Bush says pulling out of Iraq would undermine our troops’ morale:

It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. “¦ We would undermine the morale of our troops by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. [12/18/05]

U.S. troops say they want out of Iraq within a year:

A new poll to be released today shows that U.S. soldiers overwhelmingly want out of Iraq “” and soon. The poll is the first of U.S. troops currently serving in Iraq, according to John Zogby, the pollster. Conducted by Zogby International and LeMoyne College, it asked 944 service members, “How long should U.S. troops stay in Iraq?” Only 23 percent backed Mr. Bush’s position that they should stay as long as necessary. In contrast, 72 percent said that U.S. troops should be pulled out within one year. Of those, 29 percent said they should withdraw “immediately.” [NYT, 2/28/06]

American Progress has a plan that will drawdown the U.S. troop presence in Iraq within one year. If the troops support it, why can’t their Commander-in-Chief?

UPDATE: Zogby poll results here.

Donald Rumsfeld has been leading an effort to “reform” the Defense Department’s personnel system. On June 4, 2003, he testified to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs that the new system would preserve bargaining rights for Pentagon employees:

[T]he National Security Personnel System we are proposing…will not end collective bargaining. … To the contrary, the right of defense employees to bargain collectively would be continued. What it would do is bring collective bargaining to the national level so that the Department could negotiate with national unions instead of dealing with more than 1,300 different union locals, a process that is inefficient.

Unfortunately for Rumsfeld, the Homeland Security Department had already tried this scheme and been rejected. The judge in that case batted down the argument that government agencies can strip away bargaining rights in the interest of “flexibility”:

Congress made protection of the right to bargain collectively an independent statutory requirement. It did not give the Agencies discretion to sacrifice collective bargaining in the interests of flexibility, any more than it authorized them to rely upon “flexibility” to waive merit system principles or other rights.

Today, U.S. District Court Judge Emmett G. Sullivan agreed with the reasoning in the Homeland Security Department case. He rejected the argument made by Rumsfeld in 2003, finding that the new Pentagon personnel system violates the law:

[A]s was the case in Chertoff I, this Court concludes that…the new rule fails to ensure even minimal collective bargaining rights.

It’s a big victory for the 700,000 Pentagon employees working to defend our country, who deserve better than to have their own Defense Secretary trying to strip away their rights.

At today’s White House press briefing, Scott McClellan sought to assure the American public that the UAE’s ties to terrorism had been addressed prior to the ports deal:

This was a transaction that was closely scrutinized by national security experts who are involved in these decisions and by our intelligence community. The intelligence community provided an assessment. The Department of Homeland Security also worked to make sure any national security concerns were addressed, by entering into an agreement with the company and requiring some additional security assurances before it moved forward. But this was a consensus of all the relevant departments and agencies — there are some 12 altogether — that are part of that Committee on Foreign Investment.

But Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) today released an unclassified version of a document showing that the U.S. Coast Guard — located in the Department of Homeland Security — “cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations.” From the document:

There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential merger. … The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities.

The Bush administration’s defense of the deal continues to unravel.

UPDATE: Here is the Coast Guard memo.

UPDATE: VIDEO Read more