"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Yeff wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 16:33:51 -0600, No Spam! wrote:

Since the US has gutted all its Armed Forces by at least 1/3 starting
during the Clinton days,

Wrong. We were in an active draw-down at the same time we were
deploying
forces for Desert Shield. That was pre-Clinton.

It was not only pre-Clinton but, unless I'm mistaken, it started under
Reagan
after Gorby folded his tent and raised the economic white flag. That was
when
BRAC started along with force reduction. And I do recall widespread RIFs
at the
end of the Gulf War, which daddy Bush can take credit for.

I don't know what the Republicans would have done if Clinton hadn't come
along
for two terms and made himself available to be blamed for everything that
ever
went wrong in the world. Can you see them blaming one of their own, even
when
the evidence supported placing responsibility precisely there? Not very
damned
likely, especially when it would have required them to be honest about who
did
what to who.

George, you need to take your own advice to heart a bit. Yeah, the drawdown
started to gain steam under Bush, Sr. (but no, it was not a "RIF", not as
that term is normally used--neither was it a RIF under the Clinton
administration when it gained further steam). Great. Now, when was the last
time you found yourself able to humbly admit to one the very real mistakes
(from among many) of your hero Clinton? For example, under the Bush, Sr.
plan we did indeed draw down, but at least those remaining had training
funds--when your boy came along, those quickly evaporated to zilch (at one
point getting so bad such that we could not recruit individuals into certain
required MOS's because we lacked the funding to train them. Not good at all.
Or Clinton's handling of Somalia--Bush left him with a clear cut force
in-place to facilitate humanitarian support, and your little buddy took it
on himself to expand the mission while at the same time refusing the
requests of his commanders in the field for the few items they specifically
requested (like AC-130's and armor to support that wonderful, "Let's go get
Aidid" strategy that Clinton had laid on them) because he feared the "image"
they would create (but apparently the image of a couple of dozen or so US
KIA was just hunky-dory)? Or his vaunted promise that we'd be out of Bosnia
by 1997 (oops, we are still there, though GWB has pared that one to the
bone, and rightfully)? If you can't fess up to these Clintonian screw-ups,
then it would appear you are not much above those danged Republicans you are
squeaking about.

Brooks


George Z.