It wasn't so long ago when Bush ran a losing presidential campaign, only to be appointed to office by the Supreme Court. After having smeared John McCain on the path to the Republican nomination, Bush saw fit to disparage our military forces and the way they were treated by the Clinton administration. In his acceptance speech, Bush
said:
We have seen a steady erosion of American power and an unsteady exercise of American influence. Our military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report ... Not ready for duty, sir.
He want on:
The world needs America's strength and leadership, and America's armed forces need better equipment, better training, and better pay.
We will give our military the means to keep the peace, and we will give it one thing more ... a commander-in-chief who respects our men and women in uniform, and a commander-in-chief who earns their respect.
Did he do ANY of these things?
Of course not. First off, the Pentagon
denied Bush's claim that the military wasn't ready. As usual, Bush continued to repeat his lie, hoping that repeating it enough might make it true.
Today, we learn that:
Four Army divisions -- 40 percent of the active-duty force -- will not be fully combat-ready for up to six months next year, leaving the nation with relatively few ready troops in the event of a major conflict in North Korea or elsewhere, a senior Army official said yesterday.
The four divisions -- the 82nd Airborne, the 101st Airborne, the 1st Armored and the 4th Infantry -- are to return from Iraq next spring, to be replaced by three others, with a fourth rotating into Afghanistan. That would leave only two active-duty divisions available to fight in other parts of the world.
Briefing reporters at the Pentagon, the official said the four returning divisions will be rated either C-3 or C-4, the Army's two lowest readiness categories, for 120 to 180 days after they return as vehicles and helicopters are overhauled and troops are rested and retrained.
....
Once those divisions return from Iraq, Army readiness will be at its lowest point since the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
....
Retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, a former division commander and staunch advocate of more Army forces, said four to five divisions below the C-1 rating "means literally half the Army is broken and not ready to fight."
"We have a potential huge challenge from North Korea," McCaffrey said. "So by definition, at this point, we would only be able to respond to an emergency in North Korea with air and naval power or nuclear weapons. It's an unacceptable, in my judgment, strategic risk."
This alarming assessment only builds on Bush's already deplorable record on his management of our military forces.
It was in August, 2002 that Paul Krugman recounted in a NYT column Josh Marshall's report on a Department of Veterans Affairs memo intended to stop informing veterans of their benefits:
Citing "conservative OMB budget guidance" for spending on veterans' health care, the memo instructed subordinates to "ensure that no marketing activities to enroll new veterans occur within your networks." Veterans are entitled to medical care; but the administration hopes that some of them don't know that, and that it can save money by leaving them ignorant.
And things just continued to get worse for those who sacrificed so much to defend the flag with which Bush so often wraps himself. In February earlier this year, we learned that Bush intended to cut school funding for military kids:
As the country prepares for a possible war with Iraq, the Bush administration is planning to cut education funding for hundreds of thousands of children in military families.
The government's proposal would eliminate "federal impact aid" provided since 1950 to school districts for military children who live in homes off base, and for children of parents who work as civilians on military bases but live elsewhere.
The cuts, which would save $125 million annually, would affect about 900,000 children nationwide and 63 percent of children in military families, according to the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools. Several local districts would lose a significant amount of funding and would have to cut staff.
Not satisfied with undercutting their children's welfare, Bush decided he might as well go after the soldiers themselves, threatening to cut military pay while they were doing battle in Iraq:
The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120- degree-plus heat.
Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000 in Afghanistan will lose a pay increase approved last April of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances."
The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can't sustain the higher payments amid a host of other priorities.
On top of all this, Bush sent our troops into a very difficult, dangerous and all too often deadly situation in Iraq, where he never planned for the aftermath of the initial victory against the Iraqi army. And it's not just an insurgent war that our soldiers face -- it's also the complete inadequacy of Cheney's buddies at Halliburton. Halliburton, who won a no-bid contract with no ceiling to provide infrastructure through its subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root for troops based in Iraq through, is doing a bang-up job of screwing up:
There are reports that some reservists and National Guardsmen stationed in Iraq are going without body armor and being forced to scrounge up food rations and fresh water. US Representative Louise Slaughter held a press conference Monday in Rochester calling on the Bush administration to remedy the situation. She wants to know where the billions of dollars Congress appropriated are going.
Slaughter said she has heard numerous stories of troops in Iraq with insufficient supplies and inadequate shelter and inferior medical care.
Does any of this sound like a military being run by a man who claimed he would be, "... a commander-in-chief who respects our men and women in uniform, and a commander-in-chief who earns their respect"?
It appears Bush maintains the same disdain for the military he showed when he deserted the Houston National Air Guard. His treatment of our fine men and women in the U.S. armed forces is but another example of the depths of the lies, hypocrisy and cynicism with which Bush has filled his presidency.