Rove accuses Dems of shortchanging the military--then lies to shortchange our Veterans

by emptywheel

I'm in perfect agreement with calls to make Rove pay for his incendiary words. But I think we ought to focus our response using today's announcement that the VA is $1 billion short on healthcare funds to highlight the ways the GOP isn't supporting the troops. Focusing on VA shortfalls is going to fracture GOP unity a lot more quickly than calling on politicians (outside of the Atlantic seaboard area, at least) to denounce Rove's words, because GOP legislators already know they're vulnerable.

When I first heard of the problem from an NPR report, I thought the shortfall was just poor accounting--a failure to anticipate all the healthcare costs associated with the GWOT. Indeed, that's what the appointees at the VA would like you to think:

"We weren't on the mark from the actuarial model," Perlin testified. He said that the department has already had to use more than $300 million from a fund that had been expected to be carried over to the fiscal 2006 budget, and that as much as $600 million for planned capital spending will have to be shifted to pay for health care.

But the shortfall has all the trappings of Bush lying and mean-spiritedness.

For starters, it's not like the VA recognized the shortfall and came to Congress to alert it of the problem. Rather, the shortfall only came out "only during lengthy questioning of Jonathan B. Perlin, VA undersecretary for health, by House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) at a hearing yesterday" (emphasis mine). Sounds to me like the VA wasn't going to tell Congress about the shortfall, but was instead going to make up for it with some Enron-style accounting (which is what they'll do for the remainder of this year anyway).

Further, the VA had warning of the shortfall back in April, at a time when Patty Murray had proposed an amendment to the emergency supplemental to increase VA funding.

Murray aides said they obtained a draft copy of the midyear review in early April, suggesting that the department knew of the budget problems [then].

VA spokesman Terry Jemison refused to release a copy of the document, saying, "We don't provide information about pre-decisional budget passback and midyear reviews."

Perhaps the VA doesn't want to release the document because it would reveal they were lying when they were lobbying against Murray's request for increased funding.

Murray cited an April 5 letter written by Nicholson to the Senate in a bid to defeat her amendment: "I can assure you that VA does not need emergency supplemental funds in FY2005 to continue to provide timely, quality service that is always our goal," he had said.

Now consider that the GOP earlier this year played committee musical chairs to make sure they could cut back VA funding.

Veterans groups are particularly angry with Buyer, who was specially chosen by the House leadership to chair the House Veterans Affairs Committee to keep spending down. Buyer was selected to replace Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.), who had alienated House leaders by pushing for high levels of spending on veterans programs.

Buyer recently sparked new controversy in an interview published by the American Legion Magazine in which he said the department should concentrate on serving a "core constituency," and he disputed assertions that "all veterans are veterans and all veterans should be treated the same."

Take it all together, and you can make a pretty good case that the  White House and House leaders maneuvered to shortchange the VA. And though other Republicans haven't said it yet, I don't think it'd take much to make the case with them. After all, they've been voting against funding increases (including Murray's amendment, which would have included $600 million in health care funding) based on assurances that existing VA funding was sufficient. They're going to want to blame the White House and the VA for giving them wrong information. And they've been taking a lot of heat from Veteran's groups, too.

The disclosure of the shortfall angered Senate Republicans who have been voting down Democratic proposals to boost VA programs at significant political cost. Their votes have brought the wrath of the American Legion, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and other organizations down on the GOP.

As it is, Republican stinginess over VA funding has already improved the Democrats' image among some Veterans' groups, which is bound to make it easier for GOP legislators to criticize House leadership and the White House for getting them into this mess.

Leaders of the American Legion, the Paralyzed Veterans and the Disabled American Veterans all noted a striking partisan division in Congress on veterans issues, with Democrats giving them much more support than Republicans.

Traditionally, Violante said, "Republicans have been supportive of defense," but he said Bush administration policies and votes in the House and Senate suggest that the GOP does not view the care of veterans as "a continuing cost of war."

Patty Murray is already accusing the VA of deliberately causing this mess.

"This shortfall results from either deliberate misdirection or gross incompetence by this administration and the Department of Veteran Affairs," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington.

The VA shortfall was apparent in April. Murray tried to fix the problem--which would have meant more Veterans would now be getting the care they need. But rather than let Senators fix the problem, the VA and the White House lied about funding. And Karl Rove says Democrats are the ones that don't support the troops?

Rather than simply calling your Republican legislators and asking them to denounce Rove's comments, you might ask instead:

"Back in April, Democrats tried to ensure the VA had enough funding to provide those who have served their country with needed healthcare services. Karl Rove, the White House, and the VA lied to you to make sure this didn't happen. Knowing that, do you think Karl Rove should be lecturing Democrats about supporting the troops?"

Comments

[DemFromCT]

to continue the Rove discussion, let me quote my buddy (well, I'm sure he'd like me if he ever met me) Krugman.

We need to deprive these people of their ability to mislead and intimidate. And the best way to do that is to make it clear that the people who led us to war on false pretenses have no credibility, and no right to lecture the rest of us about patriotism.

The good news is that the public seems ready to hear that message - readier than the media are to deliver it. Major media organizations still act as if only a small, left-wing fringe believes that we were misled into war, but that "fringe" now comprises much if not most of the population.

In a Gallup poll taken in early April - that is, before the release of the Downing Street Memo - 50 percent of those polled agreed with the proposition that the administration "deliberately misled the American public" about Iraq's W.M.D. In a new Rasmussen poll, 49 percent said that Mr. Bush was more responsible for the war than Saddam Hussein, versus 44 percent who blamed Saddam.

Once the media catch up with the public, we'll be able to start talking seriously about how to get out of Iraq.

Yo, Krugman. Right on.

[DemFromCT]

Here's my other buddy (whom I've never met), Froomkin:

Karl Rove didn't get George W. Bush this far just by luck. Rove has a brilliant and so far unbeatable strategy when it comes to political warfare: He doesn't defend his candidate's weaknesses, he attacks his opponent's strengths. Unapologetically.

Consider the 2004 campaign, when Rove was faced with a Vietnam problem. A war hero was running against his boss, who had opted to stay well out of harm's way. Rather than defend, Rove attacked -- and put John Kerry on the defensive.

Today, Democrats are uniting against the war and the public is increasingly worried and critical about Bush's leadership. So what's Rove doing? Rather than defend against their criticisms, Rove has decided to go for the jugular.

...

John Harwood 's 'Washington Wire' column in the Wall Street Journal sums it up this way: "Republicans play security card amid political slide."

Rove attacks out of weakness to shift to a strength. We can document Rove's failings, but they don't matter. He is speaking for Bush, and what makes Rove vulnerable is what makes Bush vulnerable: Iraq. And 9/11 rhetotic will not help either one. So 9/11 is Bush's strength? Not lately according to the polls. That's because Bush said Iraq is a repsonse to 9/11. If they were connected, Bush failed. If they were not, Bush lied.

They are vulnerable. Rove's crap will not work. It's not election time, it's reality time/reckoning time for the American public and they smell rotting red meat coming from the WH.

[emptywheel]

Which might support my explanation for Rove's mouthiness.

The Plame inquiry MAY be about to move, if SCOTUS announces on Monday that they're not taking Miller's and Cooper's appeal on First Amendment excemptions. If John Dean is right and Fitzgerald is now working on a perjury charge, it would not take long to put together an indictment once Miller and Cooper talk. Presumably, if SCOTUS is not going to hear the case, then Karl knows about it--along with whomever else might get stuck in a perjury charge, if it's not Rove.

So Rove trains wavering Republicans and the press to accuse Durbin and liberals generally of being traitors, knowing full well he (or some other senior WH official) may be branded a traitor within a week.

Then of course, maybe SCOTUS is going to hear the appeal, in which case Rove et al get a several month reprieve.

[DemFromCT]

whether it's Plame or general Iraq fatigue, they're doing it because they have to. But the things driving the need to mouth off are the things that will bring them down.

Let's assume this is aimed only at R's. The Bush game plan is keep the R's at 90% and screw the rest of the country. But my sense from talking to frineds amd colleagues in the NY/CT area is that Rove stepped into a shitstorm bigger than he thought. Yeah, it was the plan, but it may hit him harder than anticipated. IOW, I don't know that R's will bite this time in numbers necessary to keep Bush over 40.

And the fact he'd think to do this is another chapter in the Worst. President. Ever. bio.

[Mimikatz]

I liked this quote in the original post:

"Bush administration policies and votes in the House and Senate suggest that the GOP does not view the care of veterans as 'a continuing cost of war.'"

This is a theme to hit. Bush/Rove see the troops as pawns and forget about them when they come home. They never calculate, much less plan for, the "costs of war". They don't really care about the troops except as props, like they don't care about children once they are born.

[Meteor Blades]

The Plame inquiry may be ready to move? Only a year and 49 weeks since Novak's column? Couldn't we wait until Bush's third term? I mean we got a war on terror to fight and these terrible Democratic distractions are undermining our troops.

[Bill from Dover]

A new Rasmussen poll, 49 percent said that Mr. Bush was more responsible for the war than Saddam Hussein, versus 44 percent who blamed Saddam.

Anybody remember a guy named Osama something?

[Sara]

Yea, I remember Osama quite well -- lives in a cove in the Upper Swat Valley in my opinion.

The VA Issue is huge -- and we need a place where the names are being taken and counted. Apparently there is a discharge petition now in circulation that would bring back this funding issue. 186 apparently have signed -- It needs what? 216 ior so. Listing names and hitting the non-signers districts is important.

What would really be effective would be identifying some of the non-signer's districts with National Guard units that are deployed -- and then getting letters from them about :Supporting the Troops: back to the local community papers.

And yea, one might also make a point that between ten and twenty percent of returnees need some degree of THERAPY for mental trauma -- and the waiting lines are too long. PTS untreated can easily lead to suicide -- and the Bushie Boys and their "Culture of Life" ought to find that of some interest.