaround on the funding bill after the veto is consistent with what we've heard from commanders in the field. No matter how you may feel about the effort to secure Iraq, providing the funds to our troops should be everyone's top priority."

Everything Reid says is absolutely correct. By contrast, everything McConnell says is completely false. It's amazing, really.

First of all, the troops did not ask for the funding. The president asked for the funding. The congress approved the funding and sent the bill to him for his signature. He vetoed it. So, the veto is not, in fact, the first step toward anything. It is, at best, a detour on the way to what the president claims to want: funding to continue the fighting in Iraq.

Finally, providing funds to continue the fighting should not be everybody's top priority. Getting American troops the hell out of harm's way should be everybody's top priority. Tragically, it is only the Democrats who are trying to bring them home. George W. Bush and his Republican enablers are determined to keep the troops in Iraq indefinitely so that they never have to admit they were wrong about the invasion in the first place.

I am starting to gag everytime I hear Bush and the GOP invoke "the troops" with that empty, cheap sentimentality that comes so naturally to them. The legislation our troops asked for. Give me a break. You love the troops so much, Mitch? How about some damn body armor? How about some armored Humvees? Or, how about this, Mitch? How about just getting them out of the way of the bullets and the IEDs?

Until you can summon the will to tell George W. Bush that there is nothing to win in Iraq, and that he is sending the troops unnecessarily to their deaths, I don't want to hear anything you have to say.

About those funds...

When Bush addresses the nation tonight to slander Democrats as treasonous, appeasing, surrender monkeys, he will undoubtedly play the "ear mark" card to justify his veto of the war funds that he requested of congress.

It is probably too much to ask that, tomorrow, the liberal media take note of the following:

The bill would increase spending on the wars by $4 billion, to $95.5 billion. In addition, it would add $2 billion to improve the readiness of troops at home - about half of it for National Guard and Reserve equipment - and $1.2 billion to purchase Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, which give more protection from roadside bombs than armored Humvees do.

It also would add: $2.1 billion for military health care, including treating traumatic brain injuries from roadside bombs and $20 million to repair Walter Reed Army Medical Center; $1.8 billion more for veterans' health care; and $1.1 billion more for military housing.

This, in addition to a safe, overdue homecoming for our troops, is what Bush is vetoing.

Veto

Great Leader's veto of the Iraq funds he requested is imminent.

Four years after he declared "Mission Accomplished," he is declaring "Mission Indefinite."

For some reason, he has allowed his keepers to convince him that he is on the right side of public opinion and of history.

He is wrong.



Bush plans to make a statement a few minutes after 6 PM, Eastern to explain the veto. Earlier, on CNN, news anchor Susan Rosgyn noted that Bush has spent the last several months threatening and explaining the veto. She asked, "what does he need to make a statement for?

Good question.

Hear, hear!

Harry Reid:

Today we renew our call to President Bush:

There is still time to listen.

There is still time to come to grips with the facts on the streets of
Baghdad and throughout Iraq.

There is still time to sign this bill and change course in Iraq.

In just the four days since we passed the conference report, new facts have come to light that make our call for a new direction even more urgent:

This weekend the U.S. death toll in Iraq passed 100 for April -- making it the deadliest month of the year and one of the deadliest of the entire war.

That bears repeating: despite the President's claims of progress, this has been one of the deadliest months of this four year war.

Also this weekend, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction released his quarterly report that paints a dispiriting picture of our $20 billion rebuilding efforts.

The report concludes that our rebuilding efforts are falling far short of their targets. As a result, after more than fours years of these efforts, Iraqis -- quote -- "plagued by power outages, inadequate oil production, and shortages of clean water and health care."

The report tells us that despite spending more than three quarters of our allocated funds to increase electricity production, Iraq's power grid now produces less electricity than before the invasion, with Baghdad averaging just 6.5 hours of electricity per day, down from almost 24 hours before the war.

The report tells us that despite spending nearly 2 billion American dollars, our efforts to provide Iraqis with clean drinking water are falling miserably short.

And the report tells us that oil production -- a critical component of any future stable Iraq economy -- is still off target levels as well.

President Bush continues to ask for our patience and continues to boast of progress. But this report gives us no reason to believe that conditions for the Iraqi people are improving any more than they are for our troops.