Clinton launches withering attack on Bush on Iraq, Katrina, budget

[Sarge]

Yep, I love how you think it is appropriate to post something not even remotely related to the topic at hand, then procede to laugh at people when they bring up facts you can't dispute. Face it, Clinton wasn't in office for 9-11, he wasn't in office for Iraq, and he wasn't in office for Katrina. At this point, you're propensity to blame Clinton for the fact that our leader is a bumbling baffoon who could screw up a one car funeral is outright ludicrous.

If clinton thinks the stuff he pulled is going to "go away" just because he's layed low (no pun intended) for a couple of years, he better rethink

He has no business whatsoever saying anything about the military being too small or short of people. He's the one that made us that way.

And if he doesn't want stuff in general thrown back at him, he should keep his mug off TV. ANyone can sit back and critize.

But, I guess I should get used to it again, since he's in campaign mode for the UN presidency

[chomerics]

If clinton thinks the stuff he pulled is going to "go away" just because he's layed low (no pun intended) for a couple of years, he better rethink

He has no business whatsoever saying anything about the military being too small or short of people. He's the one that made us that way.

And if he doesn't want stuff in general thrown back at him, he should keep his mug off TV. ANyone can sit back and critize.

But, I guess I should get used to it again, since he's in campaign mode for the UN presidency

Sarge, we've been down this road before, and unless you watch the entire clip, you have no idea about the context of his message. I posted the entire video in another thread, and he was saying that the national guard being Iraq had a direct effect on the response to Katrina. Would you agree with that assesment, or would side with the neo-cons as well and state that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with A. The lack of response, and B. the money not funded for the levees which was reported to be going to Iraq. These are facts which are INDESPUTABLE, yet you still want to blame Clinton. :doh:

Mike, maybe if you actually brought something to the table, people would actually spend time to debate with you, but while you keep using propaganda that is three years old, and has been debated before on this board ad-nauseum, you will be called out for it. So go ahead with your petty infantile name calling, it just goes to prove you are a complete blind 2-bit partisan who doesn't have a clue to what is going on around you. THis is fine with me, but just expect to be called out on your ludicrous vitriolic rants, it will save up both time.

[Mad Mike]

Chom, If you think the words of bin Laden himself and the conclusion of the 9/11 commission is propaganda, you are a moron. Oh, that's right... :doh:

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Just confirms my belief that bill clinton is indeed the anti-Christ

Funny..I thought that title was reserved for Bush. But what do I know?

[Sarge]

Sarge, we've been down this road before, and unless you watch the entire clip, you have no idea about the context of his message. I posted the entire video in another thread, and he was saying that the national guard being Iraq had a direct effect on the response to Katrina. Would you agree with that assesment, or would side with the neo-cons as well and state that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with A. The lack of response, and B. the money not funded for the levees which was reported to be going to Iraq. These are facts which are INDESPUTABLE, yet you still want to blame Clinton. :doh:

I know we've been down this road before. And you can say Republican Congress all day long, but at the end of the day, this is what he signed for in his defense budget and this is what your hero wrought on the military in the 90's.

So again, I don't want to hear a word he has to say about being stretched too thin, becasue it's a direct result of his policies

[chomerics]

I know we've been down this road before. And you can say Republican Congress all day long, but at the end of the day, this is what he signed for in his defense budget and this is what your hero wrought on the military in the 90's.

So again, I don't want to hear a word he has to say about being stretched too thin, becasue it's a direct result of his policies

Again Sarge, who's policy was it to fight two wars on two different fronts? Were we ever in a shortage of troops under Clinton? Would we have been able to get Bin Laden if Clinton was in? Would we have used our troops to fight two battles on two fronts? Who's idea was it to go into Iraq undermanned, then force the generals who opposed the troop amount to resign? At what point do you say, you know what, Bush and Rummy were wrong. THey had no idea how to handle the situation? Ever?

If you want to blame the lack of supplies you had, why don't you look at the brass? You mean to tell me over $250billion isn't enough money to run a military of over a million people? The brass, AND congress decided to focus the money on industrial contracts, not on troops. You love to give blame to the pres, but you neglect to put any blame on the people in charge of allocating the funds.

Now, our military budget was still something like 40% of the entire worlds budget for military. How much more do you want? 60%, 80%? What were our national threats? We didn't have a national threat other then terrorism. If you could come up with a good argument as to why we need a mobile force of 2million people, when there are no nation enemies, I might agree with you. Just because Bush is a complete moron, and decided to go off an fight two wars on two different fronts doesn't mean Clinton was wrong. It means that Bush, Rummy et all were woefully ignorant of our capibilities, and completely ignored all the warnings from people who knew what they were talking about. Besides, if Bush went with a coillition approach and used his diplomatic skills to pursuade other countries to help, we wouldn't be in this mess.

It is convienient to blame Clinton for Bush's inability to govern, but that never gets at the root of the issue. It passes the blame instead of focusing on the problem. You can never move forward, if you are too busy looking back and trying to blame somebody who hasn't been in power for almost 5 years.

[Larry]

So, Sarge, I'm a bit puzzled,

I thought the thread was about a supposedly slow response ot a hurricane in '05. I assume the claim was made (at least, it seems like it is being made (by others) that this (alleged lack of) response was due to excessive military commitments abroad.

And your response of to show a bunch of readiness statistics that all seem to assume that the world ended in Y2K

How come no statistics for how many units have deployed for more than 120 days in '05? (Or, if the numbers for '05 aren't available, how about '04?)

Or is it your assertion that readiness statistics from 5-10 years ago are significant, but current numbers aren't?

[Sarge]

So, Sarge, I'm a bit puzzled,

I thought the thread was about a supposedly slow response ot a hurricane in '05. I assume the claim was made (at least, it seems like it is being made (by others) that this (alleged lack of) response was due to excessive military commitments abroad.

And your response of to show a bunch of readiness statistics that all seem to assume that the world ended in Y2K

How come no statistics for how many units have deployed for more than 120 days in '05? (Or, if the numbers for '05 aren't available, how about '04?)

Or is it your assertion that readiness statistics from 5-10 years ago are significant, but current numbers aren't?

My assertion is that if we had the troops that were gotten rid of in the 90's, we could do both

[chomerics]

My assertion is that if we had the troops that were gotten rid of in the 90's, we could do both

Fair enough. I agree with you.

Let me ask you this question though. How many troops do we have now? Do you have the breakdown from 2000 to 2005? I'd like to see those numbers as well.

[rasta028]

:point2sky

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050918/wl_afp/usweatheriraqeconomy_050918200308

He got to enjoy the quiet of the before and after and has just lost all sense..

I bet Bush1 was Dying to jump in during Clintons years.. They even asked Barbara and Laura questions about Hillary and Clinton that they didnt answer....

You expect it from Carter cause he's really old... and he was never all there to begin with, but William knows what he's doing...

this coming from a guy who is only worried about where his next hand job is coming from

[Sarge]

Again Sarge, who's policy was it to fight two wars on two different fronts? Were we ever in a shortage of troops under Clinton? Would we have been able to get Bin Laden if Clinton was in? Would we have used our troops to fight two battles on two fronts? Who's idea was it to go into Iraq undermanned, then force the generals who opposed the troop amount to resign? At what point do you say, you know what, Bush and Rummy were wrong. THey had no idea how to handle the situation? Ever?

If you want to blame the lack of supplies you had, why don't you look at the brass? You mean to tell me over $250billion isn't enough money to run a military of over a million people? The brass, AND congress decided to focus the money on industrial contracts, not on troops. You love to give blame to the pres, but you neglect to put any blame on the people in charge of allocating the funds.

Now, our military budget was still something like 40% of the entire worlds budget for military. How much more do you want? 60%, 80%? What were our national threats? We didn't have a national threat other then terrorism. If you could come up with a good argument as to why we need a mobile force of 2million people, when there are no nation enemies, I might agree with you. Just because Bush is a complete moron, and decided to go off an fight two wars on two different fronts doesn't mean Clinton was wrong. It means that Bush, Rummy et all were woefully ignorant of our capibilities, and completely ignored all the warnings from people who knew what they were talking about. Besides, if Bush went with a coillition approach and used his diplomatic skills to pursuade other countries to help, we wouldn't be in this mess.

It is convienient to blame Clinton for Bush's inability to govern, but that never gets at the root of the issue. It passes the blame instead of focusing on the problem. You can never move forward, if you are too busy looking back and trying to blame somebody who hasn't been in power for almost 5 years.

The two war concept actually started at the end of Reagan the Great and Bush I. It was the accepted doctrine that guided the reasonable downsizing begun under Reagan the Great and continued by Bush I

If we had stuck to it, we'd have been alright. But then Bubba stumbled into the picture, and the results are in the graphs.

As for why the Brass didn't stand up, IMO it's because essentially the JCS are political appointees, approved by the president. The set we had in there in the 90's were ball-less political operatives, not warriors. If they had had a pair, they would have resigned over the gutting that went on, but they were happy to sit back and collect their paychecks and say "Yes Mr President".

I'll give you a personnal example of the continuing strife clinton caused with his gutting of the military. Around 1994/95, the Air Traffic Control career field was flush with controllers. So flush that we fell under the scrutiny of the bean counters, and so in 1995 (When who was in office?) they told us we could crosstrain to AWACS or seek early separation. Failing enough controllers getting out that way, some of us were going to be put out.

Mind you, it takes anywhere from six months to two years to get fully checked out as a controller, depending on your ability and the complexity of the airspace. And when you go to another base, the training starts all over again, because while you retain your basic skills/knowledge, the aircraft characteristics and airspace change.

Anyway, probably a third of the controller force left or got out in 95. Then we started deploying...alot. That placed strain on the already thinned out career field. More people got out because morale sucked so bad under clinton, which placed even more strain on those of us left behind, and it just continued in that downward spiral to this day. It didn't help that the FAA has started hiring either, which of course sucks out more controllers. I have my own predictions of when the career field will crash, but won't post tham here for OPSEC reasons.

One thing that has remained the same is the brass not listening to us about manpower. The brass during clinton was looking to cut even more, and a lot of Chiefs that had balls and stood up to the machine were forced to retire, but at least it stopped even more draconian cuts to the force. Today, as long as planes stay separated, the brass thinks there is no problem with the controller force.

Unfortunately it's going to take a mid-air, or it's going to come to a point where we can't support operations or the mission any longer for them to take a look at the situation, and by then it's going to be far too late.

So, going back to bubba, I sure would like to have those 1000 controllers that left us in 95 around today. Maybe our career field wouldn't have a world-wide manning level of 67%.

[Chief skin]

Clinton had our economy under control, Saddam was bottled up in the no fly zones, he screwed up on Binladen, and Monica, screwed up on the Arkansas land deal. Bush is running the largest deficit in US history, he invaded a country under false pretenses and now is on the brink of civil war. He screwed up getting Binladen (lots of tough talk but Binladen still free plotting a more devastating attack) His top political advisor is accused of revealing the identity of a covert CIA operative as a reprisal against her husband for public criticsm against the war. Now the Katrina fiasco, Face it Bush junior is simply unfit for command. It looks like the American people are waking up to that fact as his approval rating plummets too bad it is 10 months to late

[SEF]

I can't believe that Clinton didn't know that criticizing Dear Leader is verboten. This is off the feigned moral outrage chart.

[Burgold]

Mind you, it takes anywhere from six months to two years to get fully checked out as a controller, depending on your ability and the complexity of the airspace. And when you go to another base, the training starts all over again, because while you retain your basic skills/knowledge, the aircraft characteristics and airspace change.

Well, it's five years later... not enough time to restore the military? If Bush came in and from day one or even after 9/11/2001 decided that the military was far undermanned and undersupplied to meet domestic needs plus a multi front international war, within those four to five years shouldn't the problem have been addressed by now?

[rictus58]

My assertion is that if we had the troops that were gotten rid of in the 90's, we could do both

My belief is that the two of you are so jaded in your political beliefs that it can only be the fault of one politcal party or the other.

There is no way it can be a result of poor decision making from both parties.

[chomerics]

The two war concept actually started at the end of Reagan the Great and Bush I. It was the accepted doctrine that guided the reasonable downsizing begun under Reagan the Great and continued by Bush I

If we had stuck to it, we'd have been alright. But then Bubba stumbled into the picture, and the results are in the graphs.

As for why the Brass didn't stand up, IMO it's because essentially the JCS are political appointees, approved by the president. The set we had in there in the 90's were ball-less political operatives, not warriors. If they had had a pair, they would have resigned over the gutting that went on, but they were happy to sit back and collect their paychecks and say "Yes Mr President".

Well, at least you agree the brass were a bunch of sackless wonders. That's ALWAYS been my contention.

Can you find the data I'm looking for though? I want to know what are active forces are now, when compared to 2000, as well as the allocation of funds. I think I know what the answer is, but I can not locate it myself.

I went to Heratige to look for the data, and obviously they surreptitiously left out the data from Bush's term, but we should have it for an actual comparisson and see EXACTLY where the money is going, what %'s went where, and how the moeny was allocated. This should be an essential part of the discussion.

I looked for it on FAS last night with no luck, and I'm looking for it again today. Any help would be greatly appreciated

[chomerics]

Well, it's five years later... not enough time to restore the military? If Bush came in and from day one or even after 9/11/2001 decided that the military was far undermanned and undersupplied to meet domestic needs plus a multi front international war, within those four to five years shouldn't the problem have been addressed by now?

:shhh: This is why I want to see the data for Bush's term, don't let Sarge know OK :laugh:

[Sarge]

Mind you, it takes anywhere from six months to two years to get fully checked out as a controller, depending on your ability and the complexity of the airspace. And when you go to another base, the training starts all over again, because while you retain your basic skills/knowledge, the aircraft characteristics and airspace change.

Well, it's five years later... not enough time to restore the military? If Bush came in and from day one or even after 9/11/2001 decided that the military was far undermanned and undersupplied to meet domestic needs plus a multi front international war, within those four to five years shouldn't the problem have been addressed by now?

Umm....there's a war on

[Sarge]

Well, at least you agree the brass were a bunch of sackless wonders. That's ALWAYS been my contention.

Can you find the data I'm looking for though? I want to know what are active forces are now, when compared to 2000, as well as the allocation of funds. I think I know what the answer is, but I can not locate it myself.

I went to Heratige to look for the data, and obviously they surreptitiously left out the data from Bush's term, but we should have it for an actual comparisson and see EXACTLY where the money is going, what %'s went where, and how the moeny was allocated. This should be an essential part of the discussion.

I looked for it on FAS last night with no luck, and I'm looking for it again today. Any help would be greatly appreciated

I'll dig for it tonight

[Jay Master Jay]

Bushey Boy is still a bad President and the people of this country are paying for it. In Iraq and other parts of the country. He stinks and it will do a lot of us good when his term is up. Whatever happen to his wonderful ideal about stealing our Social Security? He couldn't rob the elderly since most of us know he's up to no good

[Art Monk Fan]

...he invaded a country under false pretenses...

Statements like this really piss me off. Everyone thought Iraq had WMD. It surprised everyone that none were found, including Bush. It wasn't a false pretense, it was a mistaken intelligence assessment. And, yes, I know there were folks in the adminstration who disagreed with the assessment who turned out, in hindsight, to be correct. But the President acted on the intelligence at hand and his advisors recommendations that a real threat existed. Remember that Bush retained a Clinton appointee who told him it was a slam dunk that Iraq had WMD.

[Art Monk Fan]

Whatever happen to his wonderful ideal about stealing our Social Security? He couldn't rob the elderly since most of us know he's up to no good

The idea was to give control of the money to the people to whom it actually belongs so they can try and increase their retirement nest egg beyond the pitiful retuns the government has managed. Thats exactly the same thing as stealing it -- right. I can understand that you believe the idea carries too much risk, but the hyperbole is ridiculous. This is why the country is so divided.

[Burgold]

Umm....there's a war on

I may still be recovering from lack of sleep Monday, but did you just say that President Bush hasn't adequately addressed the size of the military and the support it needs over a five year period because there's a war on? If there is a war on shouldn't there be a mobilization to get it everything it needs. Improving levels from a pre-war state to what the current need levels are both domestically and abroad. The military shortfalls can't be addressed because there's a war on? That answer... I just don't know what to do with... I've got to assume I'm being dense here.

[chomerics]

Statements like this really piss me off. Everyone thought Iraq had WMD. It surprised everyone that none were found, including Bush. It wasn't a false pretense, it was a mistaken intelligence assessment. And, yes, I know there were folks in the adminstration who disagreed with the assessment who turned out, in hindsight, to be correct. But the President acted on the intelligence at hand and his advisors recommendations that a real threat existed. Remember that Bush retained a Clinton appointee who told him it was a slam dunk that Iraq had WMD.

AMF, it doens't matter what everyone "thought", you don't send American soldiers to fight in a war if you "think" they have weapons, you need proof. Did other politicians think they had WMD's? Sure, but they did not send US soldiers into battle over a fanatical obsession which in hindsight, turned out to be a complete and absolute fabrication. Either way you look at it, Bush was wrong for going into Iraq, it is as simple as that.

Now, you may have an argument that his "plan" (which I still don't believe he has) was to create a democracy in Iraq, but he never stated that to the American people. Do you think if he did that we would have agreed? He also put the vote to the floor as to give him power for forcing Saddam to disarm, and I believe the vote was 99-1. If you remember, the vote was to use force "As a last resort". Well, he did not use it "As a last resort", in fact he rushed into Iraq when the weapons inspectors couldn't find anything.

[ccsl2]

Statements like this really piss me off. Everyone thought Iraq had WMD. It surprised everyone that none were found, including Bush. It wasn't a false pretense, it was a mistaken intelligence assessment. And, yes, I know there were folks in the adminstration who disagreed with the assessment who turned out, in hindsight, to be correct. But the President acted on the intelligence at hand and his advisors recommendations that a real threat existed. Remember that Bush retained a Clinton appointee who told him it was a slam dunk that Iraq had WMD.

The only reason that it was a surprise that they didn't find WMDs is because Bush has the "receipt" for the WMDs...the intelligence they used was bogus...they worded to make it look like the country was gonna be under a biological and chemical attack soon if we didn't take Saadam out...That State of the Union address in 2003 was a "Scare Tactic Situation"