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

The Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | April 10, 2003 | Matt Miller

[raybo]

I've got 26 years in the USAF and I can tell you that Bill Clit had nothing to do wiht it. He was loathed

[CyberAnt]

Besides, it was the REPUBLICAN HOUSE in 1994 that succeeded in keeping x42 from gutting the military.

[cyncooper]

This talking point regarding the Iraq mission started being spread last night. The fax machine was buzzing evidently.

I distinctly recall that when Afghanistan was proven not to be a quagmire,this VERY SAME talking point emerged then!

Nobody bought it then, and certainly nobody will buy it now. It is insane!

One needs the brainpower to maneuver the military assets, and there isn't a single person in the clinton administration that possessed the wisdom or courage to wield the military force and make the decisions required to pull off this victory that squarely rests with George W. Bush AND those he chose to lead us.

[uncbob]

I posted that this is what would happen just after the war began

Only I said it would be Clinton that would make the statement

[bert]

"in spite of".....

or perhaps "clandestine"

[Rippin]

The most important dimension of military preparedness that can be greatly affect by a commander in chief in a short period of time must be morale. Now maybe we could take a survey about morale 3 years ago and morale now?

[Tribune7]

That paper is going to be gone in 5 years. Nobody reads it.

[antaresequity]

Matt Miller,

Credit Clinton?

It was a Republican congress that appropriated the funding and directed the spending despite Clinton’s effort to dismantle the military.

The middle management corp of the military hated Clinton…moral was at an all time low..and mass defection was the order of the day.

The reason we succeed is moral. Bush is responsible for returning moral to the American Military..his clearly superior morale character fuels the military moral.

And as you so adeptly point out in your article: “The reality is that Bill Clinton's defense budgets roughly tracked the blueprint left by then-defense secretary Dick Cheney in 1992”. Who's military is it? Dick Cheney's

Lastly: The myth that Democrats are "weak on defense" and the GOP is "strong" is one that Democratic strategists have struggled with for years. It's not a MYTH.

You leftist apologists make me sick...Especially when you have neither the knowledge nor skill of how the military actually operates.

Why don't you go down to your nearest military base and ask a soldier or an officer what he thinks of your 'Bill Clintons Military' theory. Wear your running shoes; you may need them.

Regards

[raybo]

I was close to getting out but I didn't want that idiot's signature on my retirement papers.

[mystery-ak]

Let's see, the rapist's military...officers, pilots, senior NCO's left in droves, because they despised him...my hubby's Chinook and Blackhawk companies cannibalized their aircraft for 6 years..screws from China that broke and grounded aircraft....My hubby was gonna retire in 2000, but stayed when Bush was elected.....yeah, that's the rapist's military.

[sean327]

This is complete and total garbage!! During the 8 dark years of the Klintoon administration, we had to give our left nut, right arm, and our first born up to get parts. Keeping equipment mission capable was damn near an exercise in futility. We had to cannabalize just to meet every day mission goals. The author of this piece of toilet paper needs to come talk to me or any one of my Marines who had to put up with this stuff on a daily basis for 8 long years.
Untill He does that, he will never know the hell Slick Willie put us through. Rant over! Semper Fi.

[TheCrusader]

If this is Bill Clinton's military, then this is also Bill Clinton's economy. :o)

[genefromjersey]

Can you say : chuzpah ??

[arichtaxpayer]

Rush Limbaugh had a military person call in when he was talking about this. He said it is their "Commander in Chief" that is the difference, not the equipment. I truly believe him.

[Argus]

I remember a friend who is a warrant officer in the Army telling us that under Clinton, they didn't even have enough live ammunition for training exercises. He said they spent most of their time on pc sensitivity training, and showed us the kind of pabulum recruits had to study. Our warriors hated Klinton's guts. This article is more swill from National Palestinian Radio.

[PLOM...NOT!]

Wear your running shoes; you may need them.

I think a flak jacket might be more appropriate.

[Arkie2]

I almost hit the abuse button when I read this crap. First of all, it's not how well armed this military was that made the difference, it was the leadership and the military's willingness to get the job done. Secondly, it's not Clinton's military, or Bush's for that matter. These jackals creeping out of the woodwork trying to garner some credit for Clinton are disgusting.

[peeve23]

Please help me while I puke about this article.

This is Ronald Reagan's army. The SDI program, the Shuttle program...combine those two and you have high tech weaponry.

[Praxeologue]

The brilliance of the current operation is in its strategic political and military boldness and determination, not in hardware.

My answer to the article is that it is irrelevant.

[Samwise]

OK, I'll try to explain this to you.

Rule 1 of Liberalism: Facts, logic, and consistency are irrelevant.