To: Froufrou
If Clinton hadn’t cut the standing force to 10 Divisions from 18, there wouldn’t be such a stress on the military.
3 posted on
04/11/2007 12:19:27 PM PDT by
Parmy
To: Parmy
"If Clinton hadnt cut the standing force to 10 Divisions from 18, there wouldnt be such a stress on the military."Obviously Clinton should not have been elected in 2000.
5 posted on
04/11/2007 12:23:32 PM PDT by
ex-snook
("But above all things, truth beareth away the victory.")
To: Parmy
Thank you very much! Maybe we shoulda kept him an endless supply of interns! Or fewer of them...?
12 posted on
04/11/2007 12:28:01 PM PDT by
Froufrou
To: Parmy
Bingo. This is entirely CLinton’s fault, and we should never let them forget it.
18 posted on
04/11/2007 12:32:19 PM PDT by
balch3
To: Parmy
I was at several division closings under GHWB (41).
This started before Clinton was in office and was called the “peace dividend” well before Clinton was elected.
23 posted on
04/11/2007 12:34:45 PM PDT by
SJSAMPLE
To: Parmy
If Clinton hadnt cut the standing force to 10 Divisions from 18, there wouldnt be such a stress on the military.
I'm not defending him - he certainly gutted the military, but quite a few cuts were being planned and made before he took office. What disturbs me is that the current administration doesn't seem to want to increase the size of the military - after 9/11, I expected a fairly large increase.
Either way, the news of the 15 month deployments should not be news at all - the administration should be able to put troops in there for 24 or 36 months, or however long is needed to get the job done. The media is going to go out of their way to find somebody who whines about the 15 months, I'm sure.
To: Parmy
How many times does it have to be said, the peace dividend cuts started under GHWB and would have continued under who ever was elected in 92. It’s irrelevant anyway. Clinton has not been the Commander (in chief) for over six years.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson