The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Friday, November 11, 2005

Bush honors troops on verterans day

President Bush took an opportunity on Veterans Day to honor the troops by reassuring them they are fighting for a clear and honorable purpose instead of the lies told by those with only political gain in mind. I saw a lefty on a blog articulate all that is going on with these historical rewrites about before the war when he said "the end justifies the means". While GOP forgets they are the in the majority and often acts like they are in the minority, Dems act like they forget there are cameras, video and transcriptions of what they say. Now they are willing to trample the valiant efforts and sacrifices of our troops by lying and undermining the war. Today Bush made it clear that was not going to happen.

I have my theories about the timing of Bush's defense of his decisions to come in full force after the beginning of the year. Today was a clear signal to the troops that he would not let them down, a shot in the arm for his base and a shot over the bow as a warning to democrats who will be caught in their lies when the truth is revealed. While the Dems keep sticking their necks out further and further out, the trap is closing. With three clear encouraging events happening in a short span (Rove's vindication and the ongoing Wilson credibility meltdown, the Alito nomination and today's strong defense of policy and encouragement of victory to the troops) Bush is on his way to a come back.

Here is the text of what he said, transcription courtesy of

"While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.

They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his
development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his
position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.' That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

"The stakes in the global War on Terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our Nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory."


  • At 12:09 AM, Anonymous paw said…

    With your zeal for truth seeking, you certainly are willing to admit that this is a bald-faced lie, aren't you?

    "..Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence..."

    And I respectfully disagree with your continuous disparagement of the Wilson's. What I don't get is how you and your ilk can completely dismiss their lifetime of service (very unpatriotic of you to do that to public servants) and what relevance your criticism has on any troubles experienced by the current administration. Sometime, if you would be so kind, maybe you could commit a post to detailing exactly why the Wilson's should be discarded and vilified, and why exactly I should believe that the CIA is also suspect. In the interest of brevity, I'm pretty sure I understand your beliefs regarding the tie-in's of the media and Dems.

    As a longstanding reader of youR blog, I must say that you seem to assume that your audience is privy to certain information and beliefs. If I wasn't tuning in occasionally to the major-league righties I'd frequently be completely lost. Just something to think about if you ever put any thought into your demographics.


  • At 9:33 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    paw, I don't believe that to be a lie. In fact I have heard many times that they had the same access without any challenge whatsoever until recently.

    What good is a congressional intelligence committee if they do not have access to intel? Senator Rockefeller claiming they get different intel doesn't convince me.

    Then you have 2 presidential administrations from different parties and perspectives making the same claims of WMD; 1998 and 2002.

    Villified is maybe too strong of a word. If I knew how much of the Wilson's actions were premeditated then maybe it would be appropriate. I will try on some future date to have a brief summary of the points on the Wilson's but can't do it today.

    As always paw, thanks for your continued reading and occassional comments. You always make me "paws" and evaluate what I am writing.

  • At 11:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Bush honors troops on veterans day with a proposed $910 milllion cut to the Veteran's Administration in his 2006 budget and is just one in a long history of proposed cuts.

    Yes, that Bush, he honors our troops.

  • At 6:28 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    I do wish you would put a link to what you reference. I can never tell if you get your stuff from or what. The main issues to verify your statement are:

    1) Is this being reported in a trustworthy news source?

    2) Since congress deals with budget issues is this Bush or Congress. If congress, who is behind it?

    3) Are these cuts as defined by less money than this year? Or defined by less money than originally planned to INCREASE next year?

    Please provide details so your claim can be verified and responded to accordingly.

  • At 12:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    If you had bothered to follow the link I provided, you would find that the information was coming from numerous sources such as the Army Times, Washington Post, The Hill, Associated Press, OMB, VA, etc.

    To answer number 1, they are all very reliable sources. Not blogs. Not Newsmax or Drudge.

    As for number 2, the budget always comes from the White House first, then is put through Congress. To stay on point, your point is that Bush honors troops. His initial budget offering is a reflection of his values. Do you disagree? Are you going to try to give him a pass on that?

    Next, you need to bear in mind that the budget does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in relation to inflation and many changing variables. As regards the VA, these variables can and will shift radically when you have 150,000+ troops engaged in active combat. This gets to your third question. Realize that part of the 2006 funding supposedly being given to the VA is in the form of mandatory payments and prescription charges paid by the very vets who need help. That is unconsciounable. Bush's initial budget was extremely callous. It will no doubt change as it continues heading through Congress, and has already been rebuked by Congress, but what this post is about is how Bush actually does not honor veterans or the troops he has sent to war judging by his actions. Words are cheap and often empty from him and his staff. How else do you respond to this administration sending them to fight without adequate armor despite the fact they could have had it all along?

    Still, have some more to wade through.
    First and foremost, the Veterans of Foreign Wars
    More Washington Post
    The SF Gate
    Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
    Medical News Today
    Senator Conrad, ND

    I expect you to criticize any and every news source that provides info you don't like as being untrustworthy. You've done it many times on your blog. I expect you to nitpick at budgetary minutae to try to defend Bush, which will always be baffling to me. The man avoided active duty in VN, miraculously jumping over people in line ahead of him for the Guard post. Then he goes on to criticize actual real VN vets like John McCain and John Kerry who were there serving their country. His RNC gives out purple bandaids at the 2004 convention in open mockery of wounded vets of every war. Instead of minimizing tax cuts for the wealthy, he proposes cutting imminent danger pay and benefits for veterans. It was also really inappropriate for him to make such a politicized speech on Veterans Day. Instead of making the day about them, he made it about trying to defend himself, and sent Cheney to go do what every president in modern history has always done. Go to Arlington and show some grace and gratitude.

  • At 4:58 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Excuse me, but the link you provided comes from a group called ACT. Here is Act's opening statement on their home page:

    "Republicans have been investing heavily in political infrastructure for over 25 years. Vibrant state parties, candidate training programs, and community organizing are pillars of their plans for a “permanent Republican majority.” Today, with Republicans in control of the White House, Congress and many state and local governments, this threat is more real than ever."

    You may imagine why I immediately withdrew from that site. While they do contain the words "Washington Post", the ACT post does not contain a link that I could find to the WashPost. Of course, you must know that I would be dubious of the WashPost or NY Times or SFGate and others, as they do not attempt to hide their liberal bias.

    I see you have more links. Maybe one is the missing link you mentioneed. I will check and comment further, but please don't give the readers the impression that ACT is a credible source on it's own.

  • At 5:06 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    I checked out the other links and did not find anything recent. I will wait for the Wash Post link that shows Bush proposing $910 million of cuts on Veteran's Day.

  • At 2:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    What ACT does --- unlike many of your beloved O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Malkin and similar sources --- is that they attribute their information and quotes to their original sources. That ACT link has them all accredited. A web adept like yourself can find the direct quotes and links if you want to. And of course, as expected, you denigrate any news source that provides information you don't like. It's interesting that you don't seem to want to call the Army Times some liberal biased source, but are unwilling to face their analysis. Do tell, what respectable and accurate news source would you believe? Associated Press? UPI? BBC? Wall Street Journal?

    You'll wait for the WaPo link showing Bush proposing $910M in cuts on Veteran's Day? That's pretty weak AICS. You know that wasn't even the point here, nor was it ever suggested.

    Face it, you just can't defend the man on this one.

  • At 3:48 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Look, the history of my blog shows that when there is legitimate, verifiable cause for criticism of my guy, I don't hesitate to give it.

    I may go through more steps of caution before criticizing my guy than somebody I know to be an oaf, but I can call a spade a spade.

    I am not going to criticize Bush due to some pre-digested WashPost story on an anti-GOP website. I can't verify the story. I can't verify the context. I can't verify the details. Call it a dodge if you want, but I think it is reasonable to ask for something solid here.

  • At 6:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

  • At 11:35 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Anonymous, I looked at all the links you provided. They ranged in time frame from late 2004 to June 2005 across several topics. None referenced $910 million in cuts.

    As I stated, I have shown on this blog that I can critize my party. I can admit if I am wrong. I can admit if you are right.

    I can't speak for other hosts but the way I operate in anwering challenges has a lot to do with my time and my interests. If you want to leave an opinion, I will answer with my opinion. That is fine. If you want to claim your opinion is a fact and I am not aware of it being a fact, I ask for some level of credible proof before I will waste my time responding to it as if it were a fact.

    Yes, I am web savvy enough to research and find if proof actually exists for something, but at the expense of a lot of time that I don't have or to be frank don't want to invest in. This does not mean I am not interested in investing my time to find the truth. It means I would need to take your word for it that it is truth in order to justify doing the research. As we are on different sides of the spectrum here, what may pass for proof to you may not pass as proof for me; anymore than a role reversal would prove to you.

    Also, while I appreciate the links, each link contains a lot of information and claims. It is not in the best interests of time to address each claim in each link.

    A good formula is to make a claim, provide a link with a little info on why the link supports your claim. The best formula would be to provide quotes from the link, but not necessary.

    I'm sure you will interpret this as a dodge. So be it. My track record of responding to the method described above is proven.

  • At 10:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Once again, I submit that you then look at the first two links of my just-prior post.

    The first (from the Associate Press), was exactly how you say you want things. A direct quote with a direct point.

    From November 14, 2005. Four days ago. The direct quote: "Negotiators approved money for veterans programs, including $2.5 billion above Bush's original budget for Veterans Affairs medical care." The direct point being that budget negotiations that provide the dramatically different amount of$2.5 billion more than Bush's original VA budget clearly show that Bush is all talk and no action when it comes to "supporting" the troops. I had also linked upthread to the article about our troops being sent to Iraq with inadequate armor. Unarmored Humvees aside, you have to have been living under a rock for the last 3 years to not know that families are buying Kevlar for their sons and daughters over there because the US government did not provide it for them. If this was a lie, then please explain HR 3615, "To authorize the Secretary of Defense to reimburse members of the Armed Forces for the cost of protective body armor purchased by or on behalf of the member," put before Congress in 2003.

    The second link was a direct quote and direct link with a very direct point from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

    Yet still, you choose to ignore these in favor of a long dissertation on how you want direct quotes and direct points. So yes, I will call it a dodge because that's exactly what it is.

    "A good formula is to make a claim, provide a link with a little info on why the link supports your claim. The best formula would be to provide quotes from the link, but not necessary.

    I'm sure you will interpret this as a dodge. So be it. My track record of responding to the method described above is proven."

    Your track record so far is proven to be to dodge and disseminate.

  • At 11:10 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Anon, you are quite the shell game artist. We have gone back and forth several times. Each time I expect to complete the first point before moving on to other items lest the first critical point get lost in the shuffle. Yet each time you divert from the first main point and launch into other areas. Then when I want to stick to the first point, I am labeled a dodger.

    The first point that started all of this is a claim that Bush cut $910 million from the VA budget. I asked for a credible link to this claim which has not been provided. Links have been provided to make other claims, but have not addressed this claim. So before we move on to other items, do you want to provide the credible link I ask, concede the point or drop it altogether because you don't want to admit you are wrong but can't find the link. If your answer does not have some form of one of those three we will all know who is dodging.

  • At 3:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    So predictable. OK, here ya go.

    "The Department of Veterans Affairs is scheduled to get a $519 million spending increase in 2005, to $29.7 billion, and a $910 million cut in 2006 that would bring its budget below the 2004 level."
    -Washington Post, May 27, 2004

    There's the direct quote for you.
    Yes, it is from May 2004, just after the FY2006 budget was originally floated by George W. Bush.
    Note, that since May 2004, the budget has gone through extensive revision, in no small part because it was a cruel budget. The official funding request came in February 2005. Then President Bush's own amended funding request came, announced this summer after embarrassing errors in VA budget projections were discovered. And this week "Congress is moving to provide $1.225 billion for veterans' medical services outside fiscal 2006 discretionary spending limits." All those points are in that link. How cruel is the budget? This session Arlen Specter [R-PA] went so far as to use the terms "scandalous" and "unconscionable" on 11/14/05.

    Every recent link I've given you is quite direct, and quite recent. So can we move along now?

    You're a smart guy and you know the budget process is long and complicated and involves hundreds if not thousands of people along the way, so you're just looking for an opening to muddy the issue. This is not logic. This is duck and parry and obfuscate. You're proving unwilling to directly address the accountability of the President, at whose desk the buck is supposed to stop when he makes his budget proposals. It's his signature at the bottom. His title as the CEO of the USA.

    To claim to support our troops just because you have a yellow ribbon or say you support our troops is easy.
    Talk is cheap and easy. Action is real and meaningful.
    "We honor our troops and veterans" says Bush. But if left unchallenged, his proposals over the years would have cut military pay and benefits. "Nothing but lip service" is what the Army Times calls it. The Army Times is hardly a bastion of liberal rhetoric.

    The point you seem all too willing to ignore is that Bush's proposals are cruel to veterans and troops, and because they are cruel, they are often rescinded when making it through Congress. That is why imminent danger pay was NOT cut, despite it being originally pitched.

    Can we get to the real and underlying point now? Bush's actions as evidenced by his budget priorities show that he does not support the troops.

  • At 3:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Each time I expect to complete the first point before moving on to other items lest the first critical point get lost in the shuffle."
    - AICS

    The first point, the first critical point - indeed the only point I have been making - was in the obviously sarcastic statement:

    "Yes, that Bush, he honors our troops."

    Needless to say, I'm happy that you now have your WaPo quote link and we can get to THE point.

  • At 10:42 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Ok Anon, thank you for the link. It allowed me to do some research on what actually happened vs. what is reported in this link. My findings here is that the issue was pure spin in a campaign year. Here are my findings point by point:

    1) Feb/2004 There were accusations that Bush had cut the Veteran's Affairs budget for 2005. This was so bogus that did a report on it. The link is
    A key takeaway quote from that article is:
    Yet even so, funding for veterans is going up twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. And the number of veterans getting health benefits is going up 25% under Bush's budgets. That's hardly a cut.

    2) The link you provided appears to be an article based on a memo, where they are working to prepare a budget. Not that the numbers are actually fixed. In fact, there were sister articles saying nearly the same thing in the Washington Post and USA Today. I searched for any kind of commentary on this subject other than the broohaha of liberal blogs and sites and found none. So basically these stories were jumping the gun on memo-based unfinished business.

    3) My point is underlined in the fact that the 2006 Veterans Affairs actual budget is raised by 3% to $33.4 billion. You can see this information at the link to the VA 2006 budget at

    This whole $910 million cut was election year spin based on partisan journalism with the sole purpose of giving John Kerry fodder for his campaign and has continued to spin through the internet since.

  • At 10:58 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Adding to my conclusion, I just want to stress that the act of budgeting like anything else is a work in progress until it is complete. When you are looking to trim or restrain numbers, the first crack may or may not take politics into consideration.

    So in the middle of working through this process, some smart-alek journalists decide to make political hay of it. And do you really have a picture of the president at a desk calculating out these numbers? No there are those under him working on the numbers which are then gone over. The process corrects itself where needed. So basically vilifying a budget that has not even been submitted to Congress is a non-starter.

  • At 10:49 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    And thanks to all for not commenting on my 'verterans' typo in the heading. I just noticed it yesterday. I would love to correct it, but I don't want a change to risk the comments.

    Hey does anyone know what I am doing wrong with my links? They don't seem to work. I was going under the assumption in the html that you do not need to add the 'href=' part. That may be it, but I have not been able to experiment.

  • At 10:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    OK, you've parsed the $910 million question to your satisfaction.

    You finally going to take a stab at the rest of it now?

  • At 12:00 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Like I have stated before, to simply wade through links provided is simply not time efficient. Next you will be supplying me with book titles and asking me "what do you think of that?" expecting me to read them overnight and comment on each and every area of the book.

    If you have a point make it and I will try to answer it. If your point is that Bush and his administration is less than perfect I can give you that point right now and end it.

    If your point is that the Pentagon is a beauracracy that makes mistakes including making sure sufficient body armor is available for the troops, you can have that point too.

    Every government body and cabinet in any administration is a bloated beauracracy. Among all the budget lines and all the decision processes you can find mistakes and oversights whether it be the military, education, FEMA, etc. This is one of the reasons I want the federal government smaller. Bring as much as possible down to the lowest levels of government possible in order to reduce what the Federal government touches and reduces errors and mistakes.

    To sit by and take pot-shots at this budget line or that beauracratic decision without the context of items in other administrations is ridiculous.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home