There's This RW LIE about Clinton Weakening The Military

[slinkerwink]

Any good rebuttals to that?

[slinkerwink]

1. kick

[Burma Jones]

2. It was Clinton's Military that fought in Afghanistan n/t

[ET Awful]

3. Well, there were NO changes to the military between the time

Clinton left office and the invasion of Afghanistan. Clinton's military did just dandy there.

Very few changes were made to Clinton's military prior to the invasion of Iraq, the military performed quite well (putting aside the fact that they were misused and never should have been there to begin with).

I'd say Clintons military performed just fine.

Franken pointed this out in his book, and says he said the same thing to Rumsfeld (I think it was Rumsfeld) whose response was very Cheneyesque :).

[slinkerwink]

4. thanks....still need more info ;-)

[bossfish]

7. There were a number of base closings..

that were thoroughly reviewed by Congress.

Clinton's military was good enough so that no man sent into combat by BC died.

First thing to do when challenged with RW talking points, is put the burden on them to provide proof.

Like the other poster here who was trying to debunk a claim that the WMDs were shipped to Syria. It is hard to "prove" something didn't happen.

[papau]

12. Every decrease the RW blames on Clinton was actually Bush/Cheney

just ask for details as to the "weakening" that they are referring to and for the date it occurred -

and enjoy watching them try to avoid the Bush/Cheney cuts.

Of course, if they truly believe that Bush's Star Wars billions - for an untested system that will be declared operation in the Fall with our media not saying a damn thing about how untested it is-

was needed under Clinton - then you have no hope in the conversation because it is true that Bill did not waste money on such non-threats.

From 94 on Bill had a Congress controlled by GOP - what GOP military proposal spending did Clinton veto? What harm was done by the Clinton anti military spending veto - if there was harm - if there was a veto.

The right wing never gives out facts - just assertions - which are then echo'd by our media who ask Dems to refute - prove the negative - so as to make the GOP look good. Analysis is no longer part of our media.

Indeed, that is why it is so funny watching ABC and NBC folks say Moore facts while true are "out of context" - Our media could not put something in context if their life depended on it. But they can read from the Rove script that says "Say Moore is taking things out of context"!!!! :-)

It is a great sitcom - except it involves my grandkids future.

[bossfish]

6. I think it was Wolfie...

and old spit comb dropped an F-bomb on him.

[ET Awful]

8. That Goody comb suckin' swine :) n/t

[SkipNewarkDE]

16. It was the prince of darkness, Wolfowitz

Al got told to fuck off by Paul Wolfowitz when Franken commented how well Clinton's military did in Afghanistan.

[underpants]

18. Ahem...have you forgotten the Berets?

That most of the Beret wearers at the time did not support and that originally were made in China oops then Canada oops THEN the US.


That was the only significant thing W did to the military other than giving them less of a raise than Gore supported and cutting Vet benefits.....other than that........

[Worst Username Ever]

5. AFGHANISTAN

The invasion of Afghanistan was drawn up before handing the reins (reigns?) to Bush/Condi. After 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan was right off of Clinton's blueprints with very few changes (clinton wanted Osama, let no freeper tell you different). That invasion is certainly the more succssful of the two, if you ask me. Bush's Iraq war is a disaster. ALTHOUGH... the initial toppling of Baghdad was done with what is essentially Clinton's military. Bush just didn't plan ahead enough to know that a long-term occupation of a country is not what Clinton's military was for.

[bushwakker]

9. Clinton's military toppled the Taliban and rolled in Baghdad

It would not have been possible for AWOL to "transform the military" in the time he was in office. In addition, it was Rummy who wanted to use a "smaller, more mobile force" in Iraq which was clearly a mistake. They can't have it both ways.

[Gunit_Sangh]

10. re: Clinton Weakening the military

I can't provide links to this, but here's what I remember from reading stuff on the internet.

Clinton implemented the military reduction plan submitted by poppa bush and his (then) sec def cheney and CJC colin powell in early 1992. This was a five year plan to reduce the size of the military. cheney actually argued for even more cuts. This, imho, is what the rw refers to as weakening the miltary.

But when you look at numbers adjusted for inflation, Clinton's first military budget at the beginning of his second term, was just a few billion $$ short of what St. Ronnie spent at his cold-war peak.

What Clinton did do was spend money smartly. Predator drones and then arming them, improving(?) those anti-missile missiles (can't remember the name), JDAM's which turned cheap bombs into GPS guided bombs for a nominal cost, and most importantly, improving the command and control communications that give battle field commanders unprecedented knowledge of what is going on. What he didn't spend a lot of money on was expensive cold-war weapons that do little good in today's fights.

[never cry wolf]

11. The repug congress controlled the purse strings

During most of Clinton's years...I am sure there is more, I'll see what I can find.

[never cry wolf]

15. Here ya go...

Post-Cold War Defense Spending Cuts: A Bipartisan Decision
Steven Kosiak & Elizabeth Heeter Published 08/31/2000
Highlight
The question of who is responsible for the substantial reductions in defense spending that occurred in the 1990s has arisen as an issue in the 2000 presidential campaign. A strong case can be made that these cuts were an appropriate response to the end of the Cold War and efforts to bring the federal deficit under control. But, more importantly, whatever the merits of the defense drawdown of the 1990s, one thing is clear: the decision to cut the defense budget, and to do so relatively deeply, was very much a bipartisan decision. Among other things, CSBA finds that:

* The post-Cold War decline in defense spending began during the Bush Administration.

* There is almost no difference between the level of funding proposed for defense by President Bush in his last fiscal year (FY) 1994-99 budget plan and the level of funding actually provided for defense over this six-year period under the Clinton Administration. Both Bush planned funding and actual funding amounted to $1.72 trillion (in FY 2001 dollars).

* Congressional add-ons since 1995, when the Republican Party gained control of both houses, account for only about 3 percent of the defense topline of the past six years.

* Not only was the drawdown of the 1990s clearly a bipartisan affair, the best available evidence suggests that Democrats and Republicans are still remarkably close in terms of their support for defense spending. Under the latest Clinton Administration plan, funding for defense is projected to remain essentially flat in real (inflation-adjusted) terms through fiscal year (FY) 2005. The latest Congressional Budget Resolution (CBR) would provide only about one-third of 1 percent more over this period. In reality, the effectiveness with which the Department of Defense (DoD) is able to address US security challenges in the future is likely to depend much more on how wisely DoD spends than how much it spends.

http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe.htm

and here:

n fact, the Clinton administration actually spent more money on defense than the previous administration of President George H.W. Bush. The smaller outlays during the first Bush administration were developed and approved by then-Defense Secretary Cheney and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell. The Clinton administration did not coast on Reagan-era procurement funding. During the 1990s, the Pentagon invested more than $1 trillion in developing and procuring new weapons and information technology that gave U.S. forces such an unprecedented advantage in the last two U.S. military campaigns. But more significant than the budget increases was the shift that occurred in the mid-1990s. That shift involved much greater emphasis on precision weapons, sensors, robotics, advanced communications, training, readiness, and orienting the intelligence community toward direct support of military operations. It was that shift that produced the superb military that not only swept through Iraq at a rate that defied historical precedent, but used its awesome force with unprecedented precision and effect, unprecedented low collateral damage, and unprecedented low casualty rates. It was the American Revolution in Military Affairs begun in the Clinton administration that was unveiled in Bush's Operation Iraqi Freedom.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=159&contentid=251793

[Blue_Roses]

13. They have been saying this for years and it's still a load of crap

I have a friend who is in the Air Force and she has said consistently that this is a load of propaganda. Clinton tried to used diplomacy rather than war to reach to other countries and by the example in Ireland, I would say he succeeded--many times. I hate it when they say this and as it's been said already on this thread, it was the military under Clinton that went into Afghanistan.

Just because a President isn't "war happy" doesn't mean he is weak on the military...:argh:

[sendero]

14. The cold war...

... was over and the military had to adjust. It happened to be on Clinton's watch.

[aden_nak]

17. Clinton's military reorganizations.

It's a lie, yes, but a clever one, that hides behind misleading numbers. A good exammple of this is JDAMs. Perviously, in order to assign a particular "smart" weapon to a particular target could take hours, perhaps even a full day. This was the ugly truth about "laser guided" missiles. It sounds cooler than it is.

Self-guided weapons are expensive, and often represent a huge portion of the military budget. Clinton's military had a better idea, though. They took all of their "dumb fire" bombs and outfitted them with Global Positioning Devices and course correction gear. For a fraction of the cost of a self-guided missile, all of our old munitions were being turned into self-guided weapons. Plus, they were exponentially more accurate and could be asssigned a target in 20-40 minutes, tops.

However, because this system SAVED MONEY, many critics accuse Clinton of reducing spending on self-guided "smart bombs". Never mind that it was more effective and made use of old stockpiles of weapons that would otherwise have never seen combat. Clinton's military operated like this in most departments. Taking a look at what resources weer available and finding a BETTER WAY to accomplish the same task, often one that was less costly. He gets faulted for this frequently. The truth is that, overall, he spent more than George H. W. Bush did on his military budget. And unlike his predecessor, he was redesigning a modern military.

Besides, the strength of a military should not be measured by how much money was spent on it, but rather by its effectiveness in combat. Clinton's efforts in Bosnia, and later the military's performance in Afghanistan are proof that the Clinton military worked. Bush's people set about reverting many military functions back to their pre-Clinton organization. That plus a complete bone-fucking-headed plan of attack led to our current situation in Iraq.

There's also Bush's absurd claim that, in the year 2000, 2 entire divisions of the armed forces would have to report, "Not ready for combat, sir!" if asked about their combat-ready status. This was just a lie. There is no evidence of this, all of our armed forces were at combat-ready status, and no one has ever been able to explain where Bush even came up with that statement, nor which parts of the military he was talking about. A lot of people sight that as evidence, ironicly.

[proud patriot]

19. my response

Clinton refoccused our military for the 21st Century
he did not weaken our military .