Rhetoric, Lies, and the Republican Party

When someone in the military speaks, I listen. Does that mean that I agree with them? No. When someone in the military talks about this war, I listen. Does that mean that I suddenly change my view that it is immoral and wrong? No.

Respect does not mean that we must agree. It just means that we value someone; and believe me, I value the sacrifice given to be a soldier in the United States military, without prejudice.

Now, we are finally seeing that, yes, even the Republicans are supporting the troops in war. The Walter Reed scandal is an overwhelming litmus test at this administration's incompetence in war. They invaded Iraq without a plan; and now we are stuck in a never-ending occupation in the middle of a civil war. They had no clue how to handle the disaster of Hurricane Katrina; and had the nerve to blame the disaster on the victims of this storm. It is no wonder that once they committed our troops, our brave men and women, to this unbelievable mess in Iraq; that they had no clue what to do with those who came back wounded.

Thirty percent of World War II casualties were from battle injuries. In Vietnam, that went down to 24%. So far in Iraq, less than 10%. Because of advances in medicine and techology, more men and women are surviving battle than ever before. Yet, they are allowed to be cared for in facilities that would not even be acceptable for inmates.

The Republican party has used pious rhetoric and religious references for years to fool the American people. The Contract with America has yet to be met. Abortion has been legal in this country for over 30 years, at least 20 of which has been ruled by a Republican President. The Republicans controlled Congress for 12 years before the 2006 elections; and there is no Marriage amendment, and no prayer in public schools. Yet, they still claim to speak for Americans? That is insulting if it is true; because that means that Americans are all talk, and no action.

Now they use the mantra "if you don't support the mission, you don't support the troops." The religious rhetoric worked; so why not the patriotic. Then came Walter Reed. The truth is out. Republicans are all talk; and no action. Yes, they support the troops as long as they come back with a flag-draped casket. Don't send protective armor; because that means that the troops might come back alive. God forbid they come home with their limbs blown off so the government has to spend the money to rehabilitate them. At least stick them in a low cost, roach-infested hospital.

So, this is what is meant by "support the troops?" Put a yellow ribbon on our antennas; and a cute bumper sticker on our cars; but send no armor, and provide no adequate facilities to rehabilitate those who survive. The Republicans are consistent about one thing. They do not believe in government handouts; even to those injured defending our country. Why don't we tell someone who has lost their limbs in Iraq to "pick themselves up by their bootstraps?"

I want to leave with one tidbit of information. In August of 2000, while running for Vice-President, Dick Cheney said that "a Commander-In-Chief leads the military built by those who came before him. There is little that he or his Defense Secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy. It is all the work of previous administrations. Decisions made today shape the force of tomorrow.....when that first (Persian Gulf) war ended, the first thing I did was to place a call to California and say 'thank you' to President Ronald Reagan." Yet, in response to 9/11/01, our military was exceptional in its defeat of Afghanistan and the Taliban regime. Do you think that Bill Clinton ever got a phone call?

Wake up, America! Our current administration is nothing more than a corporation protecting its investors. They are not interested in what the American people want; only those who have poured capital into their agenda. Look beyond the pious rhetoric and sudden interest in climate change and global warming, and begin to notice Congress bickering with each other, but never getting anything done, while our children suffer without food and healthcare, because all the money is gone; freedoms are erased in the name of Executive Orders; censorship is put in place in the name of "not supporting our troops;" and all the while, our President tells Congress and the American people that he is the "Decider" and "Decision-Maker." I don't know if it is his arrogance or his incompetence that scares me more; but the combination of the two rivals that of Emperor Nero.

Indeed, we are in perilous times.

Arch.

 

Bush 1 inhereted the best military that this country has ever had. Bush 2, inhereted a military that had been gutted by 8 years of the clinton administration. The only real cuts that clinton ever made in the budget were cuts in military spending. Don't even try and pretend that clinton should have got a phone call to congratulate him on the fine military he left.

Both myself and my wife are military people. My wife recently retired and she was a supply officer in a jet fighter squadron in the navy during the clinton years. There were 24 F-18A fighters in her squadron. Spending cuts made parts so scarse that no more than 4 of those planes were airworthy at a time for a period of almost 5 years. Each of the planes was required to fly X number of hours per month and as a result, they had to set up a rotating flight plan to meet the requirements. The planes were divided into 6 sub groups. Sub group one would fly one day. When they landed, they woud be brought into the hangar and whatever parts sub group 2 needed would be stripped from sub group 1 and put into sub group 2 so that sub group 2 could fly the next day. And so on and so on and so on. This was true across the navy, and in much of the air force, and in the army.

My wife retired about 3 years ago and she noticed that the shortage of parts began to ease within 8 months of Bush 2 taking office.

If you feel that you need to make a phone call to congratulate someone on the military, call Bush 2 and thank him for bringing the military that clinton had gutted and demoralized for 8 years back to their former pride and readiness.

Also, soldiers come home to hospitals that the president inherited. 40 years of democrat control of congress made the VA hospital system what it is. When I was in the service back in the 70's it was a ruin. If you want to point the finger of blame, start with the democrats for decimating it, and then you can begin to blame republicans for not repairing the damage done by democrats fast enough.

By the way. You are absolutely right about perilous times. They got a lot more perilous recently when the cut and run democrats gained the house.

 

Many vets who used to have to travel great distances for any VA care now no longer have to.

"In Bush’s first three years funding for the Veterans Administration increased 27%. And if Bush's 2005 budget is approved, funding for his full four-year term will amount to an increase of 37.6%.

In the eight years of the Clinton administration the increase was 31.7%

Those figures include mandatory spending for such things as payments to veterans for service-connected disabilities, over which Congress and presidents have little control. But Bush has increased the discretionary portion of veterans funding even more than the mandatory portion has increased. Discretionary funding under Bush is up 30.2%.

By any measure, veterans funding is going up faster under Bush than under Clinton.
One reason: the number of veterans getting benefits is increasing rapidly as middle-income veterans turn for health care to the expanding network of VA clinics and its generous prescription drug benefit.

According to the VA, the number of veterans signed up to get health benefits increased by 1.1 million, or 18%, during the first two fiscal years for which Bush signed the VA appropriations bills. And the numbers continue to grow. By the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30, the VA estimates that the total increase under Bush's budgets will reach nearly 1.6 million veterans, an increase of 25.6 percent.

And according to the VA, the number of community health clinics has increased 40% during Bush's three years, with accompanying increases in the numbers of outpatient visits (to 51 million last year) and prescriptions filled (to 108 million)."

Read more...
http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html

 

When Bush Sr. came into office, the military budget was 358.7. When he left it was 312.1. That is a decrease of $46.6 billion or 13.0%.

When Clinton came into office, the military budget was 290.3. When he left it was 305.4. That is an increase of $15.1 billion or 5%.

Bush cut the military budget from Reagan's $376.2 billion to $312.1, a change of -$64.1 billion or negative 17%. Clinton cut the military budget from Bush's $312.1 to $305.4, a change of -6.7 billion or negative 2%. Who "gutted" the military?

Arch.

 

I was in the military during the terms of Reagan and Bush I. My wife was in the military during the terms of Regan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. I can say unequivocally that clinton gutted the military. Play with numbers however you like, but the fact remains that clinton decimated both the material and the moral of the military.

The first sentence in your first post of this thread was that when someone who is in the military speaks, you listen. So live up to your boast.

 

Exactly, palerider. Arch can spin the numbers anyway he wants, but the fact of the matter is that he halted military development, wasted critical weapons and allowed our forces to become dangerously weak.

No major weapon system was ever introduced during the Clinton years. In fact, many weapons systems were delayed or denied adequate funding, for instance, the Patriot missile. The repeated pleas of U.S. military leaders that we needed some means to protect ourselves from the ballistic missile threat fell on deaf ears inside the Clinton White House.

Proposed upgrades to the Patriot were not tested, delayed or canceled by the Clinton administration in its feverish attempt to salvage the obsolete ABM treaty with the former Soviet Union. Clinton also traded and sold advanced U.S. military missile technology to China while denying funding to U.S. anti-missile systems that can counter the ballistic missile threat.

In addition, the Clinton administration frequently misused, micromanaged and wasted advanced military weapon systems.

USAF officials confirmed that the President Clinton had a history of bungling missile strikes, in particular targeting the Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) by micromanagement from the Oval Office.

One specific example cited was the unsuccessful 1996 Desert Strike operation where USAF ALCMs with fragmentary warheads were incorrectly targeted on hardened Iraq bunkers on White House orders.

The White House bypassed the USAF Air Combat Command (ACC) and directly ordered B-52s to fire the ALCMs at a hardened Iraqi air defense command bunker. The frag warheads exploded harmlessly outside the Iraq bunker, causing no damage.

The Clinton administration proposed that the B-1 bomber be retired early. The Clinton administration delayed the Global Hawk, the Predator, the GPS-guided bomb systems and the Long Bow Apache, and wanted to trim the number of aircraft carriers down to eight.

The Clinton administration delayed the V-22 Osprey, F-22 Raptor, the Joint Strike Fighter and the Comanche attack helicopter. In addition, the U.S. military is still trying to make up critical shortages in the Milstar space communications program.

The Air Force, Navy and Marines are also scrambling to make up critical shortages in air-refueling tankers, frequently cut out of the Clinton budget requests.

There is no question about it: Bill Clinton and his "peace dividend" policy was no friend of the US military.

 

One of the reasons that I voted for Bush in 2000 (yes, I admit it) is because I felt that we needed to keep our defense at a certain level. The Soviet Union may have fallen; but they still have a bunch of nukes aimed at us. We may have more; but then again, how many bullets does it take to kill a man?

I liked Bush's proposed missile defense system. It was one of his points that won me over. I understand the need for defense.

However, that still does not justify the means he has used to get us into this war in Iraq; and it does not justify his unquestioned abuse of Executive Powers.

The Democrats questioned where Bush was going in this war back in 2004; and he still won. Now, three years later, we know that the Democrats were right; and the Republicans have no plan, and are resistant to those who are making one.

In 1942, after just getting involved, we had a 400-page plan of what we would do in Europe after World War II. Even Newt Gingrich said he was stunned that we had no exit strategy in Iraq. As a result, we have had by far the most post-conflict casualties of any war in our history. In Germany, Japan, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo, not a single American casualty was recorded after occupation. Our occupation of Iraq has seen casualties of a catastrophic nature.

Arch.

 

I agree Arch. The military invasion went stunningly well but the post-war Reconstruction has been a failure thus far. Like I've stated elsewhere, I believe that the administration caught got looking ahead to invading Iran -- they never anticipated the terrorists from Iran actually coming into Iraq and joining up with the Sunni insurgents.