Why The Left Is Targeting Bill O�Reilly & US military under Clinton ??

aah... aaaaaah... aaaaaaah... AAAAAAAH!

*head explodes*

*hopes that it will reform somewhere far, far from this thread*

Originally posted by 27jd
I fear we will not come to an agreement on this issue,���

I bet your finally right

Originally posted by 27jd
������.. First you claimed that approving more efficient, centralized real time command over a large force, no matter for what purpose, is a degradation of the military, to me that is an outrageous notion,������

no where in the post does it say anything about real time command anywhere in the post�.did you post the wrong stuff, maybe.

Originally posted by 27jd
...........................calling the unbiased sources' .............

����. On the other hand, as defense analyst William Arkin put it, "If Jesse Jackson had been president, we would still have JDAM."

and that would be true, but would imply a fairly short sighted approach�we would get JDAM and that was the point that I have been trying to get you to see all along�guess I should have read your post more closely�..funny two posts proving my point. however, it is the next piece of technology that suffers. And there is no denying that funding to DARPA and other sources of R&D funding suffered�which was my original point.

Back to O'Reilly, I just think it�s a little early to start warming the tar�.I mean the FBI actually proved the case against the first bill, and the left is still claiming that it doesn�t matter�so how trivial would that make possibly false charges against a TV anchor.




[edit on 24-10-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by keholmes
however, it is the next piece of technology that suffers. And there is no denying that funding to DARPA and other sources of R&D funding suffered�which was my original point.

But the article points out that the president has little to do with military progress one way or the other, you can't say an article supports your point that we would have these weapons regardless, but ignore that it also makes the point that Clinton did not weaken the military, because it pretty much runs it's own course. We should at least be able to find middle ground.

Originally posted by 27jd
But the article points out that the president has little to do with military progress one way or the other, ���.

Yes it does say that, and no I don�t fully agree. The president does have little to do with military progress or where they look�..or what they try to do, so currently in progress programs are very hard to cancel. However to ignore the fact that a president does affect not only funding, but general direction of the major weapons programs is ludicrous. When funding gets short, in progress programs will get priority, however scope will get reduced and goals pushed out to future years. Lower funding enough and all you have are your existing programs on life support.

So if you looking for middle ground then you�ll have to settle for both of us agreeing that the second bill and his current troubles are irrelevant.

Not on your best day. Most of what you liberals spew is garbage, you have your elitist ideals and I do not adhere to anything even close to that.

Jesus Ed, take a good look in the mirror

Well considering that the Left has the overwhelming majority here, I just need to make sure you see the light!

You just summed up Fox news in one sentence, its a shame that when real information is put out there, people take an opposite stance regardless if it is true or not, just to create "balance".

Just for fun, im going to post my favourite picture in the entire world again:

Originally posted by keholmes
Yes it does say that, and no I don�t fully agree. The president does have little to do with military progress or where they look�..or what they try to do, so currently in progress programs are very hard to cancel. However to ignore the fact that a president does affect not only funding, but general direction of the major weapons programs is ludicrous. When funding gets short, in progress programs will get priority, however scope will get reduced and goals pushed out to future years. Lower funding enough and all you have are your existing programs on life support.

So if you looking for middle ground then you�ll have to settle for both of us agreeing that the second bill and his current troubles are irrelevant.

Well, I guess that's the only middle ground we'll find then. O'Reilly is an irrelevant douche. Back to Clinton, I thought you didn't wish to discuss the budget aspect? As for his lack scope and reduced goals, he was was not reducing any goals or without scope, he was just re-directing the goals to fit those post-coldwar, pre-9/11 times:

President Clinton began his presidency with just a few guidelines relating to national security and defence policy and without the firm backing of the military establishment. Clinton believed the US military should be streamlined and roles and missions re-assessed. Accordingly, the administration ordered an examination of the military's long-term budget needs based on potential security threats in the post-cold-war world. The conclusions were unveiled in September 1993 in the Bottom-Up Review (BUR) and have served as the basis for defence policy goals. BUR outlined a new strategy and force structure to meet four key threats to US security. First was regional conflicts; second, proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction; third, threats to US economic strength; and fourth, failure of democratic reforms in the former Soviet Union. Clinton was offered four policy alternatives for force levels and chose the Pentagon's preferred win-win option. Under this option, sufficient force levels are to be maintained to win two almost simultaneous major regional conflicts (MRC). The US military would fulfil this option by cultivating a high state of readiness, ensuring morale was high, and continuing to deploy technologically superior weaponry.

It seems Clinton was just going along with the Pentagon.
So much for blaming him, if only they would have seen into the future and foresaw that the next president was going to be so aggressive, wreckless and irresponsible, that they would need to strengthen our military ten fold so Bush could go to war with pretty much the entire world. Too bad the pentagon's crystal ball budget must have been cut by Clinton too, right? Apparently one mistake the pentagon and the Clinton administration made was being overly optimistic the world was progressing and countries were growing closer, they could not have imagined the threat on the horizon, and I'm not talking about Bin Laden because it is fact Clinton pursued him, the threat they missed was Bush. Who could have imagined the U.S. could drive a wedge between itself and the world so rapidly? If they had known, maybe they would have left Bush a military capable of world domination, and Clinton would have had your approval.

Here's more about the Clinton military budget:

The first Clinton administration defence budget for FY 1994 offered no drastic departures from the previous administration's proposals and requested $263.4 billion. Congress agreed $261.7 billion, an eight per cent reduction in real terms over the FY 1993 budget.

Much of the administration's budget was kept intact, but Congress did cut $3.9 billion from research and development, $2.1 billion from the operations-and-maintenance account that affected readiness, and ignored a request to freeze military pay by providing a 2.2 per cent military pay rise. Key elements of the FY 1994 defence budget included full $1.7-billion funding of the B-2 bomber and reaffirmation of the decision to cap the programme at 20 aircraft; full $1.2-billion funding of the Trident II (D-5) missile programme provided it remained within START II guidelines; a new $2.3-billion inter-theatre airlift account, including procurement funds for four C-17s in FY 1994; and protection of development funds for two tactical combat aircraft, the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor transport aircraft, the RAH-66 Comanche scout/attack helicopter, and the Centurion attack submarine.

With results from the bottom-up review in hand, the FY 1995 budget provided a clear statement of security priorities. The request highlighted readiness and technical superiority to meet US defence objectives with a smaller force and asked for increased funding for the O&M account. Additionally, to address serious deficiencies in readiness ratings, the army was to take the marine corps' lead and preposition unit equipment packs and logistics stocks afloat for regional contingencies, primarily in the Persian Gulf. Believing that technological dominance meant fewer weapon systems would be required, the procurement account remained the focus of cuts.

The administration submitted a defence budget request of $263.7 billion and, following rearrangement of funds and scraping over funding for the US share of UN peacekeeping operations, Congress passed a defence budget for FY 1995 of $263.8 billion, a one-per-cent decrease in real terms. Serious disagreements arose over US participation in contingency operations. Many Republicans were against US involvement in Bosnia and attempted to limit the President's ability to engage US forces in the conflict.

www.global-defence.com...


It looks like the republican majority Congress had a lot to do with budget cuts as well. I guess they did not know their party would be hijacked by such a corrupt administration, one that serves exclusively as a vessel for special interests and puts corporate interests in front of all else, and does not value human life, not even American life, at all. Yet Bush has so many convinced he is a man of god, it's almost like David Koresh is leading one of the world's most powerful nations.




















[edit on 24-10-2004 by 27jd]

Originally posted by edsinger
In effect, the outstanding reputation for fairness that Fox News has built in a relatively short time has also made it a prime target of the Left.

Bye-bye credibility.
Is this Sophistry?

Originally posted by edsinger
No they sold older outdated TOW missles for pretty hefty prices to Iran, to get the cash to actually fund the anit-communist, in Central America that Tip O'Neal kept blocking. It was brilliant, the Iranians get # for high $$$ and we get untraceable cash......

Check out Wikipedia, it tells you what really happened, from an unbiased source.

The arms-for-hostages deal

The Israeli government approached the United States in August 1985 with a proposal to act as an intermediary by shipping 508 American-made TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran in exchange for the release of the Reverend Benjamin Weir, an American hostage being held by Iranian sympathizers in Lebanon, with the understanding that the United States would then ship replacement missiles to Israel. Robert McFarlane, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, approached United States Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and arranged the details. The transfer took place over the next two months.

In November, there was another round of negotiations, where the Israelis proposed to ship Iran 500 HAWK anti-aircraft missiles in exchange for the release of all remaining American hostages being held in Lebanon. General Colin Powell attempted to procure the missiles, but realized that the deal would require Congressional notification as its overall value exceeded $14 million. McFarlane responded that the President had decided to conduct the sale anyway. Israel sent an initial shipment of 18 missiles to Iran in late November, but the Iranians didn't approve of the missiles, and further shipments were halted. Negotiations continued with the Israelis and Iranians over the next few months.

In January of 1986, Reagan allegedly approved a plan whereby an American intermediary, rather than Israel, would sell arms to Iran in exchange for the release of the hostages, with profits funnelled to the Contras. At first, the Iranians had refused the weapons from Ghorbanifar, the Iranian intermediary, when both North and Ghorbanifar created a 370% markup (WALSH, Lawrence E. "Firewall"). Another intermediary was used to sell 500 TOW missiles. With the marked-up income of $10 million from the $3.7 million before, and the Iranians capturing new hostages when they released old ones, was the end of the arms-for-hostages deal. In February, 1,000 TOW missiles were shipped to Iran. From May to November, there were additional shipments of miscellaneous weapons and parts.

Originally posted by 27jd
But the article points out that the president has little to do with military progress one way or the other, you can't say an article supports your point that we would have these weapons regardless, but ignore that it also makes the point that Clinton did not weaken the military, because it pretty much runs it's own course. We should at least be able to find middle ground.

Well we can agree to disagree. I know many who stayed in the service during the Clinton years, one even almost got out at 17 years, becuase of one thing, MORAL. It just plain sucked in those years. They knew that the CiC in which they served, didnt like them. By this I mean the military in general, CLinton made this well known.

Yet these folks still served with honor...and respected the office but not the man.


I will grant you one thing, even with a weakened military (my opinion), it was still the most powerful. But the neglect was there, there is no denial of this. CLinton did not decimate it, he just neglected it.








******


As for Iran contra, it was wrong. No denial there.

But the ends almost justified the means.

As for Reagan, he compromised his principles of no negoiations, he could have just kept letting the Suadi's fund the Contra's.

It was his BIGGEST mistake by far.

[edit on 24-10-2004 by edsinger]

Originally posted by edsinger
Well we can agree to disagree.

I guess we'll just have to. It seems we're all firm in our beliefs, so it would be pointless for us all to argue fruitlessly. We both might as well argue with a rock!

I know many who stayed in the service during the Clinton years, one even almost got out at 17 years, becuase of one thing, MORAL. It just plain sucked in those years.

We'll have to disagree here too. What sucked? No endless wars? No catastrophic military occupations? They had low morale because thousands of them were not being killed, and tens of thousands maimed? Or maybe because they weren't being forced to serve extra tours away from their families? Yeah, I guess that would have sucked. They must be happier than a puppy with two peters these days.

CLinton did not decimate it, he just neglected it.

He neglected it how? Because he tried not to use it? All leaders should neglect their militarys' that way.










[edit on 24-10-2004 by 27jd]

Hey Mods! Can we get this moved to the Mud Pit?

So about that original topic you know the one about Bill O'Reilly and Fox News, guys, umm...

Originally posted by 27jd
We'll have to disagree here too. What sucked? No endless wars? No catastrophic military occupations? They had low morale because thousands of them were not being killed, and tens of thousands maimed? Or maybe because they weren't being forced to serve extra tours away from their families? Yeah, I guess that would have sucked. They must be happier than a puppy with two peters these days.

Did you know that Clinton deployed troops more times than any since FDR?

Low moral becuase of WHO was CiC and how HE treated the military with disdain. Look this is well known that Clinton was not liked by the military in general and the feeling was mutual. But in the same reguards HE did function and use the troops as he saw fit. The moral was # for those 8 years. Your explanation is just the standard spews, have you wondered what the moral is now? even in these rough times?

Originally posted by 27jdHe neglected it how? Because he tried not to use it? All leaders should neglect their militarys' that way.
[edit on 24-10-2004 by 27jd]

Well then what is the point of having one, as I have already said, Clinton used it quite a lot.

Clinton sent U.S. forces into combat situations nearly twice as many times as the four preceding presidents combined had over 17 years.
www.socialistworker.org...



Pentagon issues warning over anti-Clinton statements by military personnel

Recent insubordinate remarks by military personnel about Clinton have prompted Pentagon officials to issue a warning against criticism of the president. Clinton has come under attack in both the Army Times and Navy Times, and through a Marine e-mail petition.

www.wsws.org...








ANTI-WAR PROTESTER PRESIDENT CLINTON DISARMS AMERICA IN A UNIQUE MANNER: HE IS FIRING OFF ALL OUR CRITICAL MUNITIONS!

"The war in Yugoslavia is already shaping up as one of the most poorly planned conflicts in American history. As a consequence, defense officials are scrambling to pull together the resources needed to sustain our operations there. Unfortunately, they are bumping up against severe limits resulting from the

drastic deterioration of U.S. military capability during the Clinton administration."

Does this sound familiar? By 1980, Democratic President Jimmy Carter had allowed the American military to so dramatically deteriorate in just four short years, that many in the military were alarmed Russia might be tempted to strike against Europe. Our supplies of munitions and critically needed spare parts, as well as a great variety of other supplies, were so short it was reported that American forces could not sustain all-out conventional war for more than 2 weeks. This fact became such a strong election issue that Ronald Reagan was able to win the election, with this one issue attracting many Conservative Democrat voters to his side. Now, we have seen even more deterioration from 7 years of another Democratic President, Clinton -- that old college student war-protestor. As you read these statistics, remember that Clinton is the only American President of this century to have spent 3 weeks in the Kremlin getting who knows what kind of training from the KGB! Perhaps the American voters in both 1992 and 1996 should have cared more about what Clinton was doing fraternizing with the enemy. Perhaps Clinton's actions regarding the disarmament of the American military was one of the lessons he received from the KGB that fateful December of 1969. As you read these statistics, ask yourself if the Russians or the Chinese could have ever inflicted this kind of damage to our military. Remember, your life is at stake, so this is not an idle subject.

www.cuttingedge.org...












[edit on 24-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 24-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 24-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 24-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 24-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 24-10-2004 by edsinger]

Originally posted by edsinger
Low moral becuase of WHO was CiC and how HE treated the military with disdain. Look this is well known that Clinton was not liked by the military in general and the feeling was mutual. But in the same reguards HE did function and use the troops as he saw fit. The moral was # for those 8 years. Your explanation is just the standard spews, have you wondered what the moral is now? even in these rough times?

You think morale is high now? You may be, but morale is not:

WASHINGTON � US troops facing extended deployments amid the danger, heat, and uncertainty of an Iraq occupation are suffering from low morale that has in some cases hit "rock bottom."
Even as President Bush speaks of a "massive and long-term" undertaking in rebuilding Iraq, that effort, as well as the high tempo of US military operations around the globe, is taking its toll on individual troops.

Some frustrated troops stationed in Iraq are writing letters to representatives in Congress to request their units be repatriated. "Most soldiers would empty their bank accounts just for a plane ticket home," said one recent Congressional letter written by an Army soldier now based in Iraq. The soldier requested anonymity.

In some units, there has been an increase in letters from the Red Cross stating soldiers are needed at home, as well as daily instances of female troops being sent home due to pregnancy.

"Make no mistake, the level of morale for most soldiers that I've seen has hit rock bottom," said another soldier, an officer from the Army's 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq.

In one Army unit, an officer described the mentality of troops. "They vent to anyone who will listen. They write letters, they cry, they yell. Many of them walk around looking visibly tired and depressed.... We feel like pawns in a game that we have no voice [in]."

www.csmonitor.com...

I guess you'll probably say the christian science monitor is a biased source, right?

Yeah, they're having a great time there. Almost all of the military people I know, Desert Storm vets, Nam vets, as well as people still in the military (although they are not allowed to speak out publicly against Bush either, in case you're not aware, or living in a fantasy world) dislike Bush a great deal. Your spin is ridiculous.

But back to the "no spin zone", the reason this discussion has strayed off O'Reilly, is because there is really nothing to discuss, other than the celebrity scandal aspect. He is not worth a squirt of piss politically, so the left-wing conspiracy idea is void. Maybe a mainstream media feud, but no political conspiracy. Who cares about O'Reilly one way or the other?





[edit on 24-10-2004 by 27jd]

Could this have something to do with it also? I mean those at home complaining arent helping matters....

Rep. Garrett: Troops in Iraq Angry at Media Coverage [time to do more than talk]


Posted on 10/04/2004 2:36:48 PM PDT by Ruth C

U.S. soldiers in Iraq are growing increasingly angry over distorted coverage of their mission in Western press accounts....

"Every time we met with soldiers, men and women ... they would always bring up the frustration level; the frustration with CNN, BBC and other broadcasting outlets," Scott Garrett, R-N.J., told WABC Radio's Monica Crowley.

I keep reading the complaints about the media and their biased coverage. I think it's time we, the viewers, did something about it other than complain. I realized that the 'big 3' can't be changed in a heartbeat so it won't help our wonderful military serving in Iraq now, but that is only 3 national news broadcasts, there are many many more local broadcasts and on cable there is FoxNews, and I believe they CAN be changed. WE are their viewers and we can do something about it at that level

www.freerepublic.com...



Criticism of Iraq policy seen hurting U.S. troop morale

Rep. Mike Pence says he has seen firsthand how the back-and-forth charges in Washington over U.S. policy in Iraq are affecting troop morale there.
Mr. Pence, Indiana Republican, visited with Marines at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda this week. He was struck by one injured sergeant's worry that the United States would succumb to criticism and pull its troops out with the job undone.
"He looked me in the eye, with tubes coming out, and he simply said, 'Congressman, the only thing I worry about is that we will pull out early and we will not finish the job and it will mean all of the sacrifices we made over there were for nothing,' " the Indiana Republican recalled.
www.washtimes.com...

Originally posted by edsinger
have you wondered what the moral is now? even in these rough times?

There are probably many factors, but the fact they are doing extended tours for a cause NOBODY is clear about, in a horrible country, probably has alot to do with it as well. You tried to use troop morale in your argument, and it backfired. It's lower now than in the Clinton years. Your source only proves my point, although lists different reason. And we have EVERY right to question our government and it's our duty in a democratic society, and it's our duty as patriots. Perhaps you should move to China if you disagree, not alot of that pesky dissent you are so against.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by edsinger
have you wondered what the moral is now? even in these rough times?

There are probably many factors, but the fact they are doing extended tours for a cause NOBODY is clear about, in a horrible country, probably has alot to do with it as well. You tried to use troop morale in your

And again you missed the point, let me try it this way,


Poll: U.S. Military Backing Bush New one!
www.abovetopsecret.com...


What I am saying is that I can see that moral is low, but for different reasons.....hell yes it is not as good as it could be. What you and others at home are doing is the same as in Vietnam. If the troops believe in what they are doing, and HAVE the support at home, the morale would be higher. But that is not the case.

If what you say is true then Bush would be loosing the military vote. And dont say it is brainwashing # either, as that is calling the troops stupid, and we all know better.

Originally posted by edsinger
If what you say is true then Bush would be loosing the military vote. And dont say it is brainwashing # either, as that is calling the troops stupid, and we all know better.

Yes I will say it is brainwashing $hit, if it is even true, but being as I'm not a pollster, and not polling all the troops myself, I will not claim to know. I guess you do. Or perhaps you are reading slightly biased polling source. And stupidity is not a factor in brainwashing. You're not stupid, are you? Our soldiers are not stupid, just young and they may still believe the government tells the truth. When I was a kid, I thought everything my parents said was true. If they do support Bush, that's why. But really I don't trust whatever poll you're referring too. Back to that infinite argument thing again, it's really quite pointless.

Originally posted by edsinger
Yeah kinda slimy I know, and they got caught, but when you look back Reagan was going after communism everywhere, form Afghanistan to Central America....

Ed, I admire you in a sort of banal, twisted way. I admire your fundemental inability to grasp the big concepts, in exchange for a paraphrased reality.
Kind of slimy? Dear God, man, we armed and trained the very men acattacking us now. We backed the corrupt Shah of Iran, until he was taken out by the fundies. Then we gave guns to these Iranian fundies. Then we gave arms to Saddam to fight them. Then we armed and trained the Afghanis to fight the Russians. The Russians lost, and our allies, Pakistan, exploited the power vacuum to create the theocratic Taliban with the same guys we previously used. Then Saddam turned on us, and we attacked him...and then we let him go again.

It gets better! Then the Taliban blew up Embasssies in Africa, the world Trade Center, and the USS Cole. Then they used our allies, the Saudi Arabians, to crash planes into our buildings. So, what do we do? Do we attack Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Iran? No, we attack Iraq. Then we get mad at the Russians for not helping us kill the guys we trained to kill them. Then we get mad at the rest of the world for not supporting us when we invaded the one country we successfuly managed to stop the first time around.

And we're left with a clusterfu** of such monumental proportions, that it's like making a volcano earthquake proof. We almsot need a scorecard to decipher our current allies and enemies this week.

Don't even get me started on Central America and our School of the Americas. I mean it's always a good thing to torture our way to freedom through death camps and petty dictators.

And the worst part, the same guys responsible for screwing everything up in the first place are running things now. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Originally posted by brimstone735
Ed, I admire you in a sort of banal, twisted way. I admire your fundemental inability to grasp the big concepts, in exchange for a paraphrased reality.
Kind of slimy? Dear God, man, we armed and trained the very men acattacking us now. We backed the corrupt Shah of Iran, until he was taken out by the fundies. Then we gave guns to these Iranian fundies. Then we gave arms to Saddam to fight them. Then we armed and trained the Afghanis to fight the Russians. The Russians lost, and our allies, Pakistan, exploited the power vacuum to create the theocratic Taliban with the same guys we previously used. Then Saddam turned on us, and we attacked him...and then we let him go again.

Well we were in the middle of a Cold war at the time.

Originally posted by brimstone735
It gets better! Then the Taliban blew up Embasssies in Africa, the world Trade Center, and the USS Cole. Then they used our allies, the Saudi Arabians, to crash planes into our buildings. So, what do we do? Do we attack Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Iran? No, we attack Iraq. Then we get mad at the Russians for not helping us kill the guys we trained to kill them. Then we get mad at the rest of the world for not supporting us when we invaded the one country we successfuly managed to stop the first time around.

As for the Saudi comment, OBL used them specifically becuase of visa's and the political damage of it.

27jd

Remind me to discuss more things with you as you seem to want to find support for my points, more that you do yours thanks. The funny thing is, whoever you quoted contradicts most of his own analysis.

Originally posted by 27jd
�����.. As for his lack scope and reduced goals, he was was not reducing any goals or without scope, he was just re-directing the goals to fit those post-coldwar, pre-9/11 times:

�����Much of the administration's budget was kept intact, but Congress did cut $3.9 billion from research and development, $2.1 billion from the operations-and-maintenance account that affected readiness, ������� The request highlighted readiness and technical superiority to meet US defence objectives with a smaller force ������.. Additionally, to address serious deficiencies in readiness ratings, the army was to take the marine corps' lead and preposition unit equipment packs and logistics stocks afloat for regional contingencies, primarily in the Persian Gulf. Believing that technological dominance meant fewer weapon systems would be required, the procurement account remained the focus of cuts.

let�s see cut R&D just as I said�.cut operations and maintenance�..paid out a bundle after the cuts to duplicate an already present capability�cut procurement�.gee, I guess he really didn�t reduce goals, and cut scope�.. that is just a hilarious analysis. lets see blame it on congress...wasn't congress still in demo hands at that time?

As for the author�.first admit that readiness is affected then say that in all actuality he was �highlighting readiness� I guess he meant highlighting it for the executioner claims that the request highlights readiness and technical superiority�.after noting that R&D has been gashed, and later acknowledging that procurement was gashed and with what little was left pissed it away to duplicate a capability that NO ONE ever said was a deficiency�.GENIUS. meanwhile the whole time ignoring the fact that congress went after the operations and maintenance account to stop the most active military president since FDR�.even more active than the book end shrubs�.hell he bombed Iraq indiscriminately for the entire 8 years in office�among other countries. He must have been trying to divert attention from something�I wonder what that might have ohhhhh ohhhhh ohhhh

Now let�s go though my points�.clinton gashed R&D, operations and maintenance, and didn�t allow new weapons systems�.what was your quoted post�.clinton gashed R&D, operations and maintenance, and fewer weapons systems�.and gashed procurement while doubling up on stuff we had in abundance�.wow, thanks.

Originally posted by 27jd
������. about Bin Laden because it is fact Clinton pursued him����.

yeah, he did and unfortunately after he found him on 4 separate occasions he screwed up and let him go (allowing the murder of 3000 Americans a few short years later). Must have been busy with something else�.I kind of imagine the pentagon asking him for permission to strike over the phone and him saying �ohhhhh ohhhhh� I guess they didn�t know it was the oral office, yet. hey at least he enjoyed himself�..because he could.

wait this just in congress actually made clinton say no to striking bin laden

������. the procurement account remained the focus of cuts. ������..

thanks