Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: muckmaw on September 12, 2003, 12:54:21 PM
-
I really just don't understand this.
Why is it, people who support the Clinton's are so rabid about the object of their affection.
From a person who was never really involved in politics, and never took much interest in it, I'd like to pose a sincere question.
What did Bill Clinton do for America that had endeared him to you?
Thanks in advance.
-
Bill Clinton is no longer relevant.
-
Oh, But I think he is.
I think he is still a driving force behind political fundraising for the Democrats, at the very least.
Whether or not he is still a political power is a matter of conjecture, but what he did or did not do for America is a Matter of history.
So in order of importance, what would you say are the 5 greatest things he did for America?
(Sand, I'm not trying to bait you here. I really want to know what makes a Clinton Supporter tick)
-
1. Boosted membership in the GOP
2. Driving force in putting together a GOP congress
3. Provided our current administration with a publicly popular mission by not doing away with Bin Laden when provided the chance.
4. Provided a real life example to our children that sexual impropriety is really ok, just as they have been taught in public schools.
5. Finally, a democrat president that my Mom didn't like. (Rather personal, but important to me.)
These are just off the top of my head.
-
He did for the Democrats what Nixon did for the Republicans. Way to go Slick Willie!
-
well shucks , we loves billy cuz he just a good ol boy.
-
I don't know why he was so vilified. It seemed like from the moment he took office a pack of wild dogs was after him. He got the economy going again, that was a good thing. Yes, there was Monica, but I still fail to see the importance of that whole debacle.
The reason Bush, Sr lost the election can be boiled down to 6 words..."Read my lips, no new taxes!"
-
Originally posted by rpm371
I don't know why he was so vilified. It seemed like from the moment he took office a pack of wild dogs was after him. He got the economy going again, that was a good thing. Yes, there was Monica, but I still fail to see the importance of that whole debacle.
The reason Bush, Sr lost the election can be boiled down to 6 words..."Read my lips, no new taxes!"
It's been debated at the highest levels of the economic community on whether or not the president really affects the economy. The resounding answer time and again has been, little, if any.
Mr. Clinton was lucky enough to win the presidency as the economy was turning for the better in the business cycle.
Bush Sr. Lost because of the economy as well, though he had little impact on it. Regan did well, but also had nothing to do with the economy.
As for the 6 words....they certainly did come back to haunt him. I can still hear it.
Then again, I can also hear, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. lewinski".:D
-
Originally posted by rpm371
I don't know why he was so vilified. It seemed like from the moment he took office a pack of wild dogs was after him. He got the economy going again, that was a good thing. Yes, there was Monica, but I still fail to see the importance of that whole debacle.
The reason Bush, Sr lost the election can be boiled down to 6 words..."Read my lips, no new taxes!"
Having followed Bush's re-election bid, I'm convinced that he just didn't campaign like a person that wanted to be elected. If he had, he could have overcome his tax gaffe.
I'm also convinced that the biggest mistake he made was to drop the investigation into Bill Clinton's Viet Nam era activities in Moscow. The Dems created an uproar over that investigation and Bush dropped it like a hot potato. He didn't deserve to be relected given his lack of commitment to his own campaign.
-
Its not a matter of how good Clinton was, it's the entire pack of made up lies that the Republicans have used to attack him since he took office.
Clinton was a fiscal conservative that won as a Democrat. That drove them nuts. Thats when all the "Clinton's murder spree", "Clinton the Rapist", Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewatergate, etc.gate... began to hit the public. All of that led to one thing.... a BJ and a denial.
Bill wasn't a hero. He isn't a hero. He was just treated like crap by the conservatives in this Country. It's just too bad that so many believe the crap that was made up about him.
Now when the shoe goes on the other foot, anyone bashing the President is treasonous. BS.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
..... He got the economy going again, that was a good thing. .....
LOL, LOL, LOL
yep and Bush jr killed it right???
LOL
-
I do not think Clinton was all that bad.
My big problem with him was he lied.
If he did not think it was a question that should not have been asked he should have said "my private life is my own, and I won't talk about it"
I could have respected that. Instead he lied, and it made him look like an ass.
I really REALLY REALLY do not like his wife though.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I do not think Clinton was all that bad.
My big problem with him was he lied.
So how do you feel about Bush? I want to see some WMDs in Iraq...which is slightly more serious that getting head from an intern.
-
I think if you check the legal test for perjury, Clinton is quilty, and Bush is not.
-
Curv
I am not a huge Bush fan. He has not done enough for gun owners and he has not done enough about illegal imagration.
About the WMD.
I look at it like this. You give me 12 years, and pretty much unlimmited funds, and I could hide several tractor trailers in California and it would be VERY hard for the government to find them. I think it is going to take time, if they are not found in like two years, I would like a public apologie or maybe something stronger. Iraq is a big place and hiding things is easy.
-
Originally posted by Gadfly
I think if you check the legal test for perjury, Clinton is quilty, and Bush is not.
We had that legal test... He was not guilty.
-
I could have respected that. Instead he lied, and it made him look like an ass.
Agree. And, as a more libertarian person he did a lot of things in his version of the war on drugs that erroded our personal liberties that i strongly disagree with. I think he was average at best, and his most redeeming quality was that he didn't screw things up too badly during his two terms -- which is an accomplishement of sorts.
I really REALLY REALLY do not like his wife though
I actually think she would have been a better president, but then I respect strong, intelligent and opinionated women :)
Clinton was the boogey man for the right, to make sure the voters were angry engough to go to the polls. They painted him as the antichrist and they preached it to the choir. I mean, it's not like they could really criticize his neutral/bland domestic or foreign policy all that much. If only the Democrats has that type of solidarity. BTW, Muck, do you honestly see rabid clinton supporters, or people who just dare to counter the claims of rabid Clinton haters, who as often as not are ranting about the latest urban legend that is discredited on Snopes?
It's all a wrestling match anyway. If you can't sell your candidate and discredit the opponent in 10 seconds or less you're not doing your job. It's all the easier when you can say "he rapes babies" and most of your support base automatically says, "I KNEW IT!" :)
Charon
-
How about the Family Medical Leave Act?
-
Understood Gto...
I'm just a bit ticked off because I supported Bush 100% and was very vocal about it. Now I look pretty silly to all my friends that I argued with about it. They all think I am just a Bush stooge now.
-
How about the Family Medical Leave Act?
FMLA was a good accomplishment IMO, but a rather pale shadow of the sweeping healthcare and social agenda he was pushing at the start of his first term, before he did a total collaspe in the face of opposition. The one thing I admire about the current administration is that it doesn't take "no" for an answer. Take the war in Iraq -- Bush has pushed ahead quickly and forcefully. You can debate the wisdom, motivations and even the ethics, but not the determination.
Charon
On a side note, I'm also a bit pissed about how easy it was to have mega mergers during Clinton's terms, but that's more an FTC issue and they are supposed to be, at least somewhat, politically neutral.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
We had that legal test... He was not guilty.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. lewinski".
call it what you want , he lied under oath to a grand jury. he was not in front of a grand jury because of lewinsky, he was there to answer a charge of sexual assault against another woman.
-
he improved China and North Korea weapons programs
he informed all women of the world that head was not sex - not even if the big head attached to the little head was married - your daughters included
he showed us that any ahole who ruled by latest polls can be a 2 term POTUS
-
Dangit Charon... you keep saying what I'm saying only better.
Stalker!!
;)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
We had that legal test... He was not guilty.
Technically you are right.
It was a jury nullification, just like O.J. Does not matter what you think about the jury and their motives, the verdict stands and he is officially "not guilty", but...
All the "not guilty" verdict does is spares you the punishment for your offense. It does not obligate anyone to shake your hand.
-
Curv
Do you think well hidden weapons would have been found yet? Think about how vast the country is and how long sodom had to hide them.
I do no think the Pres has been given enough time to find them frankly.
I think Bush gets far more flack then Clinton did, but I could but that's just based on my memory.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Does not matter what you think about the jury and their motives, the verdict stands and he is officially "not guilty.
Unless you are an LA cop of course, then we do 2 out of 3...
-
Um, he is not a practicing lawyer for more reasons than his high price. Perjury was proven, my friend.
-
Dangit Charon... you keep saying what I'm saying only better.
Stalker!!
LOL. I'm just another radical centrist.
Charon
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Curv
Do you think well hidden weapons would have been found yet? Think about how vast the country is and how long sodom had to hide them.
I do no think the Pres has been given enough time to find them frankly.
I think Bush gets far more flack then Clinton did, but I could but that's just based on my memory.
I hope they find them. I really do. I just remember the certainty that they existed just prior to the war....the impression given at that time was that the US would find chemical shells in stockpiles ready for immediate use. They weren't there...that genuinely surprised me.
But not being able to find them by now kinda amazes me.
If intelligence broke down on this one I fear for the United States.
I think it is more likely that the truth was stretched.
Now having said that...where is Bin Laden and why is he still breathing? I figured he was at least buried in some cave somewhere, now even the US is admitting he is still cave dwelling somewhere in that hell hole over there.
-
"Then again, I can also hear, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. lewinski".
Or how about when he was first campaining and all nominees were being asked the question ... Did you smoke pot ?
His answer ...
"I tired it .... BUT I DID NOT INHALE" .. what a crock of watermelon !!!
You CAN'T try pot without INHALING !!! He lost me on that one big time.
"I tried it" ... that covers those of us who did smoke pot back in those days. Wow this guy is cool ... he tried pot .. I think I'll vote for him.
"BUT I DIDN'T INHALE" ... that covers those who are opposed to drugs back then and now. Wow ... he started to smoke the joint but thought better of it and didn't inhale the vile smoke ... I think I'll vote for him cause he makes good decisions.
From that one statement, he wouldn't have gotten my vote even if he paid me for it.
The best was ... I didn't have sex with her ... she had sex with me. People actually believed that statement and back him up on it, and still do. If I tried to run that one by my wife ... I would be living on the streets right now.
He is nothing but a bag of lies and way too many people are mezmorized by his "slick" talk.
He should have been born in the gold rush days ... he would have made more money as a snake oil salesmen than half of the people who actually struck gold.
-
George Bush on Marijuana-
"I tried it....I inhaled, I like it...I tried it some more..."
Don't care for the message here, but at least the guys honest.
-
Well.. lying about foreign puss is bit different than lying about WMD and starting a war.... as well as publicly call french silly (yes, he called french silly before the war) etc.
I'd say thats far worse....
-
Made fun of the Finns, lol.
I mean who would care?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
About the WMD.
I look at it like this. You give me 12 years, and pretty much unlimmited funds, and I could hide several tractor trailers in California and it would be VERY hard for the government to find them. I think it is going to take time, if they are not found in like two years, I would like a public apologie or maybe something stronger. Iraq is a big place and hiding things is easy.
Why, if we had so much intelligence about the existance of WMD in Iraq and now find it missing, is the government not franticly looking for where they may have been moved to and not just within the borders of Iraq. If their claim of huge stockpiles of WMD came from good intel then I would think that that threat still exists.
This administration went to war in part because of the threat of WMD, I would suspect then that since they haven't found them the threat still exists but that hasn't been conveyed to the public too well.
-
Originally posted by MrLars
This administration went to war in part because of the threat of WMD, I would suspect then that since they haven't found them the threat still exists but that hasn't been conveyed to the public too well.
In PART due to WMD. Sure I'd love to find them, and shove it up the oppositions collective Arses, but they're not to be found yet, if ever. Was there a break down in intelligence. Probably. Did GWB believe the WMDs were there. I believe he did. Did he overhype this part of the reasoning to go to war to make his case. I think he did.
But let me ask you this. If GWB is not to be trusted, and is a liar, etc. Why does he not simply have the WMDs planted on Iraq ands scream smoking gun? Maybe he has a little more integrity than some former presidents?
AS for the threat to the civilized world...we rounded up 80 Al Quaida members last night. Think the world is just a tad safer today? I do.
I'd rather have them fight Soldiers in Iraq than Soccer Moms in Iowa.
-
Europe (kinda) trusted Clinton.
Europe is repulsed by Bush.
Make of it what you may.
-
Just back from show in Kauai...
Anybody want me to go off?
:mad:
-
Clinton wants biggest boost in defense spending since Reagan
January 24, 2000
Web posted at: 10:18 p.m. EST (0318 GMT)
From Military Affairs Correspondent Jamie McIntyre
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A proposed hike in defense spending by President Bill
Clinton is not presidential politics but rather the first step in fulfilling
last year's pledge to add $112 billion to the defense budget over six years,
Pentagon officials tell CNN.
When Clinton unveils the federal budget next month, Pentagon sources tell
CNN, he will propose spending $291 billion on defense, a hike of more than
$18 billion and nearly double last year's increase.
The nearly 7 percent increase in defense spending next year that the Clinton
administration will propose is the biggest increase in the Pentagon's budget
since the Reagan-era military buildup of the 1980s.
In this election year, the proposal could draw charges of playing politics.
Republican presidential candidates have criticized the Clinton
administration for underfunding the military and causing what they called a
resulting decline in readiness.
One of Republican presidential hopeful John McCain's campaign themes is
restoring military spending. And George W. Bush, who advocates "clear-eyed
realism" in foreign policy, says he will set national defense as the "first
focus" of a Bush administration should he be elected.
Both hopefuls have come down hard on Clinton's dealings with the military
budgets during his administration.
"There is almost no relationship between our budget priorities and a
strategic vision," Bush says. "The last seven years have been wasted in
inertia and idle talk."
McCain backs increased defense spending, claiming that "not since Pearl
Harbor has our investment in national defense been so low as a percentage of
our gross national product."
ALSO
The Pentagon's spending authority for the last five years, and the proposed
hike for fiscal year 2001 (according to Pentagon sources):
YEAR DoD SPENDING AUTHORITY $ INCREASE % INCREASE
FY1996 $254,417,000
FY1997 $257,974,000 $3,557,000 1.4%
FY1998 $258,527,000 $563,000 0.22%
FY1999 $262,564,000 $4,027,000 1.56%
FY2000 $272,400,000 $9,836,000 3.75%
FY2001 $291,000,000 $18,600,000 6.83%
"Since 1992, when President Clinton took office, our armed forces have
deployed an average of one deployment every nine weeks, yet defense budgets
have declined by nearly 40 percent during that same time, and procurement of
modern weapons systems has declined by 70 percent," McCain says.
Sources say that for the first time since Clinton took office, the Pentagon
will meet its stated goal of including $60 billion for modernization and
procurement of new weapons.
The conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation criticized both Congress and
the White House at budget time last year, saying neither had developed a
credible plan to meet the Pentagon's long-standing procurement goal of $60
billion annually.
"The declining readiness of U.S. military forces has become so acute that
even President Clinton has been forced to acknowledge it," a Heritage
Foundation background paper stated.
Last year, the administration proposal was $267 billion. Congress added
almost $5 billion to that to bring the total to $272.4 billion for fiscal
year 2000, for a total increase of $9.8 billion, or 3.75 percent. This did
not include supplemental appropriations to cover the cost of operations in
Bosnia and Kosovo.
This year's proposed $291 billion is an increase of 6.83 percent.
The last time the Pentagon received so large an increase in its budget was
in 1983, when the defense budget went up 7.4 percent to $239 billion. In
1999 inflation-adjusted dollars that would be equal to $383 billion.
--
Lew/+Silat
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of moral
crisis, maintain their neutrality.
-
Clinton's Military Legacy
President Bush owes a major debt of gratitude to his predecessor.
by Steven J. Nider
The United States has had two big demonstrations of American military power
on George W. Bush's watch that have been spectacularly successful. The irony
here is that Bush fought these wars with the military Bill Clinton
bequeathed to him.
"A commander-in-chief leads the military built by those who came before
him," then-vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney said during the 2000
campaign. "There is little that he or his defense secretary can do to
improve the force they have to deploy. It is all the work of previous
administrations. Decisions made today shape the force of tomorrow."
On this point he was certainly correct. Despite frequent Republican
criticism during the 2000 presidential campaign of Clinton-era military
deterioration, the force that was so successful in Afghanistan and
Iraq—while continuing to perform a myriad of tasks around the world on a
daily basis—was clearly quite capable. Republican assertions that the
military was underfunded and overstretched and that readiness was poor were
contradicted by those performances in Afghanistan and Iraq. Moreover, by
Vice President Cheney's own standard, this force did not result from
anything done by the current administration. The first Bush defense budget
went into effect on Oct. 1, 2002, and none of the funds in that budget has
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 destroy Taliban or
Iraqi forces.
As a presidential candidate, then-Gov. George W. Bush routinely declared
that he wanted a new military shaped for a new world. In his frequently
cited speech at the Citadel military academy in September 1999, he said:
As president, I will begin an immediate, comprehensive review of our
military—the structure of its forces, the state of its strategy, the
priorities of its procurement—conducted by a leadership team under the
secretary of Defense. I will give the secretary a broad mandate—to challenge
the status quo and envision a new architecture of American defense for
decades to come. We will modernize some existing weapons and equipment,
necessary for current tasks. But our relative peace allows us to do this
selectively. The real goal is to move beyond marginal improvements—to
replace existing programs with new technologies and strategies. To use this
window of opportunity to skip a generation of technology. This will require
spending more—and spending more wisely.
This was a bold vision of the military that accurately expressed the need
for major, ongoing change. Unfortunately, it has not been matched with
sufficient vision and programmatic commitment by the Bush administration.
The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review, the comprehensive review promised by
candidate Bush, fell substantially short of its stated objective. It did not
articulate a sweeping new strategy, it did not call for any change in
existing force structure, and it did not suggest any major redirection of
investment in future systems. Moreover, until the events of Sept. 11, 2001,
the Bush administration had not suggested any major increase in defense
spending. In most respects, the review looked very much like what one might
have expected from the Clinton administration. Essentially, the only major
change was the increased emphasis on missile defense.
The Bush administration had barely started to make its mark on defense
policy before hostilities in Afghanistan began. In the spring of 2001, it
requested and received a $5 billion supplemental appropriation for the 2001
defense budget, but that constituted less than 2 percent of defense spending
for the year—mostly for pay raises—and went largely unnoticed before the war
began. The most recent defense budget submitted to Congress by the Bush
administration would increase defense spending significantly, but it fails
once again to make tough choices and provide a necessary vision of
leadership. While U.S. forces in Iraq were a model of what a transformed
U.S. military should be, the Pentagon continues to invest in Cold War
military hardware—fighter aircraft, destroyers, and other weapons designed
to fight advanced Soviet military capabilities.
In fact, the Clinton administration actually spent more money on defense
than the previous administration of President George H.W. Bush. The smaller
outlays during the first Bush administration were developed and approved by
then-Defense Secretary Cheney and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Colin Powell. The Clinton administration did not coast on Reagan-era
procurement funding. During the 1990s, the Pentagon invested more than $1
trillion in developing and procuring new weapons and information technology
that gave U.S. forces such an unprecedented advantage in the last two U.S.
military campaigns. But more significant than the budget increases was the
shift that occurred in the mid-1990s. That shift involved much greater
emphasis on precision weapons, sensors, robotics, advanced communications,
training, readiness, and orienting the intelligence community toward direct
support of military operations. It was that shift that produced the superb
military that not only swept through Iraq at a rate that defied historical
precedent, but used its awesome force with unprecedented precision and
effect, unprecedented low collateral damage, and unprecedented low casualty
rates. It was the American Revolution in Military Affairs begun in the
Clinton administration that was unveiled in Bush's Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The combination of Joint Defense Attack Munitions (JDAMs) and unmanned
aerial drones—both products of that shift—made it possible to find and
destroy targets, including mobile targets, more precisely and quickly during
Operation Enduring Freedom, the response to the Sept. 11 attacks, and in
Operation Iraqi Freedom than in any previous war. As many as 70 percent of
all munitions dropped on Iraq were the precision-guided munitions developed
and built during the Clinton administration. Funding for the JDAM program
began in 1993, Clinton's first year in office. The advanced, GPS-guided
Tomahawk cruise missile, which proved far more accurate and reliable than
the earlier cruise missiles used in Desert Storm under the first President
Bush, was funded in 1999. Unmanned aerial vehicles like the Predator and
Global Hawk, which enabled U.S. forces to use combat aircraft in close air
support in unprecedented ways, also originated in the Clinton years.
The Clinton administration also tried to maintain the quality of military
personnel by increasing their pay, and it improved retirement and health
benefits for military retirees. During his presidential campaign Bush
charged that the Clinton administration had overburdened the U.S. military
with too many deployments overseas, and he promised to pare those military
obligations. "Resources are overstretched," he said. "Frustration is up, as
families are separated and strained. Morale is down. Recruitment is more
difficult. And many of our best people in the military are headed for
civilian life."
Yet in the name of fighting terrorism, Bush is expanding the U.S. military
presence overseas faster than Clinton ever dreamed of doing. U.S. forces are
not only deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the Bush administration has
sent advisers and support to the Philippines, Indonesia, Kuwait, Djibouti,
Qatar, Yemen, Georgia, and Uzbekistan. The extra $70 billion a year that the
administration has pumped into the Pentagon has bought more smart bombs and
bigger paychecks, but it has not brought about a significantly larger force.
Despite our expanded global war on terrorism, only about 27,000 troops have
been added to our 1.4 million active-duty force.
Even with these troop additions, the military is more overstretched now than
it was when Bush took office. During the first three months of 2003, the
United States had more than twice as many troops on overseas missions at any
given time as it did in 2000. This has made it harder to recruit and keep
the soldiers, sailors, and airmen we already have. Bush did not create
military overstretch, but he did campaign on fixing it. Instead, it has
gotten worse.
Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld deserve enormous credit for the
military victory over Iraq. Clinton deserves to share in that credit.
Despite Republican cries of a "hollow military," the Clinton administration
left behind a highly capable force that served the nation well when an
unpredicted threat emerged. How do we know? Cheney said so.
Steven J. Nider is director of foreign and security studies at the
Progressive Policy Institute.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Clinton wants biggest boost in defense spending since Reagan
January 24, 2000
Web posted at: 10:18 p.m. EST (0318 GMT)
From Military Affairs Correspondent Jamie McIntyre
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A proposed hike in defense spending by President Bill
Clinton is not presidential politics but rather the first step in fulfilling
last year's pledge to add $112 billion to the defense budget over six years,
Pentagon officials tell CNN.
When Clinton unveils the federal budget next month, Pentagon sources tell
CNN, he will propose spending $291 billion on defense, a hike of more than
$18 billion and nearly double last year's increase.
The nearly 7 percent increase in defense spending next year that the Clinton
administration will propose is the biggest increase in the Pentagon's budget
since the Reagan-era military buildup of the 1980s.
In this election year, the proposal could draw charges of playing politics.
Republican presidential candidates have criticized the Clinton
administration for underfunding the military and causing what they called a
resulting decline in readiness.
One of Republican presidential hopeful John McCain's campaign themes is
restoring military spending. And George W. Bush, who advocates "clear-eyed
realism" in foreign policy, says he will set national defense as the "first
focus" of a Bush administration should he be elected.
Both hopefuls have come down hard on Clinton's dealings with the military
budgets during his administration.
"There is almost no relationship between our budget priorities and a
strategic vision," Bush says. "The last seven years have been wasted in
inertia and idle talk."
McCain backs increased defense spending, claiming that "not since Pearl
Harbor has our investment in national defense been so low as a percentage of
our gross national product."
ALSO
The Pentagon's spending authority for the last five years, and the proposed
hike for fiscal year 2001 (according to Pentagon sources):
YEAR DoD SPENDING AUTHORITY $ INCREASE % INCREASE
FY1996 $254,417,000
FY1997 $257,974,000 $3,557,000 1.4%
FY1998 $258,527,000 $563,000 0.22%
FY1999 $262,564,000 $4,027,000 1.56%
FY2000 $272,400,000 $9,836,000 3.75%
FY2001 $291,000,000 $18,600,000 6.83%
"Since 1992, when President Clinton took office, our armed forces have
deployed an average of one deployment every nine weeks, yet defense budgets
have declined by nearly 40 percent during that same time, and procurement of
modern weapons systems has declined by 70 percent," McCain says.
Sources say that for the first time since Clinton took office, the Pentagon
will meet its stated goal of including $60 billion for modernization and
procurement of new weapons.
The conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation criticized both Congress and
the White House at budget time last year, saying neither had developed a
credible plan to meet the Pentagon's long-standing procurement goal of $60
billion annually.
"The declining readiness of U.S. military forces has become so acute that
even President Clinton has been forced to acknowledge it," a Heritage
Foundation background paper stated.
Last year, the administration proposal was $267 billion. Congress added
almost $5 billion to that to bring the total to $272.4 billion for fiscal
year 2000, for a total increase of $9.8 billion, or 3.75 percent. This did
not include supplemental appropriations to cover the cost of operations in
Bosnia and Kosovo.
This year's proposed $291 billion is an increase of 6.83 percent.
The last time the Pentagon received so large an increase in its budget was
in 1983, when the defense budget went up 7.4 percent to $239 billion. In
1999 inflation-adjusted dollars that would be equal to $383 billion.
--
Lew/+Silat
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of moral
crisis, maintain their neutrality.
huh?
what did he do good here?
wait until he leaves office before he sends any money to the DOD, sticking the new guy with the bill?
-
Originally posted by Silat
Clinton's Military Legacy
President Bush owes a major debt of gratitude to his predecessor.
by Steven J. Nider
The United States has had two big demonstrations of American military power
on George W. Bush's watch that have been spectacularly successful. The irony
here is that Bush fought these wars with the military Bill Clinton
bequeathed to him.
...
did you read this too? he slams slick more than it pumps him up..
yeah, thank God for slick - we'd never been able to do what we've done under Bush, had to do under Bush, without him :rolleyes:
-
last time had 2 demo votes im up to 10 now.
neoconservative/fascists must go.