Fake Turkey Photo-Op?

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
PA Jim,

I admit I may have missed it in another post, but do you have a kind word at all to say about the President's visit to the troops?

You are correct, you missed it:

I haven't read or seen too much on the Thanksgiving day visit by Bush. But, from what I have seen, it was a class act and a good deed.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000982;p=2

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

It is indeed evident that Bush supporters are grasping at straws when 90% of the time the best that they can come up with as a comparison with Clinton.

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian observes, regarding Clinton:
Deficit reduction act. Reduced spending.

Really? Other than the military and intel agencies, what did he cut?

The largest single savings was in reducing federal non-military employment to 1960s levels. Clinton actually began a process of aquiring new equipment and upgrading existing weapons. The primary cuts in military expenditures were in base closings, which was the result of a non-partisan law passed by Congress before Clinton was elected. And it is administered by a non-partisan committee, not the president.

As you learned, Clinton bequeathed to Bush the best-equipped, best-trained, and most potent fighting force in history.

Barbarian on Clinton's popularity in the rest of the world:
I'm relying on the reports of Clinton in the foreign media.

LOL...No wonder. You are aware, aren't you that the foreign media is even further to the left than ours?

So are the populations of such nations. But it doesn't take much to be to the left of most American newspapers, Fox, radio, etc. In fact, it would be hard to be to the right of them.

Barbarian on Clinton's successes:
He was widely praised...for the Irish peace accords.

That's too funny. As many of you know, I'm very active in the Irish and Irish-American community here in the Delaware Valley and, to a lesser degree, in New York.

Yet, the killings have stopped, the IRA was persuaded to stand down and talk with the Protestants, and there's hope for the first time.

I'm Irish myself, and I have relatives who supported the IRA. But the fact is, the killing stopped only after Clinton intervened. It's still a long road to peace, but now there's hope.

Like the Balkans, Clinton's approach worked when no one else could do it.

I honestly don't know that you'd find one person there to credit Clinton with anything in that regard.

I do. In the vote on the plan promoted by Clinton and Mitchell, 71% of the people of Northern Ireland voted for it.

Bush supports the peace accords, but is doing nothing to help. Since the radicals on both sides have now won the last election, it's not a good sign.

He was a laughing stock

Barbarian observes:
That seems to be a personal fantasy of yours

No, my fantasy is that we all wake up to find that the Clinton/Gore/Clinton admin was just a terrible dream brought on by that General Tso's we had last night.

So you'd be happy if Unionists and the IRA were still killing innocent people, Bosnians children were being shot by snipers, wholesale murder and rape was going on in Kosovo, and our military was in a shambles?

You'd like it if the debt was ballooning out of sight, and the economy went through the largest job losses in history? You'd like it if government spending was skyrocketing?

Well, you got the last half, anyway. Maybe Bush can do something about the rest of it in his next term.

 

[The Galatian]

It is indeed evident that Bush supporters are grasping at straws when 90% of the time the best that they can come up with as a comparison with Clinton.

What's amusing is how much better Clinton looks in retrospect, in comparison to Bush. Clinton isn't a thief, he never had a drug habit, he never got arrested for DWI, and when he lied, at least it didn't result in the deaths of hundreds of our troops.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

I'll leave it to others to defend Clinton...I think that although he was more conservative than Bush, he was nevertheless a very liberal, and bad, president.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
What's amusing is how much better Clinton looks in retrospect, in comparison to Bush. Clinton isn't a thief, he never had a drug habit, he never got arrested for DWI, and when he lied, at least it didn't result in the deaths of hundreds of our troops.

His inaction led to thousands of deaths. His refusal to remove Sadaam, even after the U.N. told him he could, let the world know we could be pushed around, a lot like Carter did. If he had flattened someone after the U.S.S. Cole was attacked, 9/11 never would have happened.

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
The largest single savings was in reducing federal non-military employment to 1960s levels.

Again, could you please give us an example?

As you learned, Clinton bequeathed to Bush the best-equipped, best-trained, and most potent fighting force in history.

Actually, we didn't learn any such thing. In fact, what we learned was that when President Bush took over,

"12 of the 20 schools training soldiers in skills such as field artillery, infantry, and aviation have received the lowest readiness rating. They also disclose that over half of the Army's combat and support training centers are rated at the lowest readiness grade." ( Rowan Scarborough, "Army Training Centers Get Failing Grades," The Washington Times, August 29, 2000, p. A1.)

According to some of the military's highest-ranking officials, however, the United States cannot achieve this goal. Commandant of the Marine Corps General James Jones, former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jay Johnson, and Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael Ryan have all expressed serious concerns about their respective services' ability to carry out a two major theater war strategy (Peter Grier, "Ryan's Concerns About USAF Posture," Air Force Magazine, December 1999, p. 14, and "Representative Floyd Spence (R-SC) Holds Hearing on Readiness and Unfunded Requirements," House Armed Services Committee, FDCH Transcripts, Federal Document Clearing House, Inc., October 21, 1999.)

as of November 1999, two of the Army's 10 active divisions were rated at the lowest readiness level, and none were rated at the highest (Bradley Graham "Two Army Divisions Unfit for Major War: Both Flunk Ratings of Preparedness," The Washington Post, November 10, 1999, p. A1.)

Every division required additional manpower, equipment, or training before it would be prepared for combat, due largely to the units' commitments to operations in the Balkans. (Bradley Graham "Two Army Divisions Unfit for Major War: Both Flunk Ratings of Preparedness," The Washington Post, November 10, 1999, p. A1.)

23 percent of the Army's Chinook cargo helicopters, 19 percent of its Blackhawk helicopters, and 16 percent of its Apaches are not "mission-capable." (U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Readiness: Readiness Reports Do Not Provide a Clear Assessment of Army Equipment, GAO/NSIAD-99-119, June 1999, p. 12.)

Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. military has been deployed on over 50 peacekeeping and peace-enforcement operations. Yet the resources available to fund these missions have steadily decreased: The number of total active personnel has decreased nearly 30 percent, and funding for the armed services has decreased 16 percent. The strain on the armed forces shows clearly now as the reduced forces deploy for too long with insufficient and antiquated equipment. The result is indisputable: Readiness is in decline (U.S. General Accounting Office, Contingency Operations: Providing Critical Capabilities Poses Challenges, GAO/NSIAD-00-164, July 2000, p. 3.)

Consider the following table (I'm not sure if this will show up but here goes):

Here we see clearly that the military was decimated under the Clinton/Gore/Clinton regime.

Jack Spencer breaks it down, thusly:

In 1992, the U.S. Air Force consisted of 57 tactical squadrons and 270 bombers. Today the Air Force has 52 squadrons and 178 bombers. The total number of active personnel has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreased significantly as well. In 1992, there were around 393 ships in the fleet, while today there are only 316, a decrease of 20 percent. The number of Navy personnel has fallen by over 30 percent.

In 1992, the Marine Corps consisted of three divisions. The Corps still has three divisions, but since 1992, it has lost 22,000 active duty personnel, or 11 percent of its total. The Clinton Administration also cut the Marine Corps to 39,000 reserve personnel from 42,300 in 1992.
(Spencer, J The Facts About Military Readiness Heritage Foundation, 2000) (sorry, my APA is a little rusty).

Spencer, in the above paper, goes on to explain:

For each serviceman who participates in a military operation, two others are involved in the mission: one who is preparing to take the participant's place, and another who is recovering from having participated and retraining. Therefore, if 10,000 troops are on peace operations in the Balkans, 30,000 troops are actually being taken away from preparing for combat. Ten thousand are actively participating, while 10,000 are recovering, and 10,000 are preparing to go. Coupled with declining personnel, increased tempo has a devastating effect on readiness. Morale problems stemming from prolonged deployments, equipment that wears out too quickly, and decreased combat training levels heighten when troops are committed to non-combat operations.

the military's budget has continuously decreased over the past eight years; and, thus, the services are being forced to choose between funding quality of life improvements, procurement, training, and other essential spending. Consequently, none is adequately funded. For example, the Army is short by thousands of night vision goggles, binoculars, global positioning systems and hundreds of generator sets, battery chargers, and chemical agent monitors. According to the Office of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, these shortages are due to "recent increases in requirements," "slowed procurement funding," and "use of operations and maintenance funds for higher priorities." (U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Readiness: Readiness Reports Do Not Provide a Clear Assessment of Army Equipment, p. 60.)

The pace of deployments has increased 16-fold since the end of the Cold War. 17 According to Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA), the Clinton Administration has deployed U.S. forces 34 times in less than eight years. During the entire 40-year period of the Cold War, the military was committed to comparable deployments just 10 times.(House Republican News Conference on Defense Appropriations Bill, Washington, D.C., October 25, 1999.)

Between 1991 and 1999, according to a GAO study, the percentage of mission-capable Air Force fighter aircraft has decreased from 85 percent to 75 percent ( U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Operations: Impact of Operations Other Than War on the Services Varies, p. 13.)

Consider the words of Jacques Gansler, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology: "We now have an average age of our fighters in the Air Force of about 20 years. These were designed for a 15-year life." ("U.S. Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA) Holds Hearing on Defense-Wide R & D Programs," Military Research and Development Subcommittee, House Armed Services Committee, Washington, D.C., March 1, 2000.)

The Navy's equipment has begun to age rapidly as well. Amphibious ships, for example, are on average over 27 years old, while the service life of these ships is only 30-35 years. 37 Currently, the shipbuilding accounts are inadequate to maintain current force structure. The Navy is being forced to cut its ship building accounts from 8.7 per year--the number needed to maintain a 300-ship Navy--to 6.5 per year. 38 (Prepared Statement of The Honorable H. Lee Buchanan III, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Research, Development and Acquisition and Vice Admiral James F. Amerault, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Logistics, before the House Armed Services Committee, Military Procurement Subcommittee, February 24, 1999.) and (Robert Holzer, "U.S. Navy Budget Takes a Hard Hit," Defense News, July 30, 2000, p. 1.)

In April, 2000, 40 percent of the Army's helicopters were assessed as being either unable or at high risk of being unable to perform their mission. (Ron Laurenzo, "Army Wants Leaner, Faster Helicopter Force," Defense Week, April 10, 2000.)

On August 4, 2000, Kenneth Bacon, the DOD Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, told reporters that spare parts are so scarce that the Air Force is made to "cannibalize" perfectly good aircraft for spare parts. (Kenneth Bacon, Defense Department Regular Briefing, August 4, 2000, The Pentagon.)

The impact this has on America's readiness to fight wars is immense. For example, by day 60 of a two-war scenario, 44 percent of the Army's Apache helicopters and 52 percent of its Kiowa helicopters will not be available due to shortages in spare parts. (U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Readiness: Readiness Reports Do Not Provide a Clear Assessment of Army Equipment, p. 20.)

Due to inadequate training, only three of the Army's 15 reserve brigades can report that their platoons meet the requirements for tasks such as attacking enemy positions or defending against attacks. And only 42 percent of the Army's 24 reserve mechanized battalions met training standards for firing at stationary and moving targets (U.S. General Accounting Office, Enhanced Brigade Readiness Improved but Personnel and Workloads are Problems, GAO/NSIAD-00-114, June 2000, p. 5.)

There is plenty more, including quality of life, staffing and retention issues, but you getthe idea. Clearly, if we have a strong military, it's in spite of Clinton, not because of him.

[qb]

So are the populations of such nations.

Which only goes to further my point.

But it doesn't take much to be to the left of most American newspapers, Fox, radio, etc.

Yeah, I agree. the New York Times is practically a "Young America Foundation" mouthpiece and NPR? Definitely a conservative bent to those folks.

Yet, the killings have stopped, the IRA was persuaded to stand down and talk with the Protestants, and there's hope for the first time.

And this has what to do with Clinton?

I'm Irish myself, and I have relatives who supported the IRA. But the fact is, the killing stopped only after Clinton intervened.

Do you know what correlation and causality are?

Like the Balkans, Clinton's approach worked when no one else could do it.

Actually, the Balkans was a UN affair. It's also interesting to note that in all of the information I waded through, most military analysts considered that a huge boondogle for the US.

I do. In the vote on the plan promoted by Clinton and Mitchell, 71% of the people of Northern Ireland voted for it.

Again, do you know what correlation and causality are? Several people, even (gasp!) Republicans, "promoted" the plan.

Bush supports the peace accords, but is doing nothing to help.

What would you like him to do? What is he authorized Constitutionally to do?

So you'd be happy if Unionists and the IRA were still killing innocent people, Bosnians children were being shot by snipers, wholesale murder and rape was going on in Kosovo, and our military was in a shambles?

First of all, you haven't demonstrated what Clinton had to do with any of these things.

Second, as we see from the sources I quoted, it was Clinton who turned the military into a shambles.

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Galatian:
What's amusing is how much better Clinton looks in retrospect, in comparison to Bush. Clinton isn't a thief, he never had a drug habit, he never got arrested for DWI, and when he lied, at least it didn't result in the deaths of hundreds of our troops.

His inaction led to thousands of deaths. His refusal to remove Sadaam, even after the U.N. told him he could, let the world know we could be pushed around, a lot like Carter did. If he had flattened someone after the U.S.S. Cole was attacked, 9/11 never would have happened. </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed. All I could think of after the Cole was how Reagan sent those jets into Syria. Funny, we didn't have a problem with them again after that.

Then, along comes Bill...

 

[fromtheright]

PA Jim,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by fromtheright:
PA Jim,

I admit I may have missed it in another post, but do you have a kind word at all to say about the President's visit to the troops?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are correct, you missed it:

I haven't read or seen too much on the Thanksgiving day visit by Bush. But, from what I have seen, it was a class act and a good deed.

Penn,

Nice touch. My sincerest apology for the oversight.

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian observes:
The largest single savings was in reducing federal non-military employment to 1960s levels.

Again, could you please give us an example?

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, Clinton bequeathed to Bush the best-equipped, best-trained, and most potent fighting force in history.

Actually, we didn't learn any such thing.

You did, if you were paying attention. In fact, if you noticed, the military was then more effective than it has ever been in history. The forces Bush used to fight in Iraq are the result of 8 years of Clinton's defense policies. They performed superbly, contrary to your assertions.

In fact, what we learned was that when President Bush took over,

(assertions that Clinton reduced readiness)

So let's take a look at Bush's performance...

Army to hit low for readiness

Four army divisions - 40 percent of the active-duty force - won't be fully ready for combat for up to six months next year, leaving the nation short in the event of a major conflict in Korea or elsewhere, an army official said Friday.

Washington Post

The administration, short on cash after massive tax cuts, simply expended equipment and other resources without replacing them. Bush has adopted the same policy as Gorbachev in the final days of the Soviet Empire; forget about training and resupply, and hope things work out for the best.

the military's budget has continuously decreased over the past eight years; and, thus, the services are being forced to choose between funding quality of life improvements, procurement, training, and other essential spending.

The cuts in defense were essentially those planned because of the collapse of the Warsaw pact. With no Soviet threat in Europe, it was inevitable that the military would be reduced. The threat of conventional warfare is greatly reduced. Others of this were the base closings in accordance with a bill passed by a bipartisan agreement and signed by Reagan. You've been suckered by someone with a sharp pencil and a good imagination.

Clinton also spent a great deal of resources in the "perfected weapons" programs, in which existing weapons were upgraded and improved to produce better systems at reasonable costs. Many of these systems were used in Iraq, with devastating results. One of the best was the upgrading of "smart munitions".

Clearly, if we have a strong military, it's in spite of Clinton, not because of him.

Given the bleak condition of readiness cited above after three years of Bush, perhaps we can convince Clinton to come back so we can re-attain an effective military "in spite of him."


(Barbarian observes that Clinton was greatly admired by the rest of the world)

(Objection that the media of the rest of the world tends to be more liberal than American media)

So are the populations of such nations.

Which only goes to further my point.

Your point was that Clinton was not well-regarded. Now you seem to be arguing that he was well-regarded, because most people don't share your opinion. That is true, but not relevant.

Barbarian observes:
But it doesn't take much to be to the left of most American newspapers, Fox, radio, etc.

Yeah, I agree. the New York Times is practically a "Young America Foundation" mouthpiece and NPR? Definitely a conservative bent to those folks.

Actually, both are to the right of most of the world. But the average paper in America has a conservative bent.

Barbarian observes the results of Clinton's interventions in Ireland:
Yet, the killings have stopped, the IRA was persuaded to stand down and talk with the Protestants, and there's hope for the first time.

And this has what to do with Clinton?

He got directly involved, talked to the parties in the conflict, sent his personal envoy to mediate the conflict, and got an agreement.

Barbarian observes:
I'm Irish myself, and I have relatives who supported the IRA. But the fact is, the killing stopped only after Clinton intervened.

Do you know what correlation and causality are?

I know what a last-ditch defense is, too. You're out of excuses. It was Clinton who made the Good Friday agreement possible, and the disarming of the IRA. There's a long way to go, but he made it happen, when no one else could.

Barbarian observes:
Like the Balkans, Clinton's approach worked when no one else could do it.

Actually, the Balkans was a UN affair.

Clinton made the decision. The Republicans wailed and wrung their hands about how the Serbs were such tough fighters. But they folded. He forced them to negotiate by permitting the Bosnians to bring in weapons to defend themselves. And he picked a tough negotiator to deal with the Serbs.

Kosovo was again, his move. And he won that, too. Is it any wonder that he restored American standing in Europe?

Barbarian, on the popularity of Clinton in Northern Ireland:
In the vote on the plan promoted by Clinton and Mitchell, 71% of the people of Northern Ireland voted for it.

Again, do you know what correlation and causality are?

You don't understand what "correlation" means. I think you mean "cause and effect". In other words, do I think that Clinton's work in getting the parties to the table led to the Good Friday accords? Yes. So does every other rational person. If he hadn't done that, there would have been no such accords.

Several people, even (gasp!) republicans, "promoted" the plan.

Some republicans signed on after Clinton announced his plan. Which of them do you think contributed significantly to the accords, and how do you think they did that?

Bush supports the peace accords, but is doing nothing to help.

What would you like him to do?

He could be a leader. He could listen to the parties involved, talk to them, encourage the moderates use his influence to convice them to go on. Oh yes, he doesn't have any influence anymore. He made fun of all our allies and even the English detest him now.

What is he authorized Constitutionally to do?

Negotiate with other nations, as part of the power to make treaties.

Barbarian asks?
So you'd be happy if Unionists and the IRA were still killing innocent people, Bosnians children were being shot by snipers, wholesale murder and rape was going on in Kosovo, and our military was in a shambles?

First of all, you haven't demonstrated what Clinton had to do with any of these things.

Yes, that's not arguable. Clinton's actions in the Balkans, and in getting the Good Friday accords, is a matter of record.

Second, as we see from the sources I quoted, it was Clinton who turned the military into a shambles

The military that Bush inherited from Clinton performed magnificently in Iraq. Bush found a highly-trained, highly-motivated, and superbly well-equipped military. Don't downgrade our fighting forces to get at Clinton.

On the other hand, as recent news reports indicate, readiness is now at new lows, because Bush is not spending the money he needs to maintain the forces Clinton left him.

That's a problem.

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian observes:
The largest single savings was in reducing federal non-military employment to 1960s levels.

Again, could you please give us an example?

Sure:
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/nprrpt/annrpt/vp-rpt96/appendix/progress.html

Notice that all deparments but Justice and the National Science Foundation had significant cuts in civilian employment. Defense had about 15%, not the largest, but above the average of 10% for all agencies. The difference is largely due to base closings mandated by a law signed by Reagan.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, Clinton bequeathed to Bush the best-equipped, best-trained, and most potent fighting force in history.

Actually, we didn't learn any such thing.

You did, if you were paying attention. In fact, if you noticed, the military was then more effective than it has ever been in history. The forces Bush used to fight in Iraq are the result of 8 years of Clinton's defense policies. They performed superbly, contrary to your assertions.

In fact, what we learned was that when President Bush took over,

(assertions that Clinton reduced readiness)

So let's take a look at Bush's performance...

Army to hit low for readiness

Four army divisions - 40 percent of the active-duty force - won't be fully ready for combat for up to six months next year, leaving the nation short in the event of a major conflict in Korea or elsewhere, an army official said Friday.

Washington Post

The administration, short on cash after massive tax cuts, simply expended equipment and other resources without replacing them. Bush has adopted the same policy as Gorbachev in the final days of the Soviet Empire; forget about training and resupply, and hope things work out for the best.

the military's budget has continuously decreased over the past eight years; and, thus, the services are being forced to choose between funding quality of life improvements, procurement, training, and other essential spending.

The cuts in defense were essentially those planned because of the collapse of the Warsaw pact. With no Soviet threat in Europe, it was inevitable that the military would be reduced. The threat of conventional warfare is greatly reduced. Others of this were the base closings in accordance with a bill passed by a bipartisan agreement and signed by Reagan. You've been suckered by someone with a sharp pencil and a good imagination.

Clinton also spent a great deal of resources in the "perfected weapons" programs, in which existing weapons were upgraded and improved to produce better systems at reasonable costs. Many of these systems were used in Iraq, with devastating results. One of the best was the upgrading of "smart munitions".

Clearly, if we have a strong military, it's in spite of Clinton, not because of him.

Given the bleak condition of readiness cited above after three years of Bush, perhaps we can convince Clinton to come back so we can re-attain an effective military "in spite of him."


(Barbarian observes that Clinton was greatly admired by the rest of the world)

(Objection that the media of the rest of the world tends to be more liberal than American media)

So are the populations of such nations.

Which only goes to further my point.

Your point was that Clinton was not well-regarded. Now you seem to be arguing that he was well-regarded, because most people don't share your opinion. That is true, but not relevant.

Barbarian observes:
But it doesn't take much to be to the left of most American newspapers, Fox, radio, etc.

Yeah, I agree. the New York Times is practically a "Young America Foundation" mouthpiece and NPR? Definitely a conservative bent to those folks.

Actually, both are to the right of most of the world. But the average paper in America has a conservative bent.

Barbarian observes the results of Clinton's interventions in Ireland:
Yet, the killings have stopped, the IRA was persuaded to stand down and talk with the Protestants, and there's hope for the first time.

And this has what to do with Clinton?

He got directly involved, talked to the parties in the conflict, sent his personal envoy to mediate the conflict, and got an agreement.

Barbarian observes:
I'm Irish myself, and I have relatives who supported the IRA. But the fact is, the killing stopped only after Clinton intervened.

Do you know what correlation and causality are?

I know what a last-ditch defense is, too. You're out of excuses. It was Clinton who made the Good Friday agreement possible, and the disarming of the IRA. There's a long way to go, but he made it happen, when no one else could.

Barbarian observes:
Like the Balkans, Clinton's approach worked when no one else could do it.

Actually, the Balkans was a UN affair.

Clinton made the decision. The Republicans wailed and wrung their hands about how the Serbs were such tough fighters. But they folded. He forced them to negotiate by permitting the Bosnians to bring in weapons to defend themselves. And he picked a tough negotiator to deal with the Serbs.

Kosovo was again, his move. And he won that, too. Is it any wonder that he restored American standing in Europe?

Barbarian, on the popularity of Clinton in Northern Ireland:
In the vote on the plan promoted by Clinton and Mitchell, 71% of the people of Northern Ireland voted for it.

Again, do you know what correlation and causality are?

You don't understand what "correlation" means. I think you mean "cause and effect". In other words, do I think that Clinton's work in getting the parties to the table led to the Good Friday accords? Yes. So does every other rational person. If he hadn't done that, there would have been no such accords.

Several people, even (gasp!) republicans, "promoted" the plan.

Some republicans signed on after Clinton announced his plan. Which of them do you think contributed significantly to the accords, and how do you think they did that?

Bush supports the peace accords, but is doing nothing to help.

What would you like him to do?

He could be a leader. He could listen to the parties involved, talk to them, encourage the moderates use his influence to convice them to go on. Oh yes, he doesn't have any influence anymore. He made fun of all our allies and even the English detest him now.

What is he authorized Constitutionally to do?

Negotiate with other nations, as part of the power to make treaties.

Barbarian asks?
So you'd be happy if Unionists and the IRA were still killing innocent people, Bosnians children were being shot by snipers, wholesale murder and rape was going on in Kosovo, and our military was in a shambles?

First of all, you haven't demonstrated what Clinton had to do with any of these things.

Yes, that's not arguable. Clinton's actions in the Balkans, and in getting the Good Friday accords, is a matter of record.

Second, as we see from the sources I quoted, it was Clinton who turned the military into a shambles

The military that Bush inherited from Clinton performed magnificently in Iraq. Bush found a highly-trained, highly-motivated, and superbly well-equipped military. Don't downgrade our fighting forces to get at Clinton.

On the other hand, as recent news reports indicate, readiness is now at new lows, because Bush is not spending the money he needs to maintain the forces Clinton left him.

That's a problem.

 

[Mike McK]

Galatian, since you missed the first time...


"12 of the 20 schools training soldiers in skills such as field artillery, infantry, and aviation have received the lowest readiness rating. They also disclose that over half of the Army's combat and support training centers are rated at the lowest readiness grade." ( Rowan Scarborough, "Army Training Centers Get Failing Grades," The Washington Times, August 29, 2000, p. A1.)

According to some of the military's highest-ranking officials, however, the United States cannot achieve this goal. Commandant of the Marine Corps General James Jones, former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jay Johnson, and Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael Ryan have all expressed serious concerns about their respective services' ability to carry out a two major theater war strategy (Peter Grier, "Ryan's Concerns About USAF Posture," Air Force Magazine, December 1999, p. 14, and "Representative Floyd Spence (R-SC) Holds Hearing on Readiness and Unfunded Requirements," House Armed Services Committee, FDCH Transcripts, Federal Document Clearing House, Inc., October 21, 1999.)

as of November 1999, two of the Army's 10 active divisions were rated at the lowest readiness level, and none were rated at the highest (Bradley Graham "Two Army Divisions Unfit for Major War: Both Flunk Ratings of Preparedness," The Washington Post, November 10, 1999, p. A1.)

Every division required additional manpower, equipment, or training before it would be prepared for combat, due largely to the units' commitments to operations in the Balkans. (Bradley Graham "Two Army Divisions Unfit for Major War: Both Flunk Ratings of Preparedness," The Washington Post, November 10, 1999, p. A1.)

23 percent of the Army's Chinook cargo helicopters, 19 percent of its Blackhawk helicopters, and 16 percent of its Apaches are not "mission-capable." (U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Readiness: Readiness Reports Do Not Provide a Clear Assessment of Army Equipment, GAO/NSIAD-99-119, June 1999, p. 12.)

Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. military has been deployed on over 50 peacekeeping and peace-enforcement operations. Yet the resources available to fund these missions have steadily decreased: The number of total active personnel has decreased nearly 30 percent, and funding for the armed services has decreased 16 percent. The strain on the armed forces shows clearly now as the reduced forces deploy for too long with insufficient and antiquated equipment. The result is indisputable: Readiness is in decline (U.S. General Accounting Office, Contingency Operations: Providing Critical Capabilities Poses Challenges, GAO/NSIAD-00-164, July 2000, p. 3.)

Consider the following table (I'm not sure if this will show up but here goes):



Here we see clearly that the military was decimated under the Clinton/Gore/Clinton regime.

Jack Spencer breaks it down, thusly:

In 1992, the U.S. Air Force consisted of 57 tactical squadrons and 270 bombers. Today the Air Force has 52 squadrons and 178 bombers. The total number of active personnel has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreased significantly as well. In 1992, there were around 393 ships in the fleet, while today there are only 316, a decrease of 20 percent. The number of Navy personnel has fallen by over 30 percent.

In 1992, the Marine Corps consisted of three divisions. The Corps still has three divisions, but since 1992, it has lost 22,000 active duty personnel, or 11 percent of its total. The Clinton Administration also cut the Marine Corps to 39,000 reserve personnel from 42,300 in 1992.
(Spencer, J The Facts About Military Readiness Heritage Foundation, 2000) (sorry, my APA is a little rusty).

Spencer, in the above paper, goes on to explain:

For each serviceman who participates in a military operation, two others are involved in the mission: one who is preparing to take the participant's place, and another who is recovering from having participated and retraining. Therefore, if 10,000 troops are on peace operations in the Balkans, 30,000 troops are actually being taken away from preparing for combat. Ten thousand are actively participating, while 10,000 are recovering, and 10,000 are preparing to go. Coupled with declining personnel, increased tempo has a devastating effect on readiness. Morale problems stemming from prolonged deployments, equipment that wears out too quickly, and decreased combat training levels heighten when troops are committed to non-combat operations.

the military's budget has continuously decreased over the past eight years; and, thus, the services are being forced to choose between funding quality of life improvements, procurement, training, and other essential spending. Consequently, none is adequately funded. For example, the Army is short by thousands of night vision goggles, binoculars, global positioning systems and hundreds of generator sets, battery chargers, and chemical agent monitors. According to the Office of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, these shortages are due to "recent increases in requirements," "slowed procurement funding," and "use of operations and maintenance funds for higher priorities." (U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Readiness: Readiness Reports Do Not Provide a Clear Assessment of Army Equipment, p. 60.)



The pace of deployments has increased 16-fold since the end of the Cold War. 17 According to Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA), the Clinton Administration has deployed U.S. forces 34 times in less than eight years. During the entire 40-year period of the Cold War, the military was committed to comparable deployments just 10 times.(House Republican News Conference on Defense Appropriations Bill, Washington, D.C., October 25, 1999.)

Between 1991 and 1999, according to a GAO study, the percentage of mission-capable Air Force fighter aircraft has decreased from 85 percent to 75 percent ( U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Operations: Impact of Operations Other Than War on the Services Varies, p. 13.)

Consider the words of Jacques Gansler, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology: "We now have an average age of our fighters in the Air Force of about 20 years. These were designed for a 15-year life." ("U.S. Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA) Holds Hearing on Defense-Wide R & D Programs," Military Research and Development Subcommittee, House Armed Services Committee, Washington, D.C., March 1, 2000.)

The Navy's equipment has begun to age rapidly as well. Amphibious ships, for example, are on average over 27 years old, while the service life of these ships is only 30-35 years. 37 Currently, the shipbuilding accounts are inadequate to maintain current force structure. The Navy is being forced to cut its ship building accounts from 8.7 per year--the number needed to maintain a 300-ship Navy--to 6.5 per year. 38 (Prepared Statement of The Honorable H. Lee Buchanan III, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Research, Development and Acquisition and Vice Admiral James F. Amerault, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Logistics, before the House Armed Services Committee, Military Procurement Subcommittee, February 24, 1999.) and (Robert Holzer, "U.S. Navy Budget Takes a Hard Hit," Defense News, July 30, 2000, p. 1.)

In April, 2000, 40 percent of the Army's helicopters were assessed as being either unable or at high risk of being unable to perform their mission. (Ron Laurenzo, "Army Wants Leaner, Faster Helicopter Force," Defense Week, April 10, 2000.)

On August 4, 2000, Kenneth Bacon, the DOD Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, told reporters that spare parts are so scarce that the Air Force is made to "cannibalize" perfectly good aircraft for spare parts. (Kenneth Bacon, Defense Department Regular Briefing, August 4, 2000, The Pentagon.)

The impact this has on America's readiness to fight wars is immense. For example, by day 60 of a two-war scenario, 44 percent of the Army's Apache helicopters and 52 percent of its Kiowa helicopters will not be available due to shortages in spare parts. (U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Readiness: Readiness Reports Do Not Provide a Clear Assessment of Army Equipment, p. 20.)

Due to inadequate training, only three of the Army's 15 reserve brigades can report that their platoons meet the requirements for tasks such as attacking enemy positions or defending against attacks. And only 42 percent of the Army's 24 reserve mechanized battalions met training standards for firing at stationary and moving targets (U.S. General Accounting Office, Enhanced Brigade Readiness Improved but Personnel and Workloads are Problems, GAO/NSIAD-00-114, June 2000, p. 5.)

There is plenty more, including quality of life, staffing and retention issues, but you get the idea. Clearly, if we have a strong military, it's in spite of Clinton, not because of him.


Note that, with the exception of Jack Spencer, these stats all come from Clinton admin era agencies and those appointed by Clinton or serving under him.

This is hardly "Republican propaganda".

 

[The Galatian]

I note that your numbers indicate that readiness was better under Clinton than it is under Bush, according to the Army.

Bottom line? Our armed forces were superb and performed superbly in the Gulf War. But they won't keep doing that, if Bush continues to degrade the readiness of our forces.

No matter how you spin it, Clinton left Bush with a very good military force, and some of the best people in the world to manage it. Talk is cheap. Results count.

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
I note that your numbers indicate that readiness was better under Clinton than it is under Bush, according to the Army.

I guess we'll never know, since you won't demonstrate that.

But they won't keep doing that, if Bush continues to degrade the readiness of our forces.

Peraps you could take a minute to demonstrate this.

No matter how you spin it, Clinton left Bush with a very good military force, and some of the best people in the world to manage it.

So then, Clinton's own admin was "spinning" against him?

Perhaps you didn't notice but all except two of these sources are either Clinton admin sources, Clinton appointees or those who served under Clinton.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
PA Jim,

quote:

Hey, no offense taken. I can see where you would easily have made the assumption and nobody has time to read sll of the posts.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Hey Mike McK,

It's really cool that you get useful gov't statistics in your phone bill. Is there any way I could sign up for that?

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian observes:
I note that your numbers indicate that readiness was better under Clinton than it is under Bush, according to the Army.

I guess we'll never know, since you won't demonstrate that.

The Army says so, at least an Army official said so. The Army is at it's lowest readiness right now. Bush simply used up stores without budgeting money to bring them back up. Training budgets are down, and according to the Army, if we had to fight a major war now, we couldn't.

But they won't keep doing that, if Bush continues to degrade the readiness of our forces.

Peraps you could take a minute to demonstrate this.

That's what the army said. We are at our lowest readiness in years. It's probably too late to blame Clinton after all this time. Now what are you going to do?

Barbarian observes:
No matter how you spin it, Clinton left Bush with a very good military force, and some of the best people in the world to manage it.

So then, Clinton's own admin was "spinning" against him?

Nope. You just trotted out some base closing statistics and RIFs scheduled after the fall of the Warsaw Pact. If you want someone to blame you'd have to go back to Reagan and Bush the Elder for those.

Perhaps you didn't notice but all except two of these sources are either Clinton admin sources, Clinton appointees or those who served under Clinton

Yep. And the Army is now working for Dubya. But they still said that he let our armed forces degrade.

The money he needs to bring them up is being used up in Iraq, because Halliburton says that it can't make a profit unless it charges us double for gasoline.

Just so you know...

 

[Mike McK]

Duplicate post.

[ December 10, 2003, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Mike McK ]

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
The Army says so, at least an Army official said so.

What Army official? When?

The Army is at it's lowest readiness right now.

So you keep saying but we're still waiting for you to demonstrate this.

That's what the army said.

Who, representing "the Army" said this? When?

Nope. You just trotted out some base closing statistics and RIFs scheduled after the fall of the Warsaw Pact.

Actually, as anyone who has read these can see, and obviously you haven't, they have nothing to do with base closings, but with day to day operations budgets.

In case you've forgotten already, let me repeat them for you:

"12 of the 20 schools training soldiers in skills such as field artillery, infantry, and aviation have received the lowest readiness rating. They also disclose that over half of the Army's combat and support training centers are rated at the lowest readiness grade." ( Rowan Scarborough, "Army Training Centers Get Failing Grades," The Washington Times, August 29, 2000, p. A1.)

According to some of the military's highest-ranking officials, however, the United States cannot achieve this goal. Commandant of the Marine Corps General James Jones, former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jay Johnson, and Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael Ryan have all expressed serious concerns about their respective services' ability to carry out a two major theater war strategy (Peter Grier, "Ryan's Concerns About USAF Posture," Air Force Magazine, December 1999, p. 14, and "Representative Floyd Spence (R-SC) Holds Hearing on Readiness and Unfunded Requirements," House Armed Services Committee, FDCH Transcripts, Federal Document Clearing House, Inc., October 21, 1999.)

as of November 1999, two of the Army's 10 active divisions were rated at the lowest readiness level, and none were rated at the highest (Bradley Graham "Two Army Divisions Unfit for Major War: Both Flunk Ratings of Preparedness," The Washington Post, November 10, 1999, p. A1.)

Every division required additional manpower, equipment, or training before it would be prepared for combat, due largely to the units' commitments to operations in the Balkans. (Bradley Graham "Two Army Divisions Unfit for Major War: Both Flunk Ratings of Preparedness," The Washington Post, November 10, 1999, p. A1.)

23 percent of the Army's Chinook cargo helicopters, 19 percent of its Blackhawk helicopters, and 16 percent of its Apaches are not "mission-capable." (U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Readiness: Readiness Reports Do Not Provide a Clear Assessment of Army Equipment, GAO/NSIAD-99-119, June 1999, p. 12.)

Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. military has been deployed on over 50 peacekeeping and peace-enforcement operations. Yet the resources available to fund these missions have steadily decreased: The number of total active personnel has decreased nearly 30 percent, and funding for the armed services has decreased 16 percent. The strain on the armed forces shows clearly now as the reduced forces deploy for too long with insufficient and antiquated equipment. The result is indisputable: Readiness is in decline (U.S. General Accounting Office, Contingency Operations: Providing Critical Capabilities Poses Challenges, GAO/NSIAD-00-164, July 2000, p. 3.)

Consider the following table (I'm not sure if this will show up but here goes):

Here we see clearly that the military was decimated under the Clinton/Gore/Clinton regime.

Jack Spencer breaks it down, thusly:

In 1992, the U.S. Air Force consisted of 57 tactical squadrons and 270 bombers. Today the Air Force has 52 squadrons and 178 bombers. The total number of active personnel has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreased significantly as well. In 1992, there were around 393 ships in the fleet, while today there are only 316, a decrease of 20 percent. The number of Navy personnel has fallen by over 30 percent.

In 1992, the Marine Corps consisted of three divisions. The Corps still has three divisions, but since 1992, it has lost 22,000 active duty personnel, or 11 percent of its total. The Clinton Administration also cut the Marine Corps to 39,000 reserve personnel from 42,300 in 1992.
(Spencer, J The Facts About Military Readiness Heritage Foundation, 2000) (sorry, my APA is a little rusty).

Spencer, in the above paper, goes on to explain:

For each serviceman who participates in a military operation, two others are involved in the mission: one who is preparing to take the participant's place, and another who is recovering from having participated and retraining. Therefore, if 10,000 troops are on peace operations in the Balkans, 30,000 troops are actually being taken away from preparing for combat. Ten thousand are actively participating, while 10,000 are recovering, and 10,000 are preparing to go. Coupled with declining personnel, increased tempo has a devastating effect on readiness. Morale problems stemming from prolonged deployments, equipment that wears out too quickly, and decreased combat training levels heighten when troops are committed to non-combat operations.

the military's budget has continuously decreased over the past eight years; and, thus, the services are being forced to choose between funding quality of life improvements, procurement, training, and other essential spending. Consequently, none is adequately funded. For example, the Army is short by thousands of night vision goggles, binoculars, global positioning systems and hundreds of generator sets, battery chargers, and chemical agent monitors. According to the Office of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, these shortages are due to "recent increases in requirements," "slowed procurement funding," and "use of operations and maintenance funds for higher priorities." (U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Readiness: Readiness Reports Do Not Provide a Clear Assessment of Army Equipment, p. 60.)



The pace of deployments has increased 16-fold since the end of the Cold War. 17 According to Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA), the Clinton Administration has deployed U.S. forces 34 times in less than eight years. During the entire 40-year period of the Cold War, the military was committed to comparable deployments just 10 times.(House Republican News Conference on Defense Appropriations Bill, Washington, D.C., October 25, 1999.)

Between 1991 and 1999, according to a GAO study, the percentage of mission-capable Air Force fighter aircraft has decreased from 85 percent to 75 percent ( U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Operations: Impact of Operations Other Than War on the Services Varies, p. 13.)

Consider the words of Jacques Gansler, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology: "We now have an average age of our fighters in the Air Force of about 20 years. These were designed for a 15-year life." ("U.S. Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA) Holds Hearing on Defense-Wide R & D Programs," Military Research and Development Subcommittee, House Armed Services Committee, Washington, D.C., March 1, 2000.)

The Navy's equipment has begun to age rapidly as well. Amphibious ships, for example, are on average over 27 years old, while the service life of these ships is only 30-35 years. 37 Currently, the shipbuilding accounts are inadequate to maintain current force structure. The Navy is being forced to cut its ship building accounts from 8.7 per year--the number needed to maintain a 300-ship Navy--to 6.5 per year. 38 (Prepared Statement of The Honorable H. Lee Buchanan III, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Research, Development and Acquisition and Vice Admiral James F. Amerault, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Logistics, before the House Armed Services Committee, Military Procurement Subcommittee, February 24, 1999.) and (Robert Holzer, "U.S. Navy Budget Takes a Hard Hit," Defense News, July 30, 2000, p. 1.)

In April, 2000, 40 percent of the Army's helicopters were assessed as being either unable or at high risk of being unable to perform their mission. (Ron Laurenzo, "Army Wants Leaner, Faster Helicopter Force," Defense Week, April 10, 2000.)

On August 4, 2000, Kenneth Bacon, the DOD Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, told reporters that spare parts are so scarce that the Air Force is made to "cannibalize" perfectly good aircraft for spare parts. (Kenneth Bacon, Defense Department Regular Briefing, August 4, 2000, The Pentagon.)

The impact this has on America's readiness to fight wars is immense. For example, by day 60 of a two-war scenario, 44 percent of the Army's Apache helicopters and 52 percent of its Kiowa helicopters will not be available due to shortages in spare parts. (U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Readiness: Readiness Reports Do Not Provide a Clear Assessment of Army Equipment, p. 20.)

Due to inadequate training, only three of the Army's 15 reserve brigades can report that their platoons meet the requirements for tasks such as attacking enemy positions or defending against attacks. And only 42 percent of the Army's 24 reserve mechanized battalions met training standards for firing at stationary and moving targets (U.S. General Accounting Office, Enhanced Brigade Readiness Improved but Personnel and Workloads are Problems, GAO/NSIAD-00-114, June 2000, p. 5.)


So, as you can see, none of this has anything to do with base closings.

Yep.

So then, since you agree, would you mind explaining for us why, when the Clinton admin was supposedly rebuilding the military, Clinton's own representatives were telling us that the military was going to seed under Clinton?

Either he was rebuilding it or he wasn't. His own people, going by their own words, don't believe that he was rebuilding anything. They were bemoaning the neglect of the military under Clinton.

And the Army is now working for Dubya. But they still said that he let our armed forces degrade.

If they said it, then why can't you demonstrate this? Wouldn't it be fairly easy to find such information?

Or do you just expect us to say, "Oh well, Galatian says that 'the Army said so' so obviously it must be true"?

It's a little telling that I can show so much information to back up my argument (and that's just a drop in the bucket - I could go on) and you haven't been able to show one reference to this mysterious "Army" spokesman you would have us believe exists.

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian observes:
The Army says so, at least an Army official said so.

What Army official? When?

Day before yesterday. Dallas Morning News carried the story.

ARMY TO HIT LOW FOR READINESS
"Four Army Divisions - 40 percent of the active-duty force - won't be fully ready for combat for up to six months next year, leaving the nation short in the event of a major conflict in North Korea or eleswhere, an Army official said Friday."

Barbarian observes:
The Army is at it's lowest readiness right now.

So you keep saying but we're still waiting for you to demonstrate this.

The Army said so, according to the Dallas Morning News. For the first time, four divisions will be rated C-3 or C-4, meaning that they will not be ready to fight a major regional war.

"A fifth division, the 3rd Infantry, which returnd from Iraq in August is still not fully ready to return to combat, the official said.

Barbarian on the "statistics":
Nope. You just trotted out some base closing statistics and RIFs scheduled after the fall of the Warsaw Pact.

Actually, as anyone who has read these can see, and obviously you haven't, they have nothing to do with base closings, but with day to day operations budgets.

Yes, that's why they were closing the bases. A nonpartisan committee was set up to determine which bases could be closed without affecting readiness for post-cold war threats. The budgets were reduced thereby. But that's not Clinton's doing; the legislation was signed before he took office.

In case you've forgotten already, let me repeat them for you:

According to some of the military's highest-ranking officials, however, the United States cannot achieve this goal. Commandant of the Marine Corps General James Jones, former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jay Johnson, and Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael Ryan have all expressed serious concerns about their respective services' ability to carry out a two major theater war strategy (Peter Grier, "Ryan's Concerns About USAF Posture," Air Force Magazine, December 1999, p. 14, and "Representative Floyd Spence (R-SC) Holds Hearing on Readiness and Unfunded Requirements," House Armed Services Committee, FDCH Transcripts, Federal Document Clearing House, Inc., October 21, 1999.)

as of November 1999, two of the Army's 10 active divisions were rated at the lowest readiness level, and none were rated at the highest (Bradley Graham "Two Army Divisions Unfit for Major War: Both Flunk Ratings of Preparedness," The Washington Post, November 10, 1999, p. A1.)

And now, as you've learned, Bush has four of them at that state, with another "not ready". What conclusion can we draw from that?

Every division required additional manpower, equipment, or training before it would be prepared for combat, due largely to the units' commitments to operations in the Balkans. (Bradley Graham "Two Army Divisions Unfit for Major War: Both Flunk Ratings of Preparedness," The Washington Post, November 10, 1999, p. A1.)

And now it's much worse. Why? Because the pipleline's been shut down to a trickle? Why? Because we have to pay Halliburton twice the going rate for gasoline in Iraq, and the money has already been spent in tax cuts.

Here we see clearly that the military was decimated under the Clinton/Gore/Clinton regime.

Here's what actually happened:
In 1988 Dick Armey, in a fit of rationality, sponsored a bill that made it politically possible to close unneeded bases. A bipartisan commission made recommendations that lawmakers could approve or disapprove, but could not amend. In the 90s, those bases were closed.

Here's David Hackworth's opinion:

"During the first two rounds of the base-closing drill, over 100 bases have gotten the ax. Dozens more have been partially closed. Almost 50 percent of U.S. overseas bases will be shut by 1995. The savings from these closures will exceed $4 billion a year, enough money annually to maintain four 15,000-person combat divisions at a razor's edge of preparedness.
http://www.hackworth.com/7jun94.html

Assuming of course, that a president wouldn't consider it "extra money" and give it away to his friends.

So, as you can see, none of this has anything to do with base closings.

You've been suckered again. It had quite a bit to do with it. And the decrease in forces after the collapse of the Warsaw pact was reasonable; the greatest threat had disappeared.

So then, since you agree, would you mind explaining for us why, when the Clinton admin was supposedly rebuilding the military, Clinton's own representatives were telling us that the military was going to seed under Clinton?

You've confused the reduction in force in Europe with the military "going to seed". In fact, new weapons systems were begun under Clinton, and existing ones greatly improved. The assertion that our armed forces, who performed so well in Iraq had "gone to seed" is an unfair slur on the men and women who did it for us. And the equipment they were using to do it was superior to that of any other nation.

Either he was rebuilding it or he wasn't. His own people, going by their own words, don't believe that he was rebuilding anything.

That isn't what they said. I suppose I could get you a list of the projects begun under Clinton to upgrade equipment and bring new weapons systems on line. Would you like that?

Barbarian observes:
And the Army is now working for Dubya. But they still said that he let our armed forces degrade.

It's a little telling that I can show so much information to back up my argument (and that's just a drop in the bucket - I could go on) and you haven't been able to show one reference to this mysterious "Army" spokesman you would have us believe exists.

See above. It was national news. If you read the papers, you would have seen it.

So bottom line, you're trying to tell us that the base closings (the bill for which was sponsored by a republican and signed into law by a republican president) and the reduction in force in Europe after the collapse of the Soviet empire, are Clinton's fault. And you're asserting that the decrease in readiness after the Balkan deployment was also "going to seed".

So tell us why you think Bush's performance is better, when US forces under his watch had twice as many divisions unprepared.

There's a reason for this, if you thought about it.