Um, facts = facts.
Um, so that one story--about the smallest raise, without any context as to why, as to the size of the military budgets Bush has approved; the size of the budgets for vets Bush has approved; the damage he had to repair--outweighs all other facts except the ones you chose to take out of context?
Agenda = agenda
"The White House parries the charge by pointing to pay raises for the troops of more than 15 percent under Bush, privatizing of troops' housing, and large increases in defense spending -- all resulting in record retention rates in the military. Bush aides also counter that the president proposed the largest-ever increase in discretionary spending for the Veterans Administration in his 2004 budget."--Washington Post June 17, 2003
"Defense Department officials, in budget briefings this month, said the proposed raise is based on the growth in private-sector wages as measured by the Labor Department's Employment Cost Index. Because of the lengthy federal budget process, there is usually a 15-month lag between the labor-market snapshot taken by the index and the effective date of the pay raise. Pentagon officials also pointed out that the military has received substantial raises in recent years. Tina W. Jonas , the defense comptroller, estimated the increase in military pay to be 29 percent since 2001."--Washington Post, February 21, 2006
The "lowest pay raise" is a "fact" that you have chosen to take out of context into order to smear the president.
Bush has increased military pay 29 PERCENT in six years. A paltry increase doesn't negate the FACT that he has increased military pay by nearly 1/3 in SIX YEARS--would you prefer he have given much smaller increases since 2001, all of which could be considered "higher" without adding up to 29%?
Now please, tell me again how he doesn't support the military.