Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Credit military success to Clinton's policies, not Bush's defense spending spree
The Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | April 10, 2003 | Matt Miller

Posted on 04/10/2003 12:46:45 PM PDT by baseballmom

Credit military success to Clinton's policies, not Bush's defense spending spree

With that indelible image of Saddam's toppling statue forever banishing the doubts of the armchair generals, and with the amazing achievements of the United States armed forces coming into sharper relief, it's time for all honest observers - and especially conservatives - to confront a simple fact:

The remarkable feats in Iraq are being performed by Bill Clinton's military.

This should be obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology or partisanship. We've been told repeatedly how much more lethal and accurate our forces are in 2003 than they were in 1991 - so much so that we needed only 250,000 troops to drive to Baghdad and change the regime, as opposed to the 500,000 we sent merely to oust Saddam from Kuwait in Gulf War I. Something like 90 percent of the bombs and missiles we use are "precision guided" today, versus roughly 10 percent back in 1991. The catalogue of how today's military is smarter, faster and better than it was back during Desert Storm is a credit to U.S. ingenuity and a source of national pride.

Hmm. Let's see. Between 1992 and 2003, the person who was president for the bulk of that time was... Bill Clinton. It's true that President Bush has been throwing money at the Pentagon since Sept. 11, but defense planners will tell you that none of the impressive leaps in our military capability have taken place suddenly in the last 18 months.

No, much as it must incense Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay, we are liberating Iraq with Bill Clinton's military. The same Bill Clinton, of course, who, as conservative myth has it, "gutted" and "hollowed out" our fighting forces - that is, when he wasn't busy shredding the moral fabric of the country, his first priority.

What should we make of this fact?

The main truth it underscores is how divorced the defense debate is from real life. The myth that Democrats are "weak on defense" and the GOP is "strong" is one that Democratic strategists have struggled with for years.

The reality is that Bill Clinton's defense budgets roughly tracked the blueprint left by then-defense secretary Dick Cheney in 1992. Clinton insisted the Pentagon maintain a Cold War budget even without a Cold War to protect his party's right flank. For the same reason, Al Gore called for bigger defense budgets during the 2000 campaign than did George W. Bush - a fact that almost no one recalls. Gore needed to "prove" his "toughness" on defense with dollars. Bush didn't have to - as a Republican, he was simply more trusted on the issue.

Indeed, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's laudable initial aim was to reform the Pentagon in Nixon-to-China fashion, as only Republicans can. Yet Rumsfeld had hit a storm of bureaucratic, congressional and interest group opposition by September 2001. In the wake of 9/11, therefore, Bush and Rumsfeld decided that reform was a luxury; better to throw money at everything, they reasoned, since the public would support it and worry about rationality later.

Beyond the U.S. military's peerless firepower and skill, however, this spending spree masks dramatic waste and disorganization that cries out for attention. As one Bush cabinet official told me privately, "Not too far down the road, Rumsfeld will get back on the track of rationalizing defense spending so that it doesn't go into a runaway mode."

That reform agenda is for another day - for now, it's time to celebrate the extraordinary courage and accomplishments of our troops. To be sure, the risks and dangers they face in Iraq aren't over - and America's responsibility to help Iraqis build their own future has only begun.

Still, this milestone is indisputably historic.

Yes, Tommy Franks and Donald Rumsfeld and their teams deserve enormous credit, and President Bush's steely resolve may give even Jacques Chirac a secret shiver of apres-war doubt.

But all the same, I hope all honest Americans - and I know that includes you, Rush and Tom - join me in toasting the unrivaled capabilities of the military that Bill Clinton handed off to his successor.



Columnist Matt Miller is a senior fellow at Occidental College in Los Angeles and host of "Left, Right & Center" on KCRW-FM in Los Angeles. E-mail him at mattino@worldnet.att.net.



TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: clinton; iraqifreedom; military
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last
This is being talked about today on our talk radio WPHT 1210, Philadelphia, "The Big Talker". Michael Smerconish had on as his guest, Captain David Christian, who thoroughly debunked this myth.

He related a story about his time in the Clinton administration. He had just returned from the Middle East on a fact finding mission relating to terrorism. He was called in by superiors, and told that what he was working on wasn't of the utmost importance. He would now be working on video piracy. That was the new high priority. A true story.
1 posted on 04/10/2003 12:46:45 PM PDT by baseballmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
God Bless America!
God Bless This Man!
Some of us VRWC volunteers think freedom is worth fighting for.


Please join us.

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

2 posted on 04/10/2003 12:48:21 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baseballmom
I thought this was a piece from The Onion!
3 posted on 04/10/2003 12:48:26 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baseballmom
Uh, Wasn't William Cohen the Sec. of Defense during a good chuck of the Clinton administration?

REPUBLICAN I believe....
4 posted on 04/10/2003 12:49:12 PM PDT by misterrob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mo1; Temple Owl; Tribune7; Physicist; All
I thought you might enjoy this drivel from the StinkyInky today.
5 posted on 04/10/2003 12:49:21 PM PDT by baseballmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baseballmom
And it's being laughed at all over ours.

Everybody with half a brain can google that there was unprecedented military enlistments right after 9/11.
6 posted on 04/10/2003 12:49:28 PM PDT by mabelkitty ((Don't paste my posts to DU))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baseballmom
HAAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA; The Left Self-Destructs once again.
7 posted on 04/10/2003 12:49:39 PM PDT by Porterville (Screw the grammar, full posting ahead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: breakem; All
"I thought this was a piece from The Onion!"

No, this is purely a "piece" of Sh*t. Nothing more than Klintoon legacy building attempts.

8 posted on 04/10/2003 12:51:09 PM PDT by el_texicano
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: baseballmom
I think the appropriate phrase to use here is, "in spite of".
9 posted on 04/10/2003 12:52:35 PM PDT by TruthFactor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baseballmom
If there is any blame or credit to be divvied up here, it should go to Congress. Go back and read the transcripts of the endless defense appropriations subcommittees' meetings during the Clinton administration and see who was asking for what. We all know what the Clintons did to the military and no amount of revisionist BS can change that. The guy who wrote this article is propagating a big lie, perhaps on behalf of Mrs. Clinton's future political ambitions.
10 posted on 04/10/2003 12:52:45 PM PDT by 3AngelaD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baseballmom
Military hardware doesn't plan and execute campaigns....and last I check ol' Bubba wasn't Commander-in-Chief.
11 posted on 04/10/2003 12:54:46 PM PDT by sirshackleton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baseballmom
He was called in by superiors, and told that what he was working on wasn't of the utmost importance. He would now be working on video piracy.

I thought I had heard that somewhere, thanks for the info. Not at all surprising given Hollywood's adoration of x42.

12 posted on 04/10/2003 12:55:08 PM PDT by ThinkDifferent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baseballmom
Note that the article fails to mention any Clinton initiative that bolstered the military. The military accomplishments were in spite of Clinton, not because of him. The congress at that time prevented Clinton from dismantling the military.
13 posted on 04/10/2003 12:55:47 PM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baseballmom
This drivel shouldn't confuse anyone. The dems are desperate to spin the Bush successes just like they took credit for Reagan / Bush economy. They have always been like the roosters who take credit for the sun coming up in the morning.
14 posted on 04/10/2003 12:55:48 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baseballmom
I don't think our military success has much to do with budgets and politics during previous administrations. The plan was based on clear military objectives established by the civilian authority in the Pentagon and approved by President Bush, who then let Gen. Franks execute the plan.
15 posted on 04/10/2003 12:55:50 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (Saddam is a dead man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baseballmom
"The myth that Democrats are "weak on defense" and the GOP is "strong" is one that Democratic strategists have struggled with for years."

Matt, this is no myth and that is precisely why the Democratic strategists have struggled with the fact.
16 posted on 04/10/2003 12:56:10 PM PDT by rj45mis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baseballmom
Help me understand this, whiny leftists:

Clinton gets "credit" for the military two years out of office (and Bush doesn't); Bush gets blamed for the economy the first day he takes office. How does that work?

Hmmmmmmm...........?

Oh yeah, that's right I forgot...you guys just make sh*t up, depending on whatever daily talking points CarVILE and BUGala fax you...........

17 posted on 04/10/2003 12:56:31 PM PDT by RooRoobird14 (It's purple Koolaid time for the "Blame America First " crowd!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baseballmom
It is interesting that Miller didn't write this column until the statue toppled.
18 posted on 04/10/2003 12:56:49 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baseballmom
Let me get this straight. The military successes must be clinton's doing, but Enron, the economy, etc must be President Bush's responsibility? Riiiight!
19 posted on 04/10/2003 12:57:07 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baseballmom
Barf Alert please!
20 posted on 04/10/2003 12:57:33 PM PDT by Packer Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson