Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (220595)	1/21/2002 12:48:00 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769670

mike, A man I respect as does America. Rumsfeld Slams Clinton Military Cutbacks While noting that U.S. armed forces remain the most powerful in the world, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld blasted the Clinton administration Sunday for defense cutbacks he said left the military in such a "run down" condition that rebuilding could take up to a decade. "The infrastructure had decayed and it is still decayed and it will take now probably six, eight, ten years to get it back to the place that it ought to be," Rumsfeld told NBC "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert. The Bush Defense Secretary then added, "It takes time to run down a great military and it takes time to build one back up." He suggested that the full dimension of the Clinton cutbacks were only now being felt. "During a president's term of office, what he does with the military has very little effect during that period of time. Each president inherits what was done in preceding periods." Rumsfeld was responding to Democratic Party and media arguments that the U.S.'s success in the Afghanistan war shows that criticism of Clinton's military cutbacks is unjustified. Separately, the New York Post reported Sunday that a full 89 percent of Clinton budget cuts under the president's "Reinventing Government" initiative came at the expense of the armed forces. In his recent book "In the Arena," former Reagan administration Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger contends that President Clinton had reduced U.S. military forces by approximately 50 percent during his eight years in office. newsmax.com tom watson tosiwmee

To: greenspirit who wrote (220595)	1/21/2002 2:45:48 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 769670

Appreciate your thoughts here, Michael. Perhaps there should be yet another Congressional investigation to see HOW, WHAT, and WHY we have had several crashes in recent weeks....This equipment was to be state of the art...and I also KNOW that the pilots are the best of the best. However, the training they receive, and the time they spend in the air is vital also. Have they been receiving enough training? Are all the spare parts current? Where and how is the maintenance being done, and by whom? I understand that the Defense Department is the only department that includes all the military retirees and dependents in its budget. Wonder how the rest of the departments of the US Government would stand in comparison, if we added the retirees to their budgets? And the percentage of increase versus that of the Defense Department???

To: greenspirit who wrote (220595)	1/21/2002 9:36:57 AM
From: rich4eagle	Respond to of 769670

Are you saying actually declined or declined relative to inflation? Besides since the population went up in the 90's the cost of social programs should increase as well. Since 80% of what was considered the enemy disappeared the cost of Defense should have gone down. It didn't, we as a nation haven't addressed the issue of how to restructure the military to meet the needs of today vs th cold war. Sorry, but those are the cold hard facts. More people means more costs for infrastructure, less enemies means less cost for defense unless the goal is to feed a pork barrel