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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (331386)	4/2/2007 3:17:32 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572946

"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.