Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Erlkonig on May 15, 2003, 05:41:23 PM
-
Well, that's the title of this editorial (http://boston.com/dailyglobe2/133/editorials/Thank_Clinton_for_a_speedy_victory_in_IraqP.shtml) by the assistant secretary of defense under Reagan. Pasting follows:
Thank Clinton for a speedy victory in Iraq
By Lawrence J. Korb, 5/13/2003
WHILE IT is understandable that President George W. Bush and his secretary of defense are receiving plaudits for the relatively swift military victory in Iraq, the fact of the matter is that most of the credit for the successful military operation should go to the Clinton administration.
As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld noted, the battle plan that led to the American success was that of General Tommy Franks, an Army officer appointed to head the Central Command by the Clinton administration. More important, the military forces that executed that plan so boldly and bravely were for the most part recruited, trained, and equipped by the Clinton administration.
The first Bush defense budget went into effect on Oct. 1, 2002, and none of the funds in that budget have yet had an impact on the quality of the men and women in the armed services, their readiness for combat, or the weapons they used to obliterate the Iraqi forces.
Given the way that Bush and his surrogates disparaged Clinton's approach to the military in his 2000 campaign, this is ironic. The president and his advisers claimed that Clinton had diminished the armed forces' fighting edge by turning them into social workers and sending them too often on ''useless'' nation-building exercises. These same people also claimed that Clinton had so underfunded the military that it was in a condition similar to that which existed on the eve of Pearl Harbor.
Throughout the summer and fall of 2000, Vice President Dick Cheney summed up the Bush team's sentiment toward what Clinton had done to the military: He went around the country telling the military and the nation that help and additional support were on the way for our troops.
Anyone examining the facts would know that these claims were bogus. The Clinton administration actually spent more money on defense than had the outgoing administration of the first President Bush. The smaller outlays during the first Bush administration were developed and approved by Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell, who were then serving as secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff respectively.
Clinton's last secretary of defense, William Cohen, turned over to Rumsfeld a defense budget that was higher in real terms than what James Schlesinger had bequeathed to Rumsfeld when he took over the Pentagon for the first time in 1975 at the height of the Cold War.
Not only did Clinton spend a large amount of money on the military; most of it was spent wisely. In the first Persian Gulf War, less than 10 percent of the bombs and missiles that were dropped on Iraq were smart weapons. That number jumped to 70 percent during this war because the Clinton administration ordered large quantities of upgraded munitions that made these ''dumb'' weapons smart. The Clinton administration also invested heavily in the technology that gave the on-scene commanders a much more vivid picture of the battlefield than a decade ago.
It was the Clinton administration that improved the accuracy of the Tomahawk cruise missile and upgraded the Patriot missile, which was so much more effective this time than the original Patriot in the first Persian Gulf War. The Clinton administration also kept the quality of our military personnel high by closing the gap between military and private sector compensation, a gap that the first Bush administration had allowed to grow, and improving retirement and health benefits for military retirees.
So if this latest military effort warrants a victory parade for the troops, let's insist that Clinton and his secretaries of defense are invited. They deserve it. And if the Bush administration wants to learn how to rebuild the nation of Iraq, they might ask their predecessors how to go about it.
Lawrence J. Korb, director of national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, was assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.
-
Heh heh. Pretty good. Is that from The Onion?
-
Hillary insisted that top military brass be prohibited from wearing their uniforms while visiting the White House.
She also claimed that her daughter was jogging in Battery Park when the planes hit the WTC and barely made it out. (Her daughter was in fact recovering from a hangover in NYC's ritzy Carlyle Hotel when the **** hit the fan).
That squeak is the scum of the Earth. She is also my senator.
But I loved the way she got booed off the stage by the NYC firemen when she took the stage at the music tribute.
-
Originally posted by osage
Hillary insisted that top military brass be prohibited from wearing their uniforms while visiting the White House.
She also claimed that her daughter was jogging in Battery Park when the planes hit the WTC and barely made it out. (Her daughter was in fact recovering from a hangover in NYC's ritzy Carlyle Hotel when the **** hit the fan).
That squeak is the scum of the Earth. She is also my senator.
But I loved the way she got booed off the stage by the NYC firemen when she took the stage at the music tribute.
Did you vote for? I did'nt. How the hell did she get in?
Everywhere I went, I saw "Go Home Hillary" bumperstickers..and the biatch won!
Liberal Democrat state we live in.
-
Clinton routinely cut military spending his first two years in office...or doesn't anybody remember that?
Spending on the military budget did not increase during the "Clinton administration" until the Republicans swept the Congressional elections in 1994.
Likewise, his record in using the military wasn't exactly a winning one. Don't forget the debacle in Somalia or the lackadaisical use of our troops in Bosnia.
Regards, Shuckins
-
The only training clintard did for the military was to let them know how much in contempt they were held by that family. To claim that clintard was responsible for any aspect of military training has as much credence as the claim that the moon is made of green cheese. :rolleyes:
-
Clinton routinely cut military spending his first two years in office...or doesn't anybody remember that?
So did every Western democracy in world. Why do you think that is?
Clue: look to the East.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
So did every Western democracy in world. Why do you think that is?
Clue: look to the East.
Because of the Atlantic Ocean?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Because of the Atlantic Ocean?
ROFL!!!
-
Great article erlkoning I think it's pretty clear now that we can blame Clinton for the military disaster this war was... Remember this was almost a "quagmire" and the plan was failing from the get go and we are still only moments from total defeat... :rolleyes:
You cant have it both ways you little squeak... ;)
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Did you vote for? I did'nt. How the hell did she get in?
The guy she was running against was even scummier than her: total Mafia-picked idiot who publicly accused her of doing exactly what he did (with regard to quid pro quo contributions), but the newspapers proved he was even worse of a scumbag than HC! Hard to believe, but actually true.
I didn't vote for either of those scumsucking dingleberries.
I truly miss D.P. Moynihan. at least he had integrity AND brains.
-
Shuckins,
This what Rush told you?.. Clinton didn’t send troops to Somalia, Bushdaddy did.. The person charged with providing APC’s and tanks was Sec of State Colin Powell. As far as attack on Haiti, or 1995 NATO use of force to remove the Serbs from Bosnia and then in 1999 in Kosovo, those were complete successes without a single American combat loss of life.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Great article erlkoning I think it's pretty clear now that we can blame Clinton for the military disaster this war was... Remember this was almost a "quagmire" and the plan was failing from the get go and we are still only moments from total defeat... :rolleyes:
You cant have it both ways you little squeak... ;)
But, but, but, Clinton gutted the military and made them into a bunch of queer-loving nancy boys incapable of winning even a bar fight and he got a blowjob in the Oval Office and he wagged the dog in Kosovo and he failed to authorize the use of nuclear warheads in Somalia and did I mention he got a blowjob in the Oval Office??? We all know Hillary was running the show anyway.
P.S. Call me a squeak again and I'll fight you at the con :mad:
-
Originally posted by osage
....but the newspapers proved he was even worse of a scumbag than HC! Hard to believe, but actually true....
the NY Times strike again!
as for the title of this thread ...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Shuckins,
This what Rush told you?.. Clinton didn’t send troops to Somalia, Bushdaddy did.. The person charged with providing APC’s and tanks was Sec of State Colin Powell.
Is this what Buzz Jameson or Whosis Jamison told YOU?
Because, once again, YOU ARE WRONG.
Armor denial.107
The issue of the denial of armor to protect U.S. forces in Somalia is well known since it contributed to U.S. Defense Secretary Les Aspin’s resignation. The primary reason for the denial was that increasing U.S. firepower in Somalia would send the wrong signal since U.S. troops were there for humanitarian reasons.108 But the following evidence suggests that media coverage of Somalia directly impacted on the denial of armor.109
There were two requests for armored vehicles.110 Major General Montgomery requested a battalion task force in August after Aideed began targeting Americans. General Joseph Hoar, commander of U.S. Central Command, disapproved this request because of the improper perception it would broadcast.111 Hoar was in Mogadishu and with Montgomery during the September 9 ambush that President Clinton and Senator McCain later loathed so much, and he told Montgomery to resubmit his request but make it a smaller force.112 Montgomery did and the request went through the chain of command until it was passed to Aspin where it sat and received no action.113 Although this second request was not an actual denial, media requests in the aftermath of the Battle of 3 October portrayed it as such.114 The direct connection between the political upheaval after the much-publicized September 9 ambush and the inaction on the second request for armor is likely.115
Press Coverage in Somalia (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/SDB.htm)
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
.......P.S. Call me a squeak again and I'll fight you at the con :mad:
pls perform ur cat fight in front of the AH con webcam ... LOL
-
Clinton's response to adversity:
Let's close down our embassy in Somalia, withdraw our forces, and fart out a few cruise missiles while in full retreat.
Here, have a cigar!
-
But erlkonig why are you picking a fight with me? I thought you were against all this angry emotional american cowboy style revenge and retribution stuff like after 911... Now you done it, I'm all dissolusioned with your leftist politics.....
:(
-
Thank Clinton for a speedy victory in Iraq
Wait I thought the war was a bad thing? But now the lefties want to take credit for it? Are you guys sure you aren't French?
-
Yep my point exactly, all of a sudden they are very gung ho and tough - hell erlkoing even wants to beat me up... :)
-
Yes the fighting is over and now they are finally ready to fight. Too late guys. :D
-
funny i dont recall the supporters of the current president or the warmongers blaming clinton for the certain to develop "quagmire" only a few weeks ago. to busy actually taking care of business instead of looking for someone to put the blame on in case they failed or maybe becuase they knew such reports were the clueless wishes of those who forgot the difference between disagreeing with the president and cheering for tragedy to strike the armed forces because they dont like the cic. grunherz dont sweat it if you get attacked by a liberal just protect your eyes from the fingernail scratches and go for the long hair. if you think you are losing the battle because you happen to be asleep or something similar when the liberal attacks just scream "HEY LOOK A MINORITY IMMIGRANT THAT HASNT BEEN ILLEGALY REGISTERED TO VOTE DEM" and point behind your attacker. problem solved. erlkonig you stupid squeak clinton and his people dont make tomahawks and patriots more accurate. the mad scientists at the defense companies that design the stuff are always making them more accurate because thats what they do. and clinton and his buddies did not need to tell the air force "you guys really need more pgm". those are only two of many lies in that editorial. that editorial has more lies than a platoon of guys trying to convince some ladies they just met that they really do "love" them the night before a deployment.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
As far as attack on Haiti, or 1995 NATO use of force to remove the Serbs from Bosnia and then in 1999 in Kosovo, those were complete successes without a single American combat loss of life.
a green beret was killed in haiti. but he never learned to sing "kumbaya" and he wasnt a registered dem voter so his death dont count with you liberals i guess. and in bosnia and kosovo clintons people had to be assured like three year olds the first time they put their head under water that "everything was going to be okay". and even then the restrictions placed on engagement which were solely for the purpose of avoiding any possible risk had a direct effect on how long it took to kick the bad guys out which equalled more murders of civilians. basically it was "be careful we dont want to lose any points in the polls so what if more women and kids get executed for a few more days or weeks". i was in the military then and i still am and i was in when Reagan and Bush Sr. were the cic. im telling you that attitude is what matters. people were going insane when clinton was cic. bad guys all over the place good intel on them good ops planned against them and the guys doing the shooting and maybe the dying raring to go for a crack at the bad guys. "nope cant do it to many risks". i love it when people who have never even been on a training op tell operators what "acceptable risks" are. contrast this to what happened after the 9/11 attacks. general attitude was "get guys on the ground in afghanistan and get them hunting and worry about the details when you have time". the call was going out to special operations units "pick guys who want to fight and get them gear and form them into task units and get them over here". huge difference in attitude and aggressigveness. not saying aggressiveness always the answer but if your job is to fight or its time to fight then youd better be aggressive. read henry v.
-
Hey anonymous, **** you.
Love,
Erlkonig
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
Hey anonymous, **** you.
Love,
Erlkonig
HAHAHA.
"The liberal is a very public animal, and is native to north america. When it discovers egg on it's face, it will throw insults instead of facts, then run off to hug a tree. This animal is extremely dangerous, and should be shot on sight."
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
Hey anonymous, **** you.
Love,
Erlkonig
no need to **** me pal, your sweetheart already took care of that while you were at the antiwar rally. sorry about the bite marks but i figured youd wanna know where they came from. the rest of the base promised not to bite so they are my fault and my fault only. im gonna go cry now because you dont like me.
-
That's it anonymous! I'm gonna have to beat you up at the con too!
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
Hey anonymous, **** you.
Love,
Erlkonig
This is when you know the argument is over. Liberals have no facts, only emotions.
-
That's funny, JBA, but it's a matter of record as to where the insults began (hint: it wasn't me).
-
Originally posted by anonymous
no need to **** me pal, your sweetheart already took care of that while you were at the antiwar rally. sorry about the bite marks but i figured youd wanna know where they came from. the rest of the base promised not to bite so they are my fault and my fault only. im gonna go cry now because you dont like me.
I hope you guys didn't hurt him too bad.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I hope you guys didn't hurt him too bad.
nah when i found out he was the guy who "broke you in" i decided to take it easy on him. call me sentimental.
-
LOL Earlkonig whats with the mental breakdown today?
-
contrast this to what happened after the 9/11 attacks. general attitude was "get guys on the ground in afghanistan and get them hunting and worry about the details when you have time". the call was going out to special operations units "pick guys who want to fight
This is absolutely true, but the sad thing is that people commend the current administration for this attitude, when GWB had nothing to do with it. Each administration does what it can politically do, no more no less. If Clinton had been in office during 9-11 he would have had the mandate to do what GWB has done.
Enough with the pissing match, mines bigger.
-
But why didnt Clinton do anything substantial after the cole attack - that was a clear attempt to destroy a US military vessel and kill hundreds of americans and why nothing substantial after the africa bombings - certainly there was much more freedom to act as there was no more cold war concerns with the old Soviet Union for the USA to worry about...
-
Because the public was not behind it like after 9-11 Grun. Really very simple.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Because the public was not behind it like after 9-11 Grun. Really very simple.
As for that, I doubt it would have been the same MT I think if clinton was pres on 911 things would have moved much more slowly, I think it would have taken into the next year for the war to start while clinton figured out the politically safe way to go about it ratrher than just do it and be done with the taliban in a few weeks like bush started less than one month after 911. The taliban govt was gone by mid november.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
But why didnt Clinton do anything substantial after the cole attack - that was a clear attempt to destroy a US military vessel and kill hundreds of americans and why nothing substantial after the africa bombings - certainly there was much more freedom to act as there was no more cold war concerns with the old Soviet Union for the USA to worry about...
Republicans were more worried about BJs. 'Wag the dog' they cried when Clinton hit Al-Queda with cruise missiles. They also viewed foreign intervention as bad, remember 'we do not wish to engage in nation building'?
The idea that somehow Democrats are reluctant to use military power to defend US interests might make sense to someone who missed the 20th century.
-
Nah!
The Taliban would have been toast in 2 months no matter who was in charge. You remember the sentiment at the time... hell we were all wondering what was taking so long!
You may have a point regarding Iraq though. Clinton probably wouldn't have been as decisive about Saddam.
-
I guess I'm the only person who has voted Democrat in the past and still has a dislike for overly liberal tree huggers.
Guess that's why I got fed up and didn't vote for Clinton when he was running for President. I saw way too many young people voting for him just because he played the saxiphone on Arsenio Hall and thought he was "cool". Although his campaign manager was brilliant for pulling that stunt, I foresaw Clinton as a used car salesman. He did a few good things while in office, but overall he was a disgrace. There was no way in hell I was going to vote for a draft dodger Democrat or not.
Although I don't agree with everything GWB does, I honestly can't imagine what would have happened if Bill Clinton were in office when 9/11 happened. He just didn't have the cajones required of a President.
-
i thought it was friendly banter not a pissing match. yours is bigger my stays lean thru heavy usage. to each his own. :) the entire train of though connecting the president directly to the effectiveness of the military is flawed. at best the president and the government can support the military. at worst they can damage it by trying to make it "more democratic" or "more diverse" or "more nice". clinton tried to take action against al qaeda in ways that havent been reported. but you are wrong about the current cic and secdef having nothing to do with swift action in afghanistan. i saw the differences first hand. biggest problem was the attitude of clinton and friends with military. it became ok to punish military leadership for things that politicians who had no idea of what purpose of military is did not like. the bull**** pulled by the female politicians when Kelso was up for his star is a typical example. you say clinton and current admin are same and you are wrong. attitude of current admin towards use of military is different. Reagan took heat from many in US including religous leaders and almost all dems when he dared to call soviets "evil empire". wall comes down in berlin and all of a sudden every dem who was terrified of confronting the sovs even with words is "part of the victory team". current cic and his guys were taking great deal of public heat over iraq. the invasion wasnt delayed until the polls said it was ok. look at the heat they are taking over the preemptive doctrine. clinton admin would not have publicly announced that ever. things are being done by current admin out of the public eye that would never have been done by previous admin. it is my personal belief based on experience that things would not have gone as well post 9/11 if gore or clinton were cic. this has as much to do with cic as it does with type of secdef they would choose and other similar situations. having said that keep in mind that military does not serve the cic it serves the people of US. i took my job as serious regardless of cic. but i feel better about suffering thru ****ty parts of job when i believe in cic and senior leadership.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
LOL Earlkonig whats with the mental breakdown today?
Ha! I suppose if there's anyone with personal experience of mental breakdowns, it would be you? ;)
-
Hey at least Grun is consistent. :)
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
Although I don't agree with everything GWB does, I honestly can't imagine what would have happened if Bill Clinton were in office when 9/11 happened. He just didn't have the cajones required of a President.
there it is again. as much as i dont like him in terms of honor world would not have ended if clinton or gore was cic after 9/11. every cic is advised by members of military on military action. no cic has ever totally ignored this advice. something would have been done. but not as fast and not with same visible confidence. clinton may have gone to UN over taliban supporting terrorists for example. the great thing in my opinion especially having seen the aversion to risk in previous years was that guys were heading for afghanistan almost immediately. make no mistakes the first month in afghanistan alot of things could have gone massively bad and resulted in very bad things for US military. but to go from leadership who is overly averse to risk to leadership who says "you are the pros go get em and good luck and be careful" it is a very great thing. think of cic and govt as king and military is very finely made sword that they are given. if they take care of sword and use it as trained to use it military is capable of great things. if they ignore sword or dont show it proper respect it can fail when they need it most. the cic and govt do not make the military great. the military leadership if professional and dedicated make the military great. but it is much easier to make military great with proper support and total lack of politically minded meddling with military on part of cic and govt. i knew things were going to get bad when clinton was cic and diver candidates in navy boot camp were being allowed to take "time outs" for water break during pt and if they didnt get "time outs" there was fear that complaint could damage career of co of the rtc.
-
What are you talking about? I have been very good ever since they took off the strait jacket, really I have, really. :)
-
Originally posted by anonymous
there it is again. as much as i dont like him in terms of honor world would not have ended if clinton or gore was cic after 9/11. every cic is advised by members of military on military action. no cic has ever totally ignored this advice. something would have been done. but not as fast and not with same visible confidence.
Not sure about you, but I think confidence is a major factor in judging a President. Having some indecisive guy in the Oval Office hemming and hawing for extended periods of time during a major crisis is indicative of weakness.
Bin Laden himself used the example of our withdraw from Somalia, calling us "paper tigers". Americans are not the only ones that notice such things.
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
Not sure about you, but I think confidence is a major factor in judging a President. Having some indecisive guy in the Oval Office hemming and hawing for extended periods of time during a major crisis is indicative of weakness.
Bin Laden himself used the example of our withdraw from Somalia, calling us "paper tigers". Americans are not the only ones that notice such things.
id say the paper tigers bit was for the sake of the cannon fodder recruits he was lookin for. the top tier of operators for any terrorist bunch knows that regardless of country or president if ct operators are coming for them they need to beware. i think clinton could have shown more balls in somalia but he wasnt the only guy to make the call to leave. i was there and im mad at alot of people including clinton for what happened but there were plenty of military leaders who lacked balls in somalia in addition to cic. then again it would probably be close to the truth to say that the environment created by clinton is what caused military leaders like that to be able to easily exists in important positions in the first place. any time you have field officers in a marine combat unit blowing off combat training to make sure they cover their "pc" bases you know something is really wrong. what im sayin is that if clinton or gore was cic after 9/11 al qaeda would have been attacked but not with as much agressiveness or freedom of action and end result would be they would not be hurting as bad as they are now. but they still would have felt some pain. clinton or gore wouldnt have done nothing. but even if for some reason they wanted to do nothing their advisors would have almost forced anything but the worst possible course of action.
-
Anyone who thinks clinton could've gone after Osama/ALQ like GW did without something as substantial as 9/11 is dreaming. But there should be doubt he would've after a similar 9/11, because he would've had no choice but to.
Tronsky