Prosecute the torture.

September 15, 2004

Do we have to do this AGAIN??

Yesterday, when he spoke at the General Conference of the National Guard Association of the United States, the current occupant of the White House said this:

I have made a pledge to those who wear the uniform that they will have the resources and the tools they need to do their jobs. That's why I went to the United States Congress last September and requested $87 billion for vital funding -- funding for our troops in harm's way, funding for those who wear the uniform of America in Afghanistan and Iraq. I was pleased with the overwhelming bipartisan support for this important funding request. Matter of fact, the support was so strong, that only 12 members of the United States Senate voted against it. Two of whom are my opponent and his running mate.

They asked him why and he said: Well, I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it. Then they said, well, they pressed him for it, he said he was proud of his vote. And finally he said the whole thing was a complicated matter. There's nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat.

So Bush is still misleading the National Guard.

Here's the story about that $87 Billion - There were a couple of funding bills proposed. John Kerry is quoted as saying that the bill he supported would have "reduced the tax cut on the wealthiest Americans."

The truth is that Bush threatened to veto that bill it if arrived at his desk. So think of that for a moment. Had this other bill arrived at the Oval Office, one that would have funded the already underfunded troops by rolling back part of the tax cut to his rich friends, Bush would have said, "No!" But he didn't say that to the cheering crowd yesterday. Georgie Dubya Bush, shirker of his duties at the Texas National Guard, lied to members of the very organization he fled 30 years ago.

Bush also said "there's nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat." Note the change in the verb, by the way. It went from "funding" to "supporting." This little rhetorical sleight of hand is designed to spin this lie into something much much worse: John Kerry doesn't support the troops.

All because he wanted to roll back part of Bush's tax cut to the wealthy.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

yep, we do...from now until when hell freezes over

if you don't know that you don' know Karl Rove