Bush Losing Support for War - Troops to Pay Price

President Bush's press conference yesterday was troubling - more so than just about any other that I've seen in quite a while. He basically said that if he doesn't get what he wants from Congress, he will take it out on the troops:

"Congress's most basic responsibility is to give our troops the equipment and training they need to fight our enemies and protect our nation," Bush told reporters in the Rose Garden yesterday. "They're now failing in that responsibility, and if they do not change course in the coming weeks, the price of that failure will be paid by our troops and their loved ones."

The most glaring fallacy in those remarks is that Congress has passed military funding legislation. The bill includes a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq - something that a growing majority of American support. In fact, a March 28, 2007 Newsweek Poll showed that 56% of respondents (81% of Democrats, 28% of Republicans, and 58% of Independents) "support the legislation passed this week." The same poll showed that 65% of respondents "disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq." Furthermore, another (CBS News) poll conducted last week asked, "Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq?" 59% said yes (77% of Democrats, 36% of Republicans, and 59% of Independents).

Despite the 2/3rds disapproval of Bush's handling of the war, and the majority support for a withdrawal timetable, the president has vowed to veto any bill which includes "timetable language." He has also vowed to continue with his Iraq war plans whether or not they are funded by Congress.

Simply put, if the American People (and by extension, their representatives in Congress) don't support the war with their votes (and by extension, tax dollars), President Bush will respond by ignoring their wishes and making things worse for soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

I'm not going to propagate the political rhetoric suggesting that funding cuts will leave troops in battle without ammunition in their weapons, fuel in their vehicles, etc. Even the President didn't suggest that. What he did say, though, was that he would have to extend tours of duty in Iraq, send units back to war with less time in between tours, and cut back on "quality-of-life initiatives for our Guard and reserve forces."

In case there was any doubt before, it's clear now that what started with "You're either with us or you're against us" has become "You're either with me or you're against the troops."