Interesting artifact re: Clinton "gutting" the military

[oustemnow]

found this press release from Feb. 7, 2000, issued by the Center for Defense Information, which bills itself as a collection of "military experts":

www.cdi.org/press/press_releases/budget020700.html

In it, they criticize Clinton's proposed budget for the Pentagon, because of its $15 billion increase. (This, on top of a $112 billion increase the year before.) Laments the group's budget analyst, "Not a single major weapons program has been eliminated, or even seen its funding reduced...and all of them are designed to fight World War III against a nonexistent enemy. We simply don't need them, nor, in the long run, can we afford them."

So, apparently Clinton not only not gut the military, as the legions of dittoheads assert, but he actually caught heat for increasing its funding.

[Maccagirl]

1. Hmmm.won't see any AM dittoheads quoting this will we?

n/t

[DarkPhenyx]

2. I always like pointing out that...

...the Reduction In Force actually began with Reagan and Bush the 1st. It's amazing how many of them don't remember that.

[HawkerHurricane]

3. I remember it

Bush (the Greater) killed my chances of promotion with his cuts. And now, I'm retiring due to failure to make rank.

[DarkPhenyx]

4. I think this is something...

...we need to point out every frickkin time.

Didn't 7 Corps never come home from the Gulf? I seem to rememebr they simply disbanded in place or something.