April 30, 2004 – Bush And Our Troops:  Actions Speak Louder Than Words.

As I have been working between Little Rock and Los Angeles, the situation in Iraq seems to be deteriorating as rapidly as my frequent flier miles are increasing.  As I am finalizing this Rant, I listen to Ted Koppel read off the names of those men and women who have sacrificed their lives as they fight in Bush’s War.  As I listen to the litany of names, knowing that this number is compounded ten to twenty fold by the number of innocent Iraqis killed during this ill-conceived campaign, I become more and more incredulous of the Bush Administration's gall, and even more saddened by the willingness of the American people to accept the “truth” as packaged by Bush et al.  Simply put, the fact that the Bush Administration has been trying to paint John Kerry as soft on the military while it pretends to represent the interests of the men and women in service make me simultaneous sick and furious.    

Take a look at the following two editorials on the Bush Administration and how it treats our soldiers and reservists, and then think about the millions of advertising dollars spent on trashing John Kerry and his policies on national defense.  Then, think of over the 700 names of our men and women in service who have died in Iraq.  The words “pot” “kettle” and “black” come to mind.  I do not know whether John Kerry will make a better Commander in Chief than Bush, but at least he has the perspective of actually serving active duty in a war zone, and has a first hand experience of the cost of war in terms of friends lost and foes vanquished.  The same cannot be said of those who now question his credentials the loudest – Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.  Call me simple, but the Bush Administration’s actions speak far louder than their words or glossy campaign ads.  While Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld send mostly middle class, lower middle class, or the poor into battle, they simultaneously line the pockets of those least likely to actually sacrifice in this time of “war.”  Remember, actions always speak louder than words.  The Bush Administration’s actions demonstrate its disdain for the common man, and the true value it place on the sacrifices made by those who serve in our armed forces and reserves

COMMENTARY

Matthew Miller writes a syndicated column.

April 28, 2004

Bob Woodward got 3 1/2 hours alone with President Bush while researching his new book. The president will spend far less time with the 9/11 commission on Thursday, and only in the company of vice presidential chaperon Dick Cheney. Anyone else think there's something wrong with this picture?

"To govern is to choose," John F. Kennedy said famously, and two of the most critical choices a president makes are how to spend his time and how to raise and spend the nation's money.

The Woodward choice tells us something important about the president's view of time. But fresh proof has come in recent days that the president's view of money is equally indefensible.
The media have reported on the appalling situation facing thousands of reservists, whose extended tours in Iraq are impoverishing their families. These men and women left jobs and businesses behind to answer their country's call. But as the expected six-month or 12-month deployments have turned into 20-month stints in Iraq, the economic toll is mounting. Employers can't hold positions open that long, and for small-business owners, it's a wipeout.

The New York Times this week profiled Jay Johnson, a member of the Tennessee National Guard who has a small mobile catering business. He's been in Iraq now for 18 months. The business he spent seven years building is down from three lunch trucks to one. His wife and two kids are scraping by on half as much money. "If he doesn't come back soon," his wife said, "we're going to lose it all and he'll have to start all over again." So George W. Bush is choosing to send many families of modest means toward bankruptcy as their reward for serving the nation in the reserve. Hold that presidential choice in your mind.

Now consider new reports by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and the Tax Policy Center that tally who really got what from the Bush tax cuts. The contrast is shocking and shameful.

While Jay Johnson's business is evaporating because he's in Iraq, Americans who earn more than $1 million a year are getting tax cuts that average $123,600 this year. People in the middle of the income spectrum will get tax cuts of $647.

That's quite a Republican rallying cry: "$100,000 for the millionaires — 600 bucks for the reservists!"

During earlier debates over the war's funding, I humbly suggested an "Adopt a Soldier" plan, under which high earners would forgo part of their tax cuts to pay for Iraq. I didn't find any takers in the White House, but I want to give the president another chance because I'm worried about the state of his soul.

So why not an "Adopt-a-Reservist" plan — under which the nation's 257,000 millionaires could give up some or all of their $30 billion in tax cuts this year to help ease the economic plight facing countless reservists and their families?

That might get us back to the political morality of the mid-19th century, when wealthier families at least had the decency to pay to avoid military service. This 21st century Bush morality — in which the best-off avoid service and get big tax cuts at the same time — is really going to smell bad when the kids and the historians figure it out.

As Karl Rove will surely see, I'm only proposing this in the president's interest. That's because, for cynics, the icing on the cake comes when affluent Bush supporters take a sliver of their $100,000-plus annual tax cut and return it to the president's campaign as a gratuity, via the higher contribution limits of $4,000 per couple (up from $2,000) that the president signed into law.

Ka-ching!

That's the sound of the pocket change from the tax cut as it gets recycled into the president's campaign. Meanwhile, Mrs. Johnson hears the ka-ching in the checkout line and wonders whether she'll have enough cash left this month to pay the bills, and when Jay is coming home.

Lack Of Armor Claims Troops

United Press International

April 27, 2004

WASHINGTON - Twenty percent of the U.S. troops killed in Iraq might have lived had there been more armored, heavier vehicles available to them, Newsweek reports Monday. A top Army general is recommending the Army send more Stryker medium-weight fighting vehicles to Iraq, which are lighter than tanks but heavier than Humvees, according to the magazine. Newsweek reports that an unofficial study by a defense consultant now circulating through the Army says 142 Americans were killed by land mines or improvised roadside bombs and 48 others by rocket-propelled grenades.

"Almost all those soldiers were killed while in unprotected vehicles, which means that perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them," according to Newsweek's account. The Army is racing to send "up-armored" Humvees to Iraq, but remains almost 1,800 vehicles short for its needs

Next time you see a Bush Ad attacking Kerry’s commitment to the military, remember these three words “pot” “kettle” and “black.”  Ask how much body armor those tax cuts might have bought, and how many men and women would be alive, or injuries limited, had the Bush Administration done its jobs and prepared for war, rather than a military parade.  Perhaps if tactics and not tax cuts had been a priority, more men and women would be coming home safe.  

I do not like this war.  I did not think it was necessary.  I, do, however, respect the service and commitment of the men and women in the military.  I firmly believe that even if the Bush Administration fails to recognize this commitment, each of us must meet our obligation to sacrifice a little something each month to help them in any way we can.    Each month, until this mess is over, I am sending money to Operation Homefront or some other foundation to help support the families of those men and women serving in our military.   I urge you to do the same.  You may hate the message of this war, but do not hate the messengers.  I just saw the faces of over 700 of them.