Bush's new "Iraq funding" veto threat makes no sense

Bush is today claiming that the new Iraq funding bill being considered in the House will be disastrous for our military. The House is proposing that they fund the surge through July (i.e., half of Bush's total request), and then Congress votes in July on the second half of the money after Bush has reported back to the country on just how well the surge is, or isn't, doing. Bush is now claiming that if he doesn't get all the money in advance, it will cause havoc with the defense contractors' long-term planning. But this doesn't make any sense - it flies in the face of how the war funding has been handled for the past five and a half years. As you know, Bush has never put the war on budget because he doesn't want the American people to understand fully just how expensive his increasingly disastrous adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have been. Instead, Bush has submitted piecemeal, incremental funding legislation, providing a few billion here and there to fund the war effort. How did defense contractors plan then? They seemed to do just fine. But we're to believe that THIS time passing an incremental bill will be "disastrous." Why? Why is it any different now than during the past four years?

It's not.

We're being lied to again.

And one more point. Bush and Gates and his generals keep saying that we could start withdrawing the troops as early as this fall if everything goes well. But isn't that adding uncertainty to the defense contractors contracting process, knowing that the way might not even exist come this fall if everything goes well? You don't hear Bush telling us how disastrous that uncertainty is for the war effort (probably because we know he's lying about there being any chance in hell of a withdrawal this fall, or next fall for that matter).