President Accepts Purple Heart for Verbal Attacks

When I first read this story about a Texas Vietnam veteran who gave his Purple Heart to George W Bush, I thought it must be a joke. After all, how could anyone equate the wounds sustained by military members while at war to "the verbal attacks, both foreign and domestic, the commander in chief has withstood during his time in office?" Best I can tell, however, the story is legit:

Thomas said he drew up a citation and he and his wife signed it before dropping it and the medal off with Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock, to forward to President Bush.

"Congressman Carter called me last week and said the President was very moved by it, and would like us to present it in person," Thomas said.

It doesn't bother me that Mr. Thomas decided to give the President the Purple Heart. As he points out in the article, he earned the award, and it's nobody's business but his what he decides to do with it. What does bother me is the fact that Bush not only accepted it... but invited Thomas and his wife to present it to him in the Oval Office.

The fact that the President accepted the Purple Heart for the emotional wounds he sustained from verbal attacks on him in office is disgusting. It is an insult to the tens of thousands of men and women who have been killed or injured while serving in Iraq.

This is all around the same time of Laura Bush's comments on the Today Show about the Iraq war. When asked about Americans who are suffering as a result of the war, the First lady responded, "Believe me, no one suffers more than their president and I do."

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."