A Republican has something nice to say about Clinton

I am a true believe in our Armed Forces and it saddens me to see someone reduce it in size and moral.

You must have been a supporter of John Kerry then? His plan to increase the size of our armed forced by 50,000 enlisted men and women sounds like it would be exactly the sort of committment you expect from a commander in cheif. Correct me if I''m wrong.

"Copingsaw" wrote:
I am a true believe in our Armed Forces and it saddens me to see someone reduce it in size and moral.

You must have been a supporter of John Kerry then? His plan to increase the size of our armed forced by 50,000 enlisted men and women sounds like it would be exactly the sort of committment you expect from a commander in cheif. Correct me if I''m wrong.

Heh. I loved John Kerry''s campaign. In the presidential debates, he was both fiscally and militarily more conservative than Bush (and engaging; the man actually had some numbers and specific thoughts beyond ""We''ll have those people look into that, and we''ll stop too much spending"").

I think he was lying, pandering for the camera and moderate base, and would never have followed through, but he certain talked a better game than Bush ever has.

Hell coping - I was trying to be all light and you had to go and toss a ""kerryism"" in here. Just because you mention something in a campaign, doesn''t mean you follow through on it. The bill for 50K more troops short and long term would be significant with all the other promises Kerry made. When it came time to make the decisions, odds are there is no way that would have happened - especially considering that the Congress, not the President authorizes final end strength of forces if i recall correctly. Then, if it did go through, I''m betting there would be no increase in funds, so where does that money come to pay the 50K troops - weapons systems...not a chance, it comes from wage/COLA/basic allowances and benefit cuts - so, in the end, you can promise to bring in 100K new troops, but that really means little when the rubber hits the road.

Heres some stuff to chew on

Personnel End Strength
FY2005 Active Mobilized * Guard Reserve Civilian TOTAL

TOTAL 1,415,600 210,252 456,800 404,100 680,466 2,923,966

DOD ----- ----- ----- ----- 106,000 106,000
Army 512,400 148,442 350,000 205,000 218,000 1,285,400
Navy 365,900 6,508 ----- 83,400 193,466 642,766
Marines 178,000 9,717 ----- 39,600 ----- 217,600
Air Force 359,300 45,585 106,800 76,100 163,000 705,200
* FY2004 Supplemental for Guard & Reserve called to active duty, Non-Add

Law authorizes the number of military members in every Service and component – this number is known as End Strength. Recruiting involves attracting and accessing both prior Service members and those who are new to the military, referred to as non-prior service.

In the 1990s the Army dropped from 780,000 to 480,000 active duty end strength. Many in Congress wanted to increase the Army''s end strength by as much as 40,000 troops in order to ease the strain of deployments. But the Army''s top general, Peter Schoomaker, adamantly opposed adding end strength. Army planners believe the service can gain 10,000 spaces from military to civilian conversions. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has authorized the Army to temporarily exceed end strength limits by 30,000. The Military Officers Association of America questioned the numbers, stating that the Army already is some 17,000 over end strength, which would bring the actual increase to 13,000.

The Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously approved the fiscal year 2005 Defense Appropriations bill on June 22, 2004 which provided $605 million to support an Army end strength increase of 20,000 soldiers, leaving the overall Department of Defense end strength of 2,263,900. The provision, passed as an amendment to the fiscal 2005 defense authorization bill, would increase the Army''s strength to 502,400. Voting against it were Republicans Gordon Smith of Oregon, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Larry Craig of Idaho and Craig Thomas of Wyoming. Not voting were Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., Robert Bennett, R-Utah and James Inhofe, R-Okla. The House version of the bill, approved in May 2004, would have added 30,000 Soldiers and 9,000 Marines over three years. Under the the fiscal 2005 Defense Appropriations Act which President Bush signed into law 05 August 2004, Air Force Reserve Command's end-strength ceiling was raised to 76,100 reservists in the Selected Reserve in 2005.

I highlighted the bold part - so yeah, asshat Kerry proclaimed he''d add 50K if elected, but couldn''t be bothered to vote for a provision similar to what he said he wanted - anybody else, even my liberal comrades, willing to toss a bullsh*t flag on Kerry''s comments in the campaign

site, fyi is http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end-strength.htm

So, um...I''m correcting you...but I still love Texas if it matters any

Far be it for me to defend Kerry but I suspect he probably didn''t vote because he was too busy campaigning. I mean, c''mon, didn''t he miss like every vote for 6 months straight or something. What would make this vote so special?

You know, it bothers me that Clinton got ragged on so bad for his cuts to the military and yet nobody complains today and everyone seems to think our current military is adequate. To me this is just another example of partisan politics. Its not about whats right for the country, its about whats right for your party.

"Copingsaw" wrote:

. . . and everyone seems to think our current military is adequate.

That simply is not true. I have seen numerous statements in the media, from military leaders, politicians, etc. that the current military is not adequate.

I''m not saying that no one finds it adequate, but to say that everyone believe it''s fine, or that there is not at least a sizeable group that believes there is a problem, is wrong.

When it came time to make the decisions, odds are there is no way that would have happened - especially considering that the Congress, not the President authorizes final end strength of forces if i recall correctly.

Hmmm...So it was not Clinton, but a Republican Congress, that cut all those troops in the 90''s? I''m just so confused by all the things Clinton did, he seems to have been in three places at once, to hear people talk.

You know, it bothers me that Clinton got ragged on so bad for his cuts to the military and yet nobody complains today and everyone seems to think our current military is adequate. To me this is just another example of partisan politics. Its not about whats right for the country, its about whats right for your party.

Yep, agree completely. Except, if we are going to fight these kind of wars, we need more soldiers.

I highlighted the bold part - so yeah, asshat Kerry proclaimed he''d add 50K if elected, but couldn''t be bothered to vote for a provision similar to what he said he wanted - anybody else, even my liberal comrades, willing to toss a bullsh*t flag on Kerry''s comments in the campaign

Kerry was in Colorado the 21st. He spoke in Aspen, then attended a fund raiser in Denver. So that night he''s about 3 or 4 hours out of DC. Despite plans to campaign all the 22nd in New Mexico, a swing state at the time, he flew back to Washington to vote on an amendment to a general funding bill that would mandate minimum healthcare benefits for veterans. (I note you excluded that from your mention of his activities that day. Hmmm.) He voted for it. Not only that, he went out of his way to attend the vote. But there''s more to it.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...

Note that that vote was 1149 AM. The Appropriations Committee met at 1045 at Dirksen. Now, take a look at this: http://64.177.207.201/pages/8_607.html

The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense considered and adopted the Fiscal Year 2005 Defense Appropriations bill on June 2; the full Committee approved it on June 16 and the House on June 22. The Committee approved $418 billion for the Pentagon, including $25 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Committee cut $458 million from missile defense, approving $9.7 billion. The bill also asks the Pentagon to sign the Boeing tanker lease deal that has been held up due to scandals involved with the program. The Senate approved the same bill on June 24. The bill now goes to a joint House-Senate conference.

The Committee vote was unanimous, and presumably Kerry knew it would pass. And hey, the debate on the Appropriations Bill starts at 0945. So he''s got an hour until the scheduled vote - at 1045, the same time as his Committee meets for the ""mark up"" session. (That''s what it was - ""mark up"", it''s right there in the schedule for the day.) Think about it - only reason he''d have to show up would be to vote against it. Are you going to claim Inhofe and Bennett were against it too? They did not show up either.

http://64.177.207.201/pages/8_598.html

So here''s the deal. Kerry shows up on the floor of the Senate, hoping the debate on the missile defense amendment will finish early - it was scheduled for an hour. Then, Bill Frist stops action to berate Kerry for missing votes due to campaigning - perfectly normal for a Presidential candidate - and announces he''s going to delay the vote. Now Kerry is screwed. He can''t leave, they''d vote right away without him. But there''s no way he can make it to the Committee mark up vote, and he knows now they''ll make it hurt either way. So he stays and votes on the bill that actually matters, rather than the procedural mark up whose outcome he already knows.

The sort of spin you presented is the result of that maneuvering specifically to make Kerry look bad. Hopefully now you can see this in a different light.

Damn you Robear...how do you find all these inner workings and details...sigh...

OK...I still don''t like Clinton or Kerry - that''s all I got...I got nothing for now

It''s all in the Congressional records. I just want people to remember that when you get down to someone saying something about ""vote X"" on such and such a date, they are usually obfuscating the record, because the progress of a bill can take months and many votes, and votes can be for procedural reasons as well as ideological ones. Also, Senators and Congressmen have voting records over their careers; it''s pretty obvious, for example, that no Senator gets onto the Armed Forces Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee without an interest in the military. That means that they are very unlikely to be kneejerk voters on military issues; their votes will be more nuanced, taking into accounts many elements beyond ""I wanna cut the military"" or ""We need more soldiers"". Their agendas show over time. There''s a reason no one held up Kerry''s career votes as evidence he was weak on the military, because that would not be what it shows. (The claims he had voted down defense funding missed the way that budgets develop; a Senator will vote down a perfectly good bill if he supports an alternative, then perhaps vote for the first one again if his choice fails; stuff like that makes tracking positions by looking at budget votes very inaccurate.) They had to pick very specific votes, and then work hard to ignore other Senator''s and politician''s similar or identical votes.

Unless you''ve got a clear, multi-year trend, or a statement on a particular vote, these one-off vote attacks are almost always partisan and inaccurate. You just happened to pick a vote that was used as a partisan attack at the time, so the news coverage was decent.

When it comes to voting record snippets attacking a politician, you should always question what the authority is telling you, because he''s trying to influence the way you think.

Damn you Robear...how do you find all these inner workings and details

I like to think of myself as an open-source analyst. Why Google hasn''t raised the average IQ of the planet I''ll never know.

To tell you the truth, I stumbled on the Kerry bit...I was just looking for end strength numbers, and that vote jumped out. Don''t think globalsecurity has a partisan position and meant anything discouraging by the article to be honest... I just highlighted it as a factoid of interest

Yep. Even GlobalSecurity could use a good analyst.

"Robear" wrote:

Why Google hasn''t raised the average IQ of the planet I''ll never know.

Because it promotes laziness which leads to retardation.

Because it promotes laziness which leads to retardation.

When you use an encyclopedia, do you bother with the index? Google is just a gihugic index.

"Dr.Ghastly" wrote:
"Robear" wrote:

Why Google hasn''t raised the average IQ of the planet I''ll never know.

Because it promotes laziness which leads to retardation.

You don''t know that; you just got it from Google.

"Robear" wrote:
Because it promotes laziness which leads to retardation.

When you use an encyclopedia, do you bother with the index? Google is just a gihugic index. :-)

I rarely use encyclopedias, or at the very least, that''s only one source in a vast collection I would/do use.

"SlyFrog" wrote:
"Dr.Ghastly" wrote:
"Robear" wrote:

Why Google hasn''t raised the average IQ of the planet I''ll never know.

Because it promotes laziness which leads to retardation.

You don''t know that; you just got it from Google.

Actually, I got that from Yahoo...conspiracies abound!