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: unclewest who wrote (16401)	11/16/2003 5:34:55 PM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793622

Like I said in my previous post, your original complaint was emphasizing the cuts in military personnel. Military personnel under Bush has not increased -- perhaps it has even decreased. The spending increases you are trumpeting are largely operational increases because of the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush record on military spending is far worse than Clinton. Bush started the war on terror, including the invasion and occupation of two sizable countries on the other side of the world without asking for any extra soldiers -- soldiers I am sure Congress will have readily given him after 9/11. He instead chose to push tax cuts. The country was ready to sacrifice, and Bush chose to reward his rich campaign contributors (for the most part). His conduct in this regard is reprehensible, and we are paying dearly for it by our apparent retreat in Iraq.