Yeah, the economy was great under Clinton. That's because he spent eight years gutting the military and p*ssing away the military budget billions on his pet Demosocialist projects.
I get so tired of hearing this.......Progunner
Clinton did do some cutting.. Ill give you that but according to Bush I his plan was to cut the military 30% by 1997
but most of the military cuts began after Desert Storm During the Bush I administration....
guess who the Secretary of the DoD was who bragged about the cuts he was making..... VP Cheney.
As former Secretary of Defense, Vice President Cheney bragged about cutting defense spending. In February 1990, Cheney told Congress" since I became Secretary, we've been through a fairly major process of reducing the defense budget." Cheney stated that during his the first year of his tenure, he "cut almost $65 billion out of the five-year defense program" and that subsequent proposals would "take another $167 billion out."
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp
Origins: Numerous variants of this message claiming that Senator John Kerry of Masschusetts "voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988" have been circulating since at least February 2004. The message's implication — that Senator Kerry distinctly and specifically voted to kill upwards of a dozen different weapons systems — is inaccurate and grossly misleading, however.
A 22 February 2004 Republican National Committee (RNC) research briefing includes the list of weapons systems found in this message and citations that purportedly support the claim that Senator Kerry voted to kill each one. But all the citations stem from votes on three Congressional bills, none of which were about a specific weapons system or group of weapons systems.
The three votes cited — regarding S. 3189 (1990), H.R. 5803 (1990), and H.R. 2126 (1995) — were bills covering fiscal year Department of Defense appropriations, all of which Senator Kerry voted against. (Two of those three votes were not technically on defense appropriations per se, but on House-Senate conference committee reports for defense appropriations bills.) As the text of a typical defense appropriations bill shows, such bills cover the entire governmental expenditures for defense in a given fiscal year and encompass thousands of items totalling hundreds of billions of dollars — including everything from the cost of developing, testing, purchasing, and maintaining weapons and other equipment to personnel expenses (salaries, medical benefits, tuition assistance, reenlistment bonuses), medical research, hazardous waste cleanup, facilities maintenance, and a whole host of other disbursements. Members of Congress ultimately vote "yea" or "nay" on an entire appropriations bill; they don't pick and choose to approve some items and reject others.
Senators and Representatives might vote against a defense appropriations bill for any numbers of reasons — because they object to the presence or absence of a particular item, because they feel that the government is proposing to spend too much or too little money on defense, or anything in-between. Maintaining, as is the case here, that a Senator who voted "nay" on one year's defense appropriations bill therefore voted to "kill" a variety of specific weapons systems is like claiming that any Congressman who has ever voted against a defense appropriations bill has therefore also voted to abolish the U.S. military.
The inclusion of some of the items listed here is all the more ridiculous given that they were weapons systems that a previous Republican administration advocated eliminating. For example, it was Dick Cheney himself, in his capacity as Secretary of Defense under President George H.W. Bush, who testified before the House Armed Services Committee on 13 August 1989 that he had recommended cancelling the AH-64 Apache Helicopter program:
Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements . . .
You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s — all great systems . . . but we have enough of them.
The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward. AH-64 . . . forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three."
So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.
This is form Bush I State of the Union Speech in 1992
The Secretary of Defense recommended these cuts after consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And I make them with confidence. But do not misunderstand me. The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next 5 years.
By 1997, we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office. These cuts are deep, and you must know my resolve: This deep, and no deeper.
Two years ago, I began planning cuts in military spending that reflected the changes of the new era. But now, this year, with imperial communism gone, that process can be accelerated. Tonight I can tell you of dramatic changes in our strategic nuclear force. These are actions we are taking on our own because they are the right thing to do. After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement,
we will shut down further production of the B-2 bombers. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles.
Thw truth is out there if you look for it
if it smells like political bullsh*t, it must be Political bullsh*t
Progunner you might want to write a letter Mr. Cheney to aks him why we cant afford these for out troops but the Generals in Afghanistan have them
http://www.navyseals.com/community/articles/article.cfm?id=8153
And then in 1997 a small company in Fresno, CA invented a product it calls "Dragon Skin" that can stop most bullets and other projectiles aimed at American souls. It is already available and saving lives around the world for those who can afford it. It would cost much much less if the Department of Defense had given it a chance before it decided to go with its own brand of inferior armor to avoid the public scrutiny that inevitably falls on the leaders who fail the public trust.
It somehow seems remarkable that the Pentagon can award the current body armor manufacturer's consistent failures to quickly and adequately produce the best body armor in the world to save American lives with more millions of dollars when research and products are already available to do a better job.
http://www.navyseals.com/community/articles/article.cfm?id=8152
It is good enough body armor that nine American generals in Afghanistan are wearing it in place of the standard "Interceptor OTV" armor issued to the troops they command. It offers such great protection that the U.S. Secret Service agents guarding the President of the United States wear it, and it is good enough that a civilian contractor in Iraq was shot eight times in the torso at close range and survived without even suffering soft tissue trauma. But the same armor, already in mass production, is apparently too expensive to provide to the men and women fighting and dying in the Global War on Terror (GWOT) every day.
so do Cheney and Rumsfeld consider American soldiers consumable products not worth the extra money?
