March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Who's Online Now
6 members (Ian Forrester, GSPWillie, Tim in PA, R. Glenz, Ted Schefelbein, steve voss), 809 guests, and 4 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics38,374
Posts544,009
Members14,391
Most Online1,131
Jan 21st, 2024
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 17 of 19 1 2 15 16 17 18 19
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Member
**
Offline
Member
**

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
The so-called "peace dividend" was simply a gutting of the defense budget to finance an orgy of pork and social spending. While Dems took the lead, Reps were quick to follow. The "peace dividend" evaporated without a trace, leaving an under-equipped military to pay the price. And they're still paying today.


Sample my new book at http://www.theweemadroad.com
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 122
Member
**
Offline
Member
**

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 122
I understood that the Sec. of Defense,i.e., Dick Cheney, was the architect of those Defense cuts, the rationale being that a smaller military was justifed with the ending of the Cold War and that it fit in with his pet program to privatize much of the military. It may have even moved along further under Clinton, but the initiative for this came from Defense and the then Secretary, Dick Cheney. Interestingly, this is not at all what he was saying on the campaign trail during the last two elections. I have also wondered about his supposed student deferments he was collecting during the View Nam era. He was still collecting these in graduate school and I was under the impression that they did not extend to graduate students.

Best regards,

Ed Pirie
West Topsham, Vermont

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Member
**
Offline
Member
**

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Ed: Cheney was calling for a numerically smaller, more flexible, highly trained professional military, armed with the very best weaponry and communication technology possible. Clinton and company only picked up on the "smaller" part of it, axed weapon development, and gutted the military.

Cheney's draft deferments were all entirely legitimate, and available to any full time student in his circumstances. Unlike Mr. Clinton, he did not misrepresent his intentions vis-a-vis military service, nor did he leave the country.

The fact that Cheney and his wife had a baby exactly nine months after fathers became deferred has titillated the Left for years, as if women could become instantly pregnant on demand! This is the only "proof" of "draft dodging" they have come up with!

I don't think much of Mr. Cheney. But there are plenty of valid reasons to criticize him without parroting rumors, gossip and absurd urban legends.


Sample my new book at http://www.theweemadroad.com
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 625
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 625
Originally Posted By: jack maloney

I don't think much of Mr. Cheney. But there are plenty of valid reasons to criticize him without parroting rumors, gossip and absurd urban legends.


I could do without the adjective "absurd," but I gotta say, Amen.
Jake


R. Craig Clark
jakearoo(at)cox.net
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
If Cheney deserves credit as any sort of "architect" of defense cuts, his "plan" was certainly long in execution, and well into the Clinton Administration years. Cuts were still occurring, even as Clinton was sending troops to Bosnia--and that did not start until late 95-early 96.

Much earlier, post-Vietnam, the Pentagon had concluded that we would never fight another war without significant participation from the Reserve Components (most of which sat out Nam). That theory worked extremely well, in practice, during the Gulf War. Although no National Guard combat arms units made it to the Gulf, participation by Reserve Component combat support and combat service support units was significant. The same was/is also true of the mission in the Balkans, where Reserve Components units continue to deploy.

However, while Reserve units (and individual servicemembers) were being deployed to the Balkans, units were also being eliminated. I know of a military intelligence battalion that went to Bosnia, served their 9 month tour, and came home to learn they'd been deactivated. That would have been in about 97. And it makes a heck of a lot of sense: we needed them this time, but we won't need them next time??? Likewise, we were looking high and low for military intelligence warrant officers to serve in Bosnia, while at the same time, MI warrant positions were being eliminated. My own unit, and several like it, was deactivated in early 98. Of course we weren't doing anything significant . . . just counterintelligence/counterterrorism analysis. AQ attacked our embassies in Africa 6 months later. Total cuts in the Reserve Components--all of which occurred under Clinton, as best I can remember--reduced the National Guard from around 400,000 to 300,000, and the Army Reserve from 300,000 to 200,000.

The 9/11 Commission Report puts cuts in the Intelligence Community into perspective: "The Clandestine Service (the CIA's operations arm) felt the impact of the post-Cold War peace dividend, with cuts beginning in 1992 . . . The nadir for the Clandestine Service was in 1995, when only 25 trainees became new officers." Tenet, to his credit, was able to reduce this trend in 1998--but because it takes a minimum of 5 years to run a security clearance and then recruit and train an incoming operations officer, we were still playing catchup on 9/11.

As far as draft deferments go, until the lottery system was instituted, student deferments were virtually automatic, for the asking.

Last edited by L. Brown; 05/24/07 08:41 AM.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Member
**
Offline
Member
**

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Jake: Partisan websites make a big deal of the fact that the Cheneys had their first child exactly 9 months and 2 days after deferments were granted to fathers. "Quick, Lynn! Let's make a baby!"

If Cheney were that effective, we'd be through with Iraq by now. I'll stand by "absurd."


Sample my new book at http://www.theweemadroad.com
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
However, Jack . . . if that baby was the lesbian daughter, that's what comes from overly hasty execution.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 97
Sidelock
Offline
Sidelock

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 97
This is not a political forum and we have strayed far off course with this thread, but I feel compelled to make some observations -- and then I will sign off with no further comments.
__Jakeroo -- Leave off Jake. you will not convince or change any minds here. Facts are facts. It's the interpretation of facts that sometimes leads to the parallel universe of the Bush administration. As one of his aides was quoted some time ago: "we make our own reality." You were right to capitulate in your last lengthy post, but you should have mentioned the cost (just money, not lives) of Bush's war has now reached 450 billion dollars. The projected cost with all the ancillary expenses: 2 trillion low end, 4 trillion high end. But hell, so far it's mostly off the books anyway, so why worry?
__ L.Brown -- Your credentials are adequate enough, but your defense of our intelligence community, especially the CIA and its analyses are difficult to give credence to. The CIA, despite a budget that could float several third world countries, couldn't find its own ass in the dark using both hands. But Larry, your abbreviated response to my last post is a little disingenuous. It's hard to believe you wouldn't know all about Ritter, a fellow intelligence officer and a key player and voice in the debate about Saddam's WMDs. And it's equally disingenuous to skirt one of the most damning pieces of evidence for the fraudulence of the case for war - The Downing Street memo - with the caveat that British intel had no "official" confirmation, etc. I believe you are sincere in your beliefs about this war and this administration and I can respect that. I believe equally that you are monumentally wrong -- with no disrespect intended. History will judge this war as a galactically stupid and frighteningly costly mistake. The President and the men around him, as well as the enablers in the Congress and national media deserve one of Dante's circles of hell. It would be interesting, as one writer opined recently, to know what GWB's answer would be if someone in the press corps had the balls to ask this: "How many people do you think would still be alive if you hadn't "decided" to go to war?" We have an accurate count of American soldiers, a less accurate count of Iraqis in case anyone is remotely interested (depending on which survey you accept, probably half a million). I'm still waiting to hear those numbers mentioned as often as Saddam's mass murder numbers. Please don't take this as a brief for Hussein. He didn't die slowly enough or in enough pain, but we have destroyed a country, its infrastructure, xcreated a civil war, de-stabilized the entire Middle East, and most regrettably, established a stronghold for Al Quaida where none existed previously. Enough of this. There isn't time or paper enough to list all the horror.
__ King -- I used the term unscrupulous to be politic. I agree only with your assessment that this President and administration is completely incompetent. I should have been more blunt and less fastidious. They have lied repeatedly and often, broken laws they were sworn to uphold, trashed and vilified any and all critics. I am not a Bush hater. It is hard to hate that which one holds in utter contempt.
__Jack M. -- Cheney's deferments hardly qualify as urban legend, as does GWB's service -- or dis-service --, but it is an interesting footnote that none of the principals in this administration or the neocons who provided the architecture for this war ever served. Remarkable coincidence? Fortuitous planning? Or maybe God just has a perverse sense of humor. Makes little difference until the Commander-in-Chief, with the appropriate John Wayne bravado (Wayne never served either but remains icon for every Conservative warrior mentality) utters the most ill-advised and grotesquely stupid comment a President ever made: "Bring 'em on"! Hubris, arrogance and stupidity all bound up in one package. Do I think George Bush is stupid? No, but it would be a kindness not to think him a very ignorant man.
Finally, I find it both odd and disturbing that so many on this board and elsewhere who consider themselves sportsmen and caretakers of the wild, find it so easy to support an administration - and, indeed, a political party - that consistently degrades environmental laws and regulations which can only serve to make hunting and fishing more untenable for the future. Ironic might be the correct word if you vote for those who - supposedly - allow you guns, but effectively reduce or eliminate the ability to hunt wild game with them because of the consequences of their policies.
I've had my say. If I've ruffled feathers or provoked outrage it has not been done out of malice. Opinions are ubiquitous, like navels and noses. Everyone has them. These are mine. Cheers and regards.
Will

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Member
**
Offline
Member
**

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Originally Posted By: Will S.
...the most ill-advised and grotesquely stupid comment a President ever made...


How about this one?

Quote:
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."


Sample my new book at http://www.theweemadroad.com
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Member
**
Offline
Member
**

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Originally Posted By: Will S.
...it is an interesting footnote that none of the principals in this administration or the neocons who provided the architecture for this war ever served.


Rumsfeld served in the Navy. His predecessor under Clinton did not serve.

Bush served in the National Guard. The previous president's service was purely of the lip variety.


Sample my new book at http://www.theweemadroad.com
Page 17 of 19 1 2 15 16 17 18 19

Link Copied to Clipboard

doublegunshop.com home | Welcome | Sponsors & Advertisers | DoubleGun Rack | Doublegun Book Rack

Order or request info | Other Useful Information

Updated every minute of everyday!


Copyright (c) 1993 - 2024 doublegunshop.com. All rights reserved. doublegunshop.com - Bloomfield, NY 14469. USA These materials are provided by doublegunshop.com as a service to its customers and may be used for informational purposes only. doublegunshop.com assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in these materials. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-ABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. doublegunshop.com further does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials. doublegunshop.com shall not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result from the use of these materials. doublegunshop.com may make changes to these materials, or to the products described therein, at any time without notice. doublegunshop.com makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. This is a public un-moderated forum participate at your own risk.

Note: The posting of Copyrighted material on this forum is prohibited without prior written consent of the Copyright holder. For specifics on Copyright Law and restrictions refer to: http://www.copyright.gov/laws/ - doublegunshop.com will not monitor nor will they be held liable for copyright violations presented on the BBS which is an open and un-moderated public forum.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.0.33-0+deb9u11+hw1 Page Time: 0.066s Queries: 36 (0.045s) Memory: 0.8819 MB (Peak: 1.8988 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-28 21:17:06 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS