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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (17085)	1/23/2002 8:30:50 AM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

the cuts over 8 years were unbelievable Actually, I found them believable, though I will admit, now that our country is governed by Somalia, life's just not as fun as it used to be. Okay, okay, out of respect, I'll can the sarcasm. For one thing, I'm aware that retention rates suffered at the center and to me, that's more primary than a sophisticated weapons system built via layers of cost overruns. It'll take at least three years to overcome that. However, three things of note: 1) So far, our troops and their toys have been exceedingly effective in carrying out their missions. Jaw-droppingly effective. 2) Was that liberal Gingrich Congress paid off by the Russkies? The defense budget was not a solo act. 3) The porky partisanship that crafts these budgets often compels the continuation of some fat (unneeded bases when closings are being done, for example) that can turn the budget knife loose in areas of meat. I have no agenda to defend Clinton; his unwillingness to pursue stronger retention policies was, imo, his biggest faux pas in foreign policy choices. But there was broad consensus, post-USSR, that serious cuts were going to occur. The arguments over how deep to cut , between mainstreamers on both sides, were not so enormous that the end result would have been would have been hugely different in matters like retention rates. I've long suspected a fair number of those early outs were a response to things like Clinton's draft record and his 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, that offspring of a horse and mule committee-think. But I don't view the military or the budget to belong to one guy. They belong to the USA. If the budget was overcut and requires correction, that's to the benefit of the US and we need to attend to the task. I think resolving problems is efficient. Assigning blame, especially where no corrective disciplinary action can be applied, seems pointless. And in that regard, I remain amazed at the lingering animosity towards a guy whose political career is likely a year past 'done'. How does beating a retired horse win the next race?

To: unclewest who wrote (17085)	1/23/2002 10:48:48 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

Sunday's New York Post reported that a full 89 percent of Clinton budget cuts under the president's "Reinventing Government" initiative came at the expense of the armed forces... Oh, please, guys, The New York Post as a credible source about Clinton!!! Give me a break. It's a little like believing that Rumsfeld's similar comments aren't meant to influence his attempts to increase the defense department budget. One wonders, I wonder, seriously, how the Afghan war could have been prosecuted so well, if the Clintonistas had been so destructive. Not a lot of answers for that one. John