President touts benefits for troops in SOTU address - doesn't include funding for the benefit in his proposed budget

A Washington Post story has the scoop on how Bush could try and score political points in his State of the Union address by advocating "supporting the troops" in his State of the Union address, but then not putting funding for those same benefits in his proposed budget, which was submitted just a week later.

Do I really need to comment on how this is typical for this administration's version of "support" for the troops?