You might want to check your facts. The military that provided for victory in Afganistan and Iraq was funded under the Clinton administration. I accept that Clinton managed the economy well enough so that there was a surge in taxes which allowed that administration to have surpluses. I also accept that there was a decrease in military spending under Clinton compared to the Cold War period. That still doesn’t change the facts that under Clinton surpluses were run and under Bush there has been nothing but deficit spending.
You might also be interested to know that adjusted for inflation to current dollars in 1986 the US spent 273 billion on defence and in 1996 under clinton it spent 266 billion. That is a difference of less than 2%. In fact the Clinton budget was greater than the out going Cheney DOD budget.
The military that took on Saddam and Afganistan was the military built up and funded under Clinton. As the First Bush defence budget didn’t come into effect until October 2002.
As Cheney said himself “A commander in Chief leads the military built by those who came before him. There is little that he or his defense secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy. It is all the work of the previous administrations.” August 2,000
TC,
I’m not American so I’m not so familiar with racial politics. I admire her in many regards, but think she has been ineffectual.
Although I might add when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Bill which more Republicans than Democrats voted for because the Southern Democrats were ultra-conservative (Dixiecrats) he said, “We’ll lose the South for generations for this.” He was right. After which the southern states have primarily voted Republican.
Yeah, I think “fucking crazies” said publicly will easily get you fired out of this administration. [/quote]
I don’t buy the Guardian’s drivel, though. Powell is many things, but an ass is not one of them.[/quote]
I like to believe that Colin Powell thinks that but I have to say I agree it’s improbable he would say something like that outright to a foreign minister. He’s too disciplined.
Which leaves the chilling thought that the only reason the Bush Administration had for wanting to push such a statesman out of government was that he wasn’t rabidly partisan enough even for them.
Placing the words “Gen. Colin Powell” and “statesman” in the same aentence is severly streching to make a point. Gen. Powell signed up for 1 term. He fulfilled he deal. He is a disciplined soldier and an intelligent man. He was a moderating balance, many would say too moderate, but his job was/is to carry the Gov’ts view. He did this.
A big question is: Will he turn author and cash in? If he does, what will he present and in what terms?
I think he’s looking at a hell of a lot of sheckles for his official ‘memoirs.’
Well, you can hardly blame me, then: you’re fired!
You better include Powell in your list of ‘fanatical loons.’ From the Guardian piece:
“Powell had wanted to stay on for the first six months of Bush’s second term to help shepherd a new Middle East peace process, but the president insisted on his resignation.”
It’s not just me and my fellow loons who expected Powell to last longer than one term. Powell was clearly fired; the question is, why?
What, the most powerful man on earth has “no choice?” And how could a lowly SecTreas “torpedo” anything by that same president?
:loco:
This is just more BS from Bushies: making excuses for the president, assuming you know what he’s ‘thinking’, a knee-jerk dismissal of his fuckups as easy evidence of Bush’s conservative kernel rather than holding him accountable for them, and from there consistently mistaking loyalty to Bush for loyalty to the US.
Well, you can hardly blame me, then: you’re fired![/quote]
You can’t fire me; you have no power over me. Yet another of your delusions of grandeur? (Suggestion: try having delusions of adequacy first and work your way up.)
[quote=“flake”]You better include Powell in your list of ‘fanatical loons.’ From the Guardian piece:
“Powell had wanted to stay on for the first six months of Bush’s second term to help shepherd a new Middle East peace process, but the president insisted on his resignation.”[/quote]
But as I already mentioned, I think the Guardian is full of crap, just as it usually is. If Powell ever writes his memoirs and claims this to be the case, then I will believe it – but I will also think considerably less of him for his apparent attitude problem.
How is it clear? Because the Guardian says so??
What, the most powerful man on earth has “no choice?” And how could a lowly SecTreas “torpedo” anything by that same president? [/quote]
You truly are an idiot, but that’s been noted before.
If a SUBORDINATE refuses to implement policy, and actively opposes policy, then yes, the manager has no choice but to fire the subordinate. The former SecTreas was deliberately attempting to sabotage Bush’s tax cuts, and finally went into open revolt over Bush’s plan. Bush had no choice but to tell him to pack his desk and leave. Said SecTreas then wrote a nasty little book which promptly hit the remainder shelves. Good riddance to him, whatever his name was, and may history forget that he ever existed save as a footnote.
You truly are . . . oh yeah, said that already. Anyway, (1) what fuckups? and (2) huh? You seem to be the one who is ASSuming that the Guardian is printing anything more accurate than the crap that not even Kitty Kelly could stomach putting in her recent fiction-based hitpiece.
[quote=“flike*”]You better include Powell in your list of ‘fanatical loons.’ From the Guardian piece:
“Powell had wanted to stay on for the first six months of Bush’s second term to help shepherd a new Middle East peace process, but the president insisted on his resignation.”[/quote]
Christ, if the Guardian and Regnery both say the same thing, stick a fork in it: Powell was clearly fired.
Maybe you can enlighten me: How did O’Neill refuse to implement Bush’s fiscal policies? How did O’Neill ‘deliberately attempt to sabotage Bush’s tax cuts?’ How did he go into ‘open revolt’? For instance, were there guns involved? (Hmmmm… )
Because I don’t remember it happening that way, and I doubt you can back up ‘torpedo’ or ‘sabotage’ or ‘open revolt’ without going to newsmax or frontpagemag or some other flaky news source. Of course, these terms could all likely be found in Soldier of Fortune magazine. (Hmmmm…)
Your denial is just more of the worst kind of BS from Bushies: making excuses for the president, assuming you know what he’s ‘thinking’, a knee-jerk dismissal of his fuckups as easy evidence of Bush’s conservative kernel rather than holding him accountable for them, and from there consistently mistaking loyalty to Bush for loyalty to the US.
*–Going in and changing my name throughout is a cowardly way to debate. Why don’t you grow the fuck up.
)
)