Is it really necessary to write another post about Bush's inability to tell the truth? Well if Bush didn't lie I wouldn't have to write yet another shrill screed bitching about what a liar he is. But he does lie, and so I have no choice. So what am I all bent out of shape about now?
There are plenty of reasons to grumble about the $87 billion dollars Congress is being asked to cough up for Georgie's latest failure but I'm going to leave that alone for a little while to talk about something else. On Sunday night Bush said:
Our military commanders in Iraq advise me that the current number of American troops, nearly 130,000, is appropriate to their mission.
This is to counter criticism that the force currently on the ground is not large enough.
Well he's not expanding the force but:
The Army is telling National Guard and Reserve troops in Iraq they will be there a full 12 months, apparently surprising some who had believed the clock started ticking on one-year tours once they reached mobilization stations in the United States.
Counting time they spent getting ready before they went and to demobilize after their tours, many reservists now in Iraq probably will find themselves on active duty and away from their civilian jobs for well over a year, officials said Tuesday.
Okay, so apparently the current number of ground troops is only appropriate if we don't let the reservists go home at their appointed times. Now to me this reads as our military being stretched a little thin over in Iraq which really makes me worry. And Bush did not mention that because to say that the reservists tours of duty were to be extended would fly directly in the face of his statement that the current number of troops is "appropriate."
A lie of omission is still a lie.