Did Clinton 'Gut' the Military? Guess not.

Policy Research: "Did Clinton 'Gut' the Military?" Interesting to see common perceptions, reinforced by years of political campaigning and media spin, combatted with black and white facts. I did similar research this summer, when hanging out with someone on a sporadic basis who said this same thing on a regular basis when I was with her. Truth of the matter, when looking at actual budget numbers, is that Democrats don't necessarily spend less, or have less of a committment to defense spending, than Republicans. Having said that, this is not the issue I usually have with the Democrats, it's fiscal responsibility. Oddly, they have turned the tables on that as well in recent years.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.

5 Comments

Comments:

Sorry Bump you may be right on your numbers, but what they did do was prevent important agencies like the CIA & FBI from sharing imformation that could have helped prevent some, if not all of the events that transpired on 9/11. Just refer to some of the wonderful work that Jaimie Gorlack (sp) did on behalf of her boss Janet Reno to prevent information sharing and it's a wonder she wasn't on the other side of the 9/11 Commission being questioned instead of asking the questions.Bob from CT.

Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on 5:31 PM

An interesting attempt at changing the subject, but the premise of my statement was defense spending, not inter-agency communication. In no way was I attempting to say that the Clinton administration was without guilt on 9/11, and nowhere did I say such a thing.

Posted by Blogger Robert on 9:08 PM

Robert,
You missed my point on " Did Clinton Gut the Military ". There are different ways to accomplish the objective and economics ( $ ) is but one way and on that point you are indeed correct.But take a closer look at the actions of a number of individuals in his administration who did " gut the military " with their nefarious acts ( like Ms. Gorlack (sp)) and I think I may be right. Just look at Clinton's own lack of appropriate action when the Sudanese offered him Ben Laden on a silver platter and he refused to take him.Case rests! Bob from CT.

Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on 3:01 PM

Well, the last time I checked, the CIA and FBI were not branches of our military. They are not part of the department of defense, do not share it's budgets, etc.. You continue to attempt to drag me into a blame game about 9/11, which has/had nothing to do with my original post, despite your assertions otherwise. I was quite clear about the intent of my post then, and remain perfectly clear about it now. Again, since you insist on reading things into what I write, this post wasn't meant as a sweeping endorsement of the Clinton Administration's national security policies. There is plenty of blame for 911 to go around to all parties, all politicians that have been in the White House in the last 16 years, and for the partisan approach to law enforcement that our politicians cannot seem to move past even now, after we have been attacked. Feel free to rest your case, it's not called for here, and is falling on deaf ears.

BTW, I'm fully aware of Jamie Gorelick (that's the correct spelling for your future reference) and her terrible judgment in instituting a "wall" between the foreign investigation and domestic investigation presences in our law enforcement branches.

Posted by Blogger Robert on 3:58 PM

Robert,
You're splitting hairs, when it comes to the safety and the security of the American people it's all about the military and the combined agencies that share that responsibility. We live in a different world today and wars are no longer fought by conventional armies as 9/11 has tought us. BTW thanks for the spelling lesson. yours, Bob from CT.

Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on 10:42 PM

Post a Comment