Yeah, Bush is all about supporting the troops.

I began working on this post a couple of days before the Democrats caved in on funding the Iraq war, so in some ways it is not timely. However, it is timely in at least two ways: 1) it shows a way that the Democrats could have used to show that Bush is the one who does not support the troops; and 2) anything that shows that Bush is a fraud and a hypocrite when he accuses others of not supporting the troops is and always will be timely.

With that in mind, let's take a look at what Bush and his flacks have been saying lately about supporting the troops in light of the what the Democrats were saying before they caved in on funding the war.

On May 1, 2007, Bush gave a speech which pimarily explained his veto of the Democrats' bill which would have funded the Iraq war but had a timeline for withdrawal. Among his numerous references to "the troops," Bush said the following:

The Democratic leaders know that many in Congress disagree with their approach, and that there are not enough votes to override a veto. I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war. They've sent their message. And now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need.

(emphasis added). Earlier that same day, assistant White House press secretary Dana Perino was asked about the bill being vetoed on the 4th anniversary of the the Mission Accomplished, and here's what she said in response:

Obviously, that is -- even thought the Democrats won't say so on the record, it is a trumped-up political stunt that is the height of cynicism and it's very disturbing to think that they possibly held up this money for the troops and the troops' families and the resources they need to try some PR stunt on this day.

First of all, Perino complaining about PR stunts is a HUGE steaming pile of crap. The Bush administration is all about cheap, shallow PR stunts, and "George's Aircraft Carrier Carnival" was the biggest one of all. Do yourself and everyone else a favor Ms. Perino--the next time you want to say out loud in a judgmental tone that others are simply engaging in PR stunts, just shut the hell up. Second, notice that Perino focused on the "troops and the troops' families and the resources they need[.]" Remember that.

On May 2, 2007, White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters that "There has to be a constructive effort to get a bill that is going to serve our national interest, meet the basic conditions the President has laid out, and provide the kind of -- the support that the troops need." (emphasis added).

On May 10, 2007, Bush held a press briefing at the Pentagon, and here is part of what he said about the need to "support the troops:"

We should be able to agree that we have a responsibility to provide our men and women on the front lines with the resources and flexibility they need to do the job we've asked them to do.

I believe that leaders of goodwill can deliver to our troops, and we've got to deliver it soon. Time is running out, because the longer we wait, the more strain we're going to put on the military. All Americans know the goodness and character of the U.S. Armed Forces. They are risking their lives each day to fight our enemies and to keep our people safe. Their families are making tremendous sacrifices on behalf of our country. It's important for the people who wear the uniform and their families to know that as the Commander-in-Chief, I'm proud of the sacrifices they have made, and the American people honor their service to our country.

(emphasis added). Notice that Bush really took the "troops and families" theme that Perino mentioned and expanded it. The following day he went even further at a ceremony for Military Spouse Day:

Through many conflicts, America's war fighters have counted on their spouses for love and support. Our communities have depended on your energy and your leadership. Our nation has benefited from our -- the sacrifices of our military families. Today, I've asked you to come so I can thank you on behalf of all the military families for your noble and needed service to the United States of America.

*******

Pretty soon, we'll hear more about the President's Volunteer Service Award recipients. But I do want to thank your families for joining us. I thank members of the Armed Forces who have joined us today. I can't think of a more noble cause than for people to volunteer to protect our country in the face of grave danger. And it is a -- I marvel at how fantastic our military is. And the reason why it's good is not only because we're modern and well trained, but we've got such wonderful people who wear the uniform. And we thank you for serving, and I appreciate your families who have joined us, as well.

*******

You know better than anyone that military service is a family commitment. As one wife in this audience recently noted, military spouses do not raise their right hands and take an oath of enlistment. Yet, their service begins as soon as they say two words: "I do." (Laughter.)

Military spouses enter into a life filled with uncommon challenges.

*******

Many military spouses have the added difficulty of spending long periods raising their children alone. Being a parent is hard work under any circumstances -- just ask my mother. (Laughter.) Yet military spouses tend to have to go an extra mile. They raise their own families and they find ways to help others as well.

*******

This is just a sampling of the good and important work performed every day by military spouses all across the country. I want you all to know that your work is noticed, your work is appreciated, and your work inspires our nation.

Some of my most moving experiences as President have come during my visits with military families. Laura and I have had the privilege of meeting troops and their loved ones at bases all across the world. We've sat beside the bedsides of those who have been wounded in battle. We've met with wives and husbands who have received a folded flag, we have hugged the parents of soldiers lost in combat. In these meetings I have found that what motivates our service members most is their love for their families. Oh, they love our country, but they really love their families. You're in their prayers every morning, their thoughts every day, and their dreams every night.

*******

I know that nothing can compensate for the sacrifices you endure while your spouse is away. And so do a lot of people in Washington understand that. But you also got to know that our entire country stands with you -- we love you and we respect you. America has seen and survived many wars over many generations. What has remained constant is the love we have for each other, the nobility of duty, and the strength that our men and women in uniform find in their heroes who serve at home.

And so we honor you today -- whether you're in this room or around the United States of America. We thank you for your sacrifices. We thank you for supporting our Armed Forces. And we ask for God's blessings on you and your family.

I agree with all of Bush's words. It's just a damn shame that for Bush, they are merely pretty words and that his actions are in direct opposition.

See, for the 2008 military budget, the Democrats proposed a 3.5 % pay increase for the troops--while Bush proposed a 3% raise--and an increase of $40 a month for widows of troops killed in action.

And what was Bush's response? He has said he would veto any bill that contained these provisions.

Here's what the Army Times reported regarding the proposed 3.5% pay raise:

Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill.

The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year’s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises.

The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.

Bush budget officials said the administration "strongly opposes" both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases "unnecessary."

Todd Bowers served two tours in Iraq and is a sergeant in the Marine Corps Reserves. He is also on the staff of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. On May 17, 2007, he appeared on "Countdown" and told Keith Olbermann that

Average service member, you join the military as a private. You get $1,300 a month. You‘ve got expenses that you have to cover for. You‘ve got to take care of family members, you‘ve got to take care of car payments. It essentially adds up. This 3 percent raise would give them approximately $29 extra, all right? Point-five percent gives them an extra $6. We‘re talking about $6 for someone that‘s serving over in Iraq and Afghanistan that is away from their families. It‘s not too much to ask.

(emphasis added). Well, apparently it's too much if you ask George W. Bush. But wait...there's more:

OLBERMANN: Six bucks. Service members have been largely supportive of this president. They have certainly frequently served, willingly or otherwise, as backdrops for his political campaigns. How do they react when he says a 3 percent raise...is enough for those in harm‘s way?

BOWERS: Well, I have to be very honest. I‘d be very frustrated. It‘s like working in a restaurant, and you have your manager that's not doing their job. And what I‘m connecting here is the VA bonuses that we just saw. Millions of dollars are going to an organization that's having a hard time taking care of our men and women in uniform.

Yet we can't provide those serving overseas right now, we can't provide them with a few extra dollars to take of their families. I think it's just absolutely ridiculous. And I sort of fall back on even military officers, 6 percent of military officers are having to use Food Stamps also. So it‘s not just the difference between enlisted and officer ranks.

But wait...there's even more:

OLBERMANN: But sufficiency, this term sufficiency as the appropriate criteria for determining how this nation repays them. If you went to the guys on the front line and said, You‘re being on sufficiency for your family, sufficiency for six bucks a month in the terms of a raise, what would their reactions to that be? Have you talked to people still in—serving who've heard this phrase sufficiency before?

BOWERS: Well, I've spoken to them directly about how these pay—how we're seeing this lack of pay increase, and people are not getting this extra 0.5 percent. And to be regarded as what we're receiving right now is sufficient, well, I have been to be honest, the ultimate goal of pay increases is to bring our pay up to the same as civilians.

Well, what I worry about when I drive to work in the morning here is spilling my coffee in my lap. What these folks have to worry about is IEDs, snipers.

(emphasis added). And for George W. Bush, that is not worth an extra $6 a month.

And for all of Bush's pretty words about the sacrifices that military families make, he is not willing to provide another $40 a month to those families if a soldier or Marine is killed in combat. Jon Soltz, co-founder and chairman of VoteVets.org, had this to say about Bush's refusal to support this benefit:

Forty dollars a month might seem like chump change to millionaires like the president and vice president, but for a mom of a young kid who just lost her husband in Iraq, that $480 a year means some school clothes and supplies, a few trips to the grocery store, and some health insurance copays. Believe me, even with the current benefits that get paid out by the Department of Defense and insurance that many troops buy into, those who lose spouses in Iraq aren't sleeping in mounds of cash. The increase proposed by Democrats will mean a hell of a lot. At VoteVets.org, we've heard absolute horror stories on the type of cutbacks that widows and widowers have had to make because the government doesn't provide enough to those who lose a loved one in war.

Soltz also summed up just how full of shit Bush is in rejecting the pay raise and increase in death benefits.

The president just vetoed legislation so he would be able to send more troops into the middle of the Iraqi religious civil war -- without end, mind you -- but is against increasing benefits to the spouses of those lost, or a pay increase to those who are serving? If there's a more fitting definition of "outrage," I'd love to see it.

*******

With the military dreadfully unable to meet recruiting goals, or retain our best men and women, you think the president would see the wisdom of paying troops as much as we possibly can. That's just the practical side of the equation. On the moral side, how could the president possibly oppose a half a percent increase in pay over what he asked for, when he has offered absolutely no hope that troops will ever be able to get out of the Iraqi civil war, and back home?

Mr. President, please, address the nation and tell all of America why you oppose increased benefits for spouses who lose their loved ones in war, or greater pay for those who are sacrificing for your endless war.

Ah, but Bush will never offer such an explanation. He will only accuse those who oppose him of "not supporting the troops." And in the meantime, he, the one person who could and should support the troops more than anyone else, refuses to do so.