Originally posted by: greatwhiteelkhunter
Originally posted by: thraashman
Originally posted by: greatwhiteelkhunter
Originally posted by: thraashman
Every president is gonna do some act while in office that makes him a despicable human being to someone else out there, even alot of people out there. They're humans, all humans do despicable acts no matter what. For a president, what matter to me is what they do as a president. From looking at it, Clinton's presidency is not characterized by his getting a bj. W's presidency is characterized by constant dishonesty, incompetence, and civil rights violations. At the end of 8 years, if you compare what both presidents did for teh world and the US, unless Bush manages to be directly involved in curing cancer and ending all religious zealotry, Clinton is gonna come out on top as the better president by far.
You must have some strange glasses on! Clinton was a moron, he not only cheated on his wife, lied about it on national TV, he drove the military into the brink of collapse, he brought discredit upon himself and our country, he let America get attacked by terrorist many times over and all he did was send in a few missiles??
He let our service members get killed in a 3rd world POS country that today has a national day of calibration because they defeated the US. Just the fact he let the terrorists know it was ok to attack us and nothing would happen to you is the reason we are where we are today.
From Wikipedia
"In response to the 1998 United States embassy bombings following the fatwa, President Bill Clinton ordered a freeze on assets that could be linked to bin Laden. Clinton also signed an executive order, authorizing bin Laden's arrest or assassination. In August 1998, the U.S. launched an attack using cruise missiles. The attack failed to harm bin Laden but killed 19 other people.[50]
On November 4, 1998, Osama bin Laden was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury, and the United States Department of State offered a US $5 million reward for information leading to bin Laden's apprehension or conviction."
So, let's compare. In comparison to what Clinton did, Bush invaded two countries and toppled two government to get Osama. No American lives were lost in Clinton's attempt, and only 19 other lives, themselves terrorists, were lost. Bush has cost the lives of over 3000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of civilians as well as caused an cataclysmic upsurge in the recruiting power of terrorism. Neither caught Osama.
You say Clinton "drove the military to the brink of collapse". Bush has caused it to be more difficult than ever in history for the US to recruit into the military as well as causing an enormous strain on the military and failing to properly equip the people we send over seas. It seems to me that Bush has driven the military closer to the brink of collapse than Clinton ever did. At least under Clinton, military personel didn't have to worry about gettting blown up by a roadside bomb every day they wake up.
Clinton lied on tv. Bush lied on tv. Bush's lie cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars, Clinton's cost no lives and millions of dollars that only even got spent because of a Republican congress witch hunt.
As far as the 3rd world country thing you mentioned, I'm assuming you mean Somalia. You know, the whole incident where Bush Sr. put our troops in Somalia and Clinton continued an already existing operation. The one where over 1000 civilian lives were lost in the course of 48 hours and Clinton did the most intelligent thing possible, he left. He didn't try and say "stay the course", but instead understood when the peoples of a country didn't want us there. You know, where a captured American soldier was actually brought home alive by negotiation instead of beheaded on a video on the internet or possibly hundreds of other soldiers killed in an idiotic rescue attempt.
Now as for what George W Bush did to stop terrorism PRIOR to 9/11 ...................
Oh, that's right, NOTHING! W spent all his focus and alot of money on some stupid missile defense system to protect against nuclear strikes from rogue NATIONS. Because we all know there's so many nations that are capable of launching a nuke that aren't friendly to the US. Hell, as of right now there's only 1, and they've only gotten a nuke during the Bush years.
Dude, you seriously need to pay more attention and stop filtering out the truth just because it hurts. True, Clinton could've done more, but you may have noticed that during half of his stint as President, the Republicans did everything they could to attack, discredit, and block everything good he could do. Yet when Bush came in, they encouraged, assisted, and funded everything stupid and hurtful he could do. Bush has caused more damage to the civil liberties of this nation than any single man could ever match. Wanna know why terrorists haven't bothered to attack this nation again since 9/11, there's no need, the biggest terrorist in the world is sitting in the whitehouse ......... or more often he's on vacation when he should be sitting in the whitehouse.
How about some more about the great things your POS so called presadent did for our military?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/mhelprin/?id=65000400
Mr. Clinton's Army
The military has suffered through eight years of neglect.
BY MARK HELPRIN
Tuesday, October 10, 2000 12:01 a.m. EDT
Many people have come to believe that thinking about war is akin to fomenting it, preparing for it is as unjustifiable as starting it, and fighting it is only unnecessarily prolonging it. History suggests that as a consequence of these beliefs they will bear heavy responsibility for the defeat of American arms on a battlefield and in a theater of war as yet unknown. Theirs are the kind of illusions that lead to a nation recoiling in shock and frustration, to the terrible depression of its spirits, the gratuitous encouragement of its enemies, and the violent deaths of thousands or tens of thousands, or more, of those who not long before were its children.
They will bear this responsibility along with contemporaries who are so enamored of the particulars of their well-being that they have made the government a kindly nurse of households, a concierge and cook, never mind a resurgent Saddam Hussein or China's rapid development of nuclear weapons. They will bear it along with the partisans of feminist and homosexual groups who see the military as a tool for social transformation. And they will bear it with a generation of politicians who have been guilty of willful neglect merely for the sake of office.
So many fatuous toadies have been put in place in the military that they will undoubtedly pop up like toast to defend Vice President Gore's statement that "if our servicemen and -women should be called on to risk their lives for the sake of our freedoms and ideals, they will do so with the best training and technology the world's richest country can put at their service." This is an abject lie.
To throw light on the vice president's assertion that all is well, consider that in Kosovo 37,000 aerial sorties were required to destroy what Gen. Wesley Clark claimed were 93 tanks, 53 armored fighting vehicles, and 389 artillery pieces; that these comprised, respectively, 8%, 7%, and 4% of such targets, leaving the Yugoslav army virtually intact; and that impeccable sources in the Pentagon state that Yugoslav use of decoys put the actual number of destroyed tanks, for example, in the single digits.
To achieve with several hundred sorties of $50-million airplanes the singular splendor of destroying a Yugo, the United States went without carriers in the Western Pacific during a crisis in Korea, and the Air Force tasked 40% of its intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets, and 95% of its regular and 65% of its airborne tanker force, in what the chief of staff called a heavier strain than either the Gulf War or Vietnam.
One reason for the "inefficiency" of Operation Allied Force is that this very kind of farce is funded by cannibalizing operations and maintenance accounts. Such a thing would not by itself be enough to depress the services as they are now depressed. That has taken eight years of magnificent neglect. Case in point: The U.S. Navy now focuses on action in the littorals, and must deal with a burgeoning inventory of increasingly capable Third World coastal submarines that find refuge in marine layers and take comfort from the Navy's near century of inapplicable blue-water antisubmarine warfare. But our budget for surface-ship torpedo defense will shortly dip from not even $5 million, to nothing in 2001.
The reduction of the military budget to two-thirds of what it was (in constant dollars) in 1985, and almost as great a cut in force levels, combined with systematic demoralization, scores of "operations other than war," and the synergistic breakdown that so often accompanies empires in decline and bodies wracked by disease, have produced a tidal wave of anecdotes and statistics. Twenty percent of carrier-deployed F-14s do not fly, serving as a source of spare parts instead. Forty percent of Army helicopters are rated insufficient to their tasks. Half of the Army's gas masks do not work. Due to reduced flying time and training opportunities within just a few years of Bill Clinton's first inauguration, 84% of F-15 pilots had to be waived through 38 categories of flight training. The pilot of the Osprey in the April 2000 crash that killed 19 Marines had only 80 hours in the aircraft, and the pilot who sliced the cables of the Italian aerial tram in 1998, killing 20, had not flown a low-altitude training flight for seven months. It goes on and on, and as the sorry state of the military becomes known, the administration responds by doing what it does best.
In the manner of Gen. Clark presenting as a success the--exaggerated--claim of having destroyed 8% of the Yugoslav tank forces in 78 days of bombing, the administration moved to "restructure" the six armored and mechanized divisions by shrinking force levels 15% and armor 22%, while expanding the divisional battle sector by 250%, the idea being that by removing 3,000 men and 115 tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles while vastly expanding the area in which it would have to fight, a division would somehow be made more effective. The two failed Army divisions cited by George W. Bush in his acceptance speech were returned to readiness with speed inversely proportional to the time it takes the White House to produce a subpoenaed document, perhaps because, according to the Army, "new planning considerations have enabled division commanders to make a more accurate assessment," and "the timelines for deployment .?.?. have been adjusted to better enable them to meet contingency requirements." In 1995, brigade officials told the General Accounting Office that they felt pressured to falsify readiness ratings, and that the rubric "needs practice" was applied irrespective of whether a unit scored 99% or 1% of the minimum passing grade.
That these components of an indelible picture are in themselves small parts is relevant only in that the best intelligence is the proper notice of small details. But there is more. Mainly by coincidence but partly by design, several broader measures exist. The Army rates its echelons. In 1994, two-thirds of these were judged fully ready for war. By 1999, not one of them was. More than half the Army's specialty schools have received the lowest ratings, as did more than half its combat training centers (although the chaplains are doing very well). These training centers serve as an instrument that illuminates the character of all the units that pass through them. By examining their ratings it is possible to get a comprehensive view of the Army's true state.
I have obtained National Training Center trend data that are the careful measure of unit performance in 60 areas over three years. Of 200 evaluations, only two were satisfactory. This 99% negative performance, stunning as it is, is echoed in the preliminary findings of a RAND study that, according to sources within the Army, more than 90% of the time rates mission capability at the battalion and the brigade levels as insufficient. RAND has voluminous data and doesn't want to talk about it until all the t's are crossed, long after the election.
If Gov. Bush becomes president, the armies his father sent to the Gulf will not be available to him, not after eight years of degradation at the hands of Bill Clinton. Given that their parlous condition is an invitation to enemies of the United States and, therefore, Mr. Bush might need them, and because the years of the locust are always paid for in blood, he should take this issue and with it hammer upon the doors of the White House at dawn.
In the Second World War, Marine Brig. Gen. Robert L. Denig said, with homely elegance, "This is a people's war. The people want to know, need to know, and have a right to know, what is going on." Nothing could be truer, and the vice president of the United States does not speak the truth when he characterizes as he does those forces that for two terms his administrations have mercilessly run down. The American military does not deserve this. It is not a cash cow for balancing the budget, a butler-and-travel service for the president, an instrument of sexual equality, or a gendarmerie on the model of a French Foreign Legion with a broader mandate and worse food.
If we are, in effect, the enemies of our own fighting men, what will happen when they go into the field? The military must be redeemed. Should Gov. Bush win in November he should bring forward and promote soldiers and civilians who understand military essentials and the absolute necessity of readiness and training, people both colorful and drab, but who would, all of them, understand that these words of Gen. George S. Patton are the order of the day:
In a former geological era when I was a boy studying latin, I had occasion to translate one of Caesar's remarks which as nearly as I can remember read something like this:
"In the winter time, Caesar so trained his legions in all that became soldiers and so habituated them in the proper performance of their duties, that when in the spring he committed them to battle against the Gauls, it was not necessary to give them orders, for they knew what to do and how to do it."
This quotation expresses very exactly the goal we are seeking in this division. I know that we shall attain it and when we do, May God have mercy on our enemies; they will need it.
Mr. Helprin is a novelist, a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute. His column appears Tuesdays.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n20_v48/ai_18819141
Furthermore, where did the workforce reduction of 146,200 come from? Where else? The military. As the first postwar President to inherit a Soviet-free world, Clinton accelerated (some would say recklessly) the defense downsizing begun during the Bush Administration. Since Bill Clinton assumed office, Department of Defense civilian employment has fallen by 145,400, or 16.2 per cent. DoD employment has fallen from 32.4 per cent of total federal employment in 1989 to 27.1 per cent today. The cuts in defense employment have been so deep, in fact, that Postal Service employment now exceeds civilian DoD employment for the first time since before World War II
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/bu189.cfm
Clinton's Defense Budget Weakens Nation's Insurance Against Disaster
by Spring, Baker
Backgrounder Update #189
(Archived document, may contain errors)
3/5/93 189
CLINTON'S DEFENSE BUDGET WEAKENS NATION'S INSURANCE AGAINST DISASTER
(Updating Heritage Foundation Memo to President-Elect Clinton No. 4, "A Plan for Preserving America's Military Strength," December 28, 1992.) When Bill Clinton's budget figures for his February 17 State of the Union Address were released by the White House, they showed a far larger reduction. ibn the defense budget than the $60 billion he proposed during the presidential campaign. Clinton now wants to slash the defense budget by over $120 billion be- tween fiscal years 1993 and 1997.1 This doubling of the defense cut is more than another broken campaign promise. It will mean that America's national security will depend on good luck. With Clinton's proposed defense budget, the U.S. cannot field a military force capable of countering the many threats to American security. Notwithstanding the collapse of the Soviet Union, the threats are indeed many. Nuclear weapons and mis- siles are proliferating throughout the world. Democracy could break down in Russia, producing an anti- American nationalist regime bent on restoring the Russian Empire. Iraq and Iran endanger not only Western oil supplies but the security and stability of the Persian Gulf. The list could go on. The Cold War may be over, but as the Persian Gulf War demonstrated, America must be able to fight and win wars in regions where her vital interests are at stake. The money the nation spends on defense is in many ways analogous to that which American families spend on insurance. Like an insurance policy, a sound defense policy is predicated on the assumption that things can go wrong, that accidents can happen, and that outlaws can inflict harm. While some families are comfortable with the increased risks assumed by not purchasing adequate insurance, prudent ones insure themselves against these risks. If calamity occurs, the unlucky ones face financial ruin. Likewise, if America's luck holds, she may survive Clinton's defense cuts. But if America is not lucky, and the many potential threats become a reality, the result will be far worse than financial min-it could be national disaster.
I This estimate is based on the comparison of the Clinton Administration's current request for fiscal years 1994 duough 1997 with the Bush Administration's fiscal 1993 requested level. As such. the congressional reduction of $6.5 billion enacted last YM for fiscal 1993 is applied to the Clinton total.
Threats to America's Security Have Changed, But Not Disappeared. no first stop in buying in; surance is to obtain a clear understanding of the threats one faces, including health problems, accidents, or crime. The same is true of national secprity. The threats America faces today are clearly different from those of the Cold War. The primary threat of that era was an expansionist Soviet Union. This overarching threat has all but disappeared. But new threats to U.S. security have emerged in the wake of the collapsing Soviet Union. For example, the Soviet Union's huge nuclear arsenal still exists and the risk of an accidental or unauthorized launch has increased. Moreover, long-range missile technology is proliferating. The U.S. likely will face a number of countries armed with long-range nuclear missiles within ten years, if not sooner. Likewise, Russia's appetite for conducting proxy wars in the Third World has all but disappeared. But i ty or gi nal li 9donal conflicts are still very much a possibili -in the post-Cold-War w Id. Re o bul es such as Iran, Iraq, and North Korea are still poised to exploit any weakness to achieve regional dominance. And Russia or China could turn belligerent and threaten regional stability in Europe and Asia. After the long struggle of the Cold War, the American people may be tempted to believe that the world is now safe. But the bitter experience of the military demobilizations after World War I and World War 11- whereby America became dangerously weak after great military victories-should hold such temptations in check. The world is still a dangerous place, and there is no substitute for vigilance and preparedness. Clinton's defense cuts come on the heels of eight straight years of declining defense budgets. This year's defense budget authority-the amount of money the U.S. obligates for defense purposes-is 30 percent lower than in the 1985 budget. Moreover, defense outlays as a percentage of the total federal budget will be 5 percent less this fiscal year dm during the mid- 1980s. The Clinton Administration is accelerating this alarming decline. In fiscal year 199 1, the defense budget was Wing 2 percent every year. This year, the average real decline exceeded 3.5 percent. Clinton's annual defense reductions could easily exceed an average of 4 percent per year in real terms ff optimistic projections about inflation do not hold up. The result: by 1997 defense outlays will constitute less dm 15 percent of all federal outlays, which is 10 per- centage points below what it was in 1985. The Emrging Gap Between Ends and Meam Clinton's proposed defense reductions will make it im- possible to fWM America's global military ents. The first responsibility of a nation is to defend its territory against attack, whether purposeful or accidental. With serious questions now arising about proper control over the nuclear arsenal of the former Soviet Union, plus the proliferation of missile technol- ogy to other countries, the U.S. needs to deploy anti-missile defenses. But the Clinton Administration has proposed an almost 40 percent cut in the fiscal 1994 Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) budget. Cuts of this magnitude are certain to cripple this program for developing and fielding and-missile defenses. The U.S. maintains commitments that require its Navy to patrol the Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Pacific Ocean. U Clinton gets his defense budget, the Navy will shrink to some 300 ships, with fewer dm the ten aircraft carriers the President has promised. The Navy cannot maintain continuous patrols in these three areas with so few ships. But Navy personnel should be forewarned. H crises arise, the Clinton Administration will try to fulfill its responsibilities by adopting nine- and ten-month deployments. Normally most deployments are about six months long. If the U.S. were to face two regional crises simultaneously, American forces would not be up to the task. Iraq could several years hence still be defying U.N. Security Council resolutions in ways that could require air strikes or constant patrols of the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean Sea. Moreover, North Korea in a last desperate effort to gain control of South Korea could launch an attack. With the U.S. military shrunken by Clinton cuts, it could not respond to these two crises at the same time. It would be short of the ships, person- nel, and equipment needed to perform its missions.
2
Conducting and completing combat operations is only the most visible purpose of the U.S. military. Its capabilities and presence pay more modest dividends every day by fostering regional stability and reducing the risk of conflict. U.S. military strength and resolve have served to assure German and Japanese security since the end of World War Il. As such, neither country has felt obliged to rearm. But how long can the U.S. proceed along its current path of disarmamedt before Germany or Japan concludes that America is un- able to meets its security commitments? A militarily strong Germany or Japan undoubtedly will foster regional suspicions in E;urope and Asia. The cost to the U.S. of addressing the regional instabilities fostered by a rearmed Japan or Germany would be far higher than making more modest investments now, which are required to avoid such an outcome. Bill Clinton has inherited a strong military that is America's insurance policy against calamity. But Clinton's defense budget shows a willingness to weaken this policy. His defense budget cuts will leave America unable to protect its interests and fulfill its global commitments. Lacking proper defense in- surance, America will have to depend increasingly on good luck in international affairs. But as history shows, protecting America's security in a dangerous world requires more than hope and a prayer. In fact, it requires a good insurance policy. It requires a military that prevents an attack on the national interest fiun becoming a national disaster. Baker Spring Senior Policy Analyst
