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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (16383)	11/16/2003 5:16:18 PM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793622

I don't think this statement is correct The discussion was about cuts in the number of troops. There was hardly any increase in the number of soldiers under Bush. The defense spending increases are largely for intensified operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and new weapons. unclewest specifically complained about Clinton cutting the number of troops. Bush and the Republican Congress made no effort to increase the number of troops, even though the country will have readily supported such increase after 9/11. Instead, they chose to push tax cuts. This policy has been clearly a failure far worse than Clinton's decreases. Clinton was not faced with 9/11 and concrete plans to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush refused to substantially increase the number of troops, even though he was preparing to go to war not only in Afghanistan but also in Iraq, shortly after 9/11. We are paying for this decision by essentially cutting and running from Iraq right now.