On Saturday, the Washington Times broke the news that Senate Democrats had distributed a memo suggesting holding town hall meetings on military bases. Such meetings are prohibited.

But as I pointed out, President Bush holds obviously partisan events on military bases all the time. Rather than conceding this point, the Times simply asserted that the issue did not apply to President Bush because “[h]is remarks [at military bases] are generally limited to explaining his war policies and encouraging the troops” — a claim that I showed to be false.

Today, the Times reports that Congressional Republicans are criticizing Democrats for the memo. In particular, Senator George Allen, the Virginia senator and presidential contender, let the vitriol fly:

Republicans accused Capitol Hill Democrats yesterday of plotting to use military bases as props for political press events to criticize President Bush for his handling of the war in Iraq.

“I think that is deplorable,” Sen. George Allen, Virginia Republican, said yesterday on Fox News. “It is pitiful. We are at war. This country needs to be unified and realize who the enemy is — it’s not fellow Americans.”
Mr. Allen and others cited a memo distributed last week by the office of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid that recommended Senate Democrats hold press events at, among other places, military bases.

Notice that Allen is using the same tactic that I have documented over and over again since 9/11 — suggesting that any criticism of President Bush means that Democrats think the President is “the enemy” rather than terrorists. It’s a way to suggest Democrats are soft on terror and vaguely treasonous at the same time.

In addition, as I wrote last week, President Bush has done more to politicize the military than any president in recent memory — a point that Harry Reid’s spokesman made in the article:

Jim Manley, spokesman for the Nevada Democrat, dismissed the accusations and pointed to several examples of Mr. Bush and other Republicans using soldiers in uniform and military equipment for what he said was clear political gain. Among them was Mr. Bush’s 2003 fighter-jet landing onto an aircraft carrier adorned with a huge banner that read: “Mission Accomplished.”

“President Bush and Republicans have perfected the art of politicizing our military, and they should think twice before they unfairly accuse Democrats of following in their path,” Mr. Manley said.

In response, however, Republicans — like the Washington Times last week — simply deny that President Bush makes political remarks at military bases:

Republicans say that the direct criticisms of Mr. Bush and Republicans in Congress is precisely why it’s wrong to stage the events at military installations, where political events are not allowed. When Mr. Bush makes a speech before the Naval Academy, they say, he does so as commander in chief and is careful to avoid overtly political rhetoric.

However, as I wrote last week, Bush’s remarks at military installations are often incendiary. At the Tobyhanna Army Depot in November 2005, he said, “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.”

Similarly, here’s what he said at Elmendorf Air Force Base that same month:

Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war, but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people. Leaders in my administration and members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence on Iraq, and reached the same conclusion: Saddam Hussein was a threat.

Let me give you some quotes from three senior Democrat leaders: First, and I quote, “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons.” Another senior Democrat leader said, “The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.” Here’s another quote from a senior Democrat leader: “Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion.”

They spoke the truth then, and they’re speaking politics now.

The truth is that investigations of intelligence on Iraq have concluded that only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world — and that person was Saddam Hussein. In early 2004, when weapons inspector David Kay testified that he had not found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he also testified that, “Iraq was in clear material violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. They maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their programs. So there was a lot they wanted to hide because it showed what they were doing that was illegal.”

Eight months later, weapons inspector Charles Duelfer issued a report that found, “Saddam Hussein so dominated the Iraqi regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when the sanctions were lifted.”

Some of our elected leaders have opposed this war all along. I disagreed with them, but I respect their willingness to take a consistent stand. Yet some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past. They are playing politics with this issue and they are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that’s irresponsible.

As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them into 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.

How can anyone claim this is not “overtly political rhetoric”?