Clinton: Most Expensive Presidential Trip Ever

There he goes again. Our globe-trotting president was flying high this month, traveling to Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Oman, and Switzerland. That brings the total out-of-country days for President Clinton, the Traveler-in-Chief, to 212. He's racked up visits to 66 countries -- some more than once -- and 2 territories not recognized as countries. He is, by any measure, the most traveled U.S. president ever.

And just how much is this latest foray estimated to cost the American taxpayer? ABC News, apparently relying on unnamed Pentagon sources, has reported a price tag: a cool $50 million -- the "most expensive overseas trip ever taken by a president," as they put it during the March 23 broadcast of World News Tonight. And because the newscast did not fully identify the costs, it is unclear if this estimate includes only military costs - or even only Air Force costs.

Meanwhile, Air Force Times also pegged the cost at $50 million [3/27/00], implying this figure reflects Air Force costs alone. The article also identifies the numbers and types of aircraft dedicated to the trip: 14 C-17 Globemaster IIIs; 12 C-5 Galaxys, 3 C-141 Starlifters; and 2 C-130 Hercules. In addition, 7 KC-10 Extenders and 39 KC-135 Stratotankers were to deploy. The return mission was to require the same types and numbers of assets with some exceptions, but to include an additional 10 Galaxys and 3 more Stratotankers.

ABC News' John McWethy, while traveling with the President -- who was accompanied by daughter Chelsea and his mother-in-law -- on the recent trip to South Asia, reported that:

And just how much of our Air Force's assets does this represent? McWethy continued, "Military sources say that represents more than one-third of the Air Force's entire inventory of these planes that are ready to fly on any given day." As an interesting comparison, the U.S. Air Force has used only about a dozen planes to execute the most recent humanitarian relief effort to Mozambique -- where millions of lives were at stake, according to the same newscast.

The Marines also were called in to support this jaunt, as noted by the Washington Times on March 24:

It is unclear whether ABC's or Air Force Times' estimate included the costs of these helicopters flown in from Hawaii, which - according to the General Accounting Office (GAO), the official auditor for Congress - cost $3,658 per hour to operate.

Previous investigations into President Clinton's travel record have found that a significant share of the cost of overseas trips comes out of the Pentagon's budget -- which the Clinton/Gore Administration has underfunded year after year. For instance, last year the GAO found that President Clinton's three trips in 1998 to Chile, China, and Africa alone cost a total of $72 million -- of which $60.5 million, or 84 percent, came out of the U.S. defense budget. And these figures include only incremental costs to the government, expressly excluding such ongoing expenses as payroll.

But the price tag is only one factor. Equally important is that these trips also tax our already stressed military assets, consistently deployed on far-flung, non-traditional military missions by this administration. Again, looking back to last year, one newspaper reported the President's travels throughout Africa required the Air Force to cancel or refuse 26 air missions that it would have flown in its regular duties, and postpone 30 others [St. Louis Post Dispatch, 1/10/99]. For the President's most recent excursion, so much of the Air Force's fleet was dedicated to the President's entourage that the Air Mobility Command was forced to send out "regrets" to other officials requesting aircraft [Air Force Times, 3/27/00].

The Air Force reportedly was to dedicate about 460 flying missions to the recent South Asia trip [Air Force Times, 3/27/00]. Compare that to the President's very costly 12-day trip to Africa in 1998 when the military flew 214 missions, as documented by GAO.

In its extensive review last year, the GAO expressly did not include costs related to assuring the President's security. Secret Service costs, for example, are classified. And, so likely such costs are not included in the estimate recently cited by ABC News and Air Force Times. But, clearly there are additional costs, especially when traveling to such countries as Pakistan. The logistics for the President's arrival in Islamabad, Pakistan alone are mind-boggling. The Washington Post [3/26/00] reported the extraordinary measures taken to ensure the President's safety:

This example is merely illustrative of the security measures required for this one stop on this trip, and is not meant to criticize the need to ensure the President's safety during overseas travels.

No one disputes the need for the President of the United States, as the leader of the free world, to travel overseas. However, Clinton as the most traveled President ever, who is spending extraordinary sums of limited defense dollars in the process, appears to consider these events as one long road trip, rather than an executive privilege. Recall the White House's Joe Lockhart noting to the press corps last fall that Panama was among the few nations Clinton had not visited, but then cavalierly remarked, "There are a few places still left on the list he hasn't been, and we have 15 months to rectify that" [Federal News Service: White House briefing, 10/19/99]. Given his track record, we expect they will.

San Francisco Paper Rips Clinton's Expensive and Unnecessary Travels

News/Current Events Opinion (Published) Keywords: CLINTON, OSLO, CORRUPTION
Source: San Francisco Examiner
Published: 11-12-99 Author: Alex A. Vardamis
Posted on 11/13/1999 07:07:52 PST by sigi
Mr. Clinton, is this trip necessary?

Examiner contributor Alex A. Vardamis was military attachŽ at the American Embassy in Oslo for three years, then in Athens for two years.

By Alex A. Vardamis

CARMEL - Now that President Clinton has returned from Norway, one might ask why he went. What did he accomplish? Was it worth the risk? The Norwegian government had invited Israeli and Palestinian leaders to a memorial service in Oslo to honor Yitzhak Rabin, the assassinated Israeli Prime Minister.

Belatedly, Clinton decided to attend. He thereby transformed a commemoration into a summit meeting. He planned to use the occasion to reinvigorate the Middle East Peace Process. And to burnish his legacy.

Did the president achieve his goals?

The press circus that surrounded Clinton's visit undermined any real possibility of progress on the issues that divide the Israelis and the Palestinians. The presence of the most powerful, and controversial, man in the world placed Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat in subordinate roles. They remained intransigent.

Once again, it became obvious that the tough decisions that might lead to peace in the Middle East could not be negotiated in the bright glare of the media.

Of course, other world issues arise at summit meetings. Clinton hoped to use the occasion to persuade visiting Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to halt the war in Chechnya. Putin, however, had other plans. He delivered a note from President Boris Yeltsin threatening an end to arms control if the president's plan to build an antimissile defense system proceeds. Checkmate. No progress on the Russian front either.

Perhaps Clinton's visit, then, was Norway's gain?

It's true that the local press was overwhelmed by Clinton's "charisma" and "charm." One paper called the Norwegian prime minister, Kjell Magne Bondevik, dull and colorless by comparison.

"Bill's women in Oslo" read the headline in the newspaper, Dagbladet.

From Princess Martha Louise and Queen Sonja to a now-celebrated Monica look-alike, Oslo women melted under the intensity of the American president's gaze. Only one resisted his allure. According to press reports, Clinton asked to meet a woman who, as a young secretary with the Norwegian Peace Institute, had been assigned to escort him during his 1969 visit.

Now, 30 years later, she declined his invitation to a reunion, saying that there were so many American antiwar activists passing through Oslo in those days, how could she be expected to remember one named Bill Clinton?

Negative aspects of the trip were generally ignored by American journalists and downplayed by the grateful, always polite, hosts.

Norway is a country in which the king skis on public trails and the prime minister rides the bus to work. Citizens pride themselves on an unpretentious lifestyle. The imperial nature of the American delegation shocked them.

The president arrived with an entourage of more than 700 courtiers and sundry retainers who appropriated an entire hotel in downtown Oslo. The Radisson SAS Plaza, with its 674 rooms, became Fortress America.

Clinton was ensconced in the "Royal Suite," consisting of three bedrooms, each with fireplace, painted silk curtains and antiques, and three baths with gold fixtures and Jacuzzis. Security, in this, the most orderly capital in Europe, became a formidable challenge. Manhole covers were sealed. Trash containers were removed. Hundreds of 2-ton concrete barriers blocked potential car bombs.

Highway ramps into Oslo were barricaded. Portions of the main street, Karl Johans Gate, were declared off limits. Commercial transactions ground to a halt.

Downtown stores, restaurants and kiosks lost millions. Civil unrest in Norway is rare. Yet, a variety of groups, including Save the Children and Amnesty International, loudly condemned America's use of the death penalty and "inhumane criminal punishment of juveniles."

One demonstration turned ugly. Several hundred protesters listened to speeches by members of various international socialist organizations, the Palestinian Action Committee and supporters of Mumia Abu-Jamal, now on death row in Pennsylvania.

Many wore Clinton masks and black capes, and carried scythes to portray the president of the United States as the grim reaper. They burned Clinton in effigy. In defiance of police orders, they attempted to storm his hotel. Driven back, they dispersed toward the Royal Palace, the site of that evening's festivities.

Police with attack dogs attempted to head off the mob. Car windows were smashed. Protesters threw bricks.

Riot police, using truncheons and tear gas, advanced, some on horseback, others behind shields. After nearly two hours of battle, activists, many with blood streaming down their faces, retreated into the working class district of East Oslo. The police arrested some 82 demonstrators, including Aslak Sira Myhre, the leader of the Radical Left Party.

This is what happened during Clinton's visit to friendly Norway.

The president is about to embark on a lengthy trip to southern Europe. The first stop was scheduled to be a three-day stay in Greece where American foreign policy is highly unpopular.

According to polls, 97 percent of Greeks vehemently opposed the United States bombing campaign against Serbia.

In the past week, bombs exploded around Athens and shots were fired at the American cultural center. Those responsible boasted that they were sending "Welcome Clinton" messages.

Peace, human rights, labor and women's groups organized sustained demonstrations. On Monday, a mock trial in central Syntagma Square found Clinton guilty of crimes against humanity.

U.S. insistence that Athens prohibit a march against the American Embassy, scheduled for the day of Clinton's arrival, seemed, to the Greeks, an infringement on their freedom of assembly.

Unprecedented and intrusive American-controlled security measures violated, they felt, their national sovereignty. Animosity began to spin out of control.

Hoping that cooler heads will prevail, the White House has postponed and curtailed the Greek phase of the presidential visit.

The president's "goodwill tour," however, continues to Turkey, Italy and Bulgaria, all nations that contain groups bristling with anti-American hostility.

Are photo ops worth the risk?

Hollowing Out The Military

News/Current Events Opinion (Published)
Source: New York Post
Published: June 26, 1999 Author: Editorial
Posted on 06/26/1999 00:28:29 PDT by expat

HOLLOWING OUT THE MILITARY

Mayor Giuliani, a likely candidate for federal office, spoke out on an issue of substantial national import last week - and got his knuckles soundly rapped by the White House.

Giuliani told a breakfast for Holy Cross College alumni what anybody who's been paying even minimal attention to the subject has known for years: to wit, that the Clinton administration has permitted, if not encouraged, a demonstrable decline in American military strength.

Interestingly, the White House didn't really disagree with the substance of the mayor's remarks. Spokesman Jake Siewert termed them "inaccurate" - Clintonese for "He's right but we don't want to admit it" - and then took issue with Giuilani's timing. The president was in Italy having his picture taken with pilots who flew combat missions over Yugoslavia, you see, so the mayor's criticism was "inappropriate."

Baloney. It would be hard to imagine a more appropriate time to question Clinton's commitment to a strong national defense than a couple of days after the end of a war that saw America's supply of cruise missiles and precision-guided bombs all but depleted - and the Pacific fleet deprived of effective air cover for the first time since the Battle of the Coral Sea in 1942.

It was on Clinton's watch that the production of Tomahawk missiles was shut down.

And it was on Clinton's watch that so many aircraft carriers were mothballed - four - that the Navy had to strip the Seventh Fleet of its sole carrier battle group to carry out its assigned missions in the Kosovo war.

And that's not all.

Since the 1992 election, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, America's armed forces have lost morethan 700,000 active-duty soldiers, sailors and airmen (plus 300,000 reservists). The Army has lost eight combat divisions; the Air Force and Navy have been stripped of 20 air wings (or 2,000 combat aircraft) - and the Navy has lost more than 120 surface combat ships and attack submarines.

The institute further reports that U.S. defense spending - in real dollars - dropped by 29 percent between 1992 and 1998, while overall federal spending rose by nearly 20 percent.

Some of this, obviously, was appropriate. The Cold War is, indeed, over. But there are peace dividends - and then there are peace dividends.

The cuts have been so deep that it takes a village idiot not to see that readiness has been severely affected by the cuts.

Readiness for what, you might fairly ask? It is the Clinton administration that has embraced the so-called "two regional wars" strategy - which holds, in essence, that America must be ready to fight, and win, two small wars virtually simultaneously. The approach visualizes U.S. forces bringing an Operation Desert Storm II to a successful conclusion - and then being able to jump immediately into a Korean War II.

Fat chance.

Again, the air campaign over Yugoslavia stressed America's capabilities to their current limit. Who, after all, can forget the five-week fandango the Army conducted as it tried to move 24 Apache helicopters from Germany to Albania (whereupon two promptly crashed)?

It is true that the Air Force and Marine Corps will have sufficient aircraft to ferry Hillary Clinton around the Empire State as she seeks a seat in the U.S. Senate - or so the White House announced last week.

The troops should be so lucky.

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.

Lameduck President's Continuing Globetrotting Forays

Latest Trip Pegged at $50 Million --

Most Expensive Presidential Trip Ever