"Did you when you said "Clinton always gets blamed for Bush's failures"?"
Yes. My statement was in reference to the article. It seems to always be the case when Bush is taken to task for a failure, people start popping up with reasons why it was some past president's fault. Usually Clinton. But, sometimes they press onward and wash up on Carter's shore.
"First of all, with regard to supplying the troops, there was no failure on the part of Bush."
Right. It was George Washington's fault.
Bush has never made a mistake in his life. He is always right and does things in the best possible way. Despite the evidence to the contrary, he isn't an abject failure as president.
"And second, the ones making the accusation are the very ones who supported Clinton when he slashed military spending."
I am guessing you have a point here, although it isn't clear. Sure, if we endlessly increase the budget, despite no pressing need like under Clinton, then when some future engagement occurs we will be in a better position.
But the fact of the matter is we are 4 years out and we still have some troops with insufficient equipment. Again, when WWII started, we had a very poorly equipped military because of decades of budget cuts. Yet, 4 years later, we had so much equipment that it is still being sold on the surplus market today. And that doesn't count what got dumped at sea, put in landfills, etc.
We had 7.7 million troops when WWII ended. In Iraq, we have < 200k. Yet you are claiming that we couldn't have equipped our troops any faster than we are now. Despite a much bigger industrial base and very much larger economy.
Tench, your blind partisanship is showing. |
