« A Question To Ponder | Main | More Qana Propaganda »

You Have To Give Them Credit For Brazeness

Laura Lee Donoho writes about this unbelievably brazen claim by some Clinton Democrats:

A group of former Clinton administration national security experts on Tuesday joined Democrats in Congress in criticizing the Bush administration for what they called "a serious failure of civil stewardship of the military."

In a letter to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi the National Security Advisory Group expressed its "deep concern about the U.S. Army's current state of readiness" and urged them "to take immediate action to address the urgent problem."

The group is chaired by former Defense Secretary William Perry and includes other Clinton-era officials like former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger.

See what I mean about brazen? Sandy Berger! That man should be hiding under a rock in shame and never again allowed any shred of credibility on any matter of national importance, especially anything dealing with national security or defense. His name alone should earn the group laughing stock status. Even if he were not included, though, the claims are laughable to anyone who was alive during the Clinton years. Laura cites some of the reasons.
The nerve of these former Clinton administration hypocrites is incredible. Perry, Berger and Albright working for Bill Clinton used the military for global social services throughout the two terms of the Clinton administration, draining it of the readiness, training and material support needed to be ready for any and all military engagements and now they're talking funding actual military needs? Talking military readiness at this time only means one thing to Democrats......votes. November is approaching.

According to my husband who served as a Lt. COL. in the J-8 (the Joint Staff Resource Management Office) in the pentagon during Mr. Clinton's presidency, the issues regarding the readiness posture of the Armed Forces are directly attributable to Mr. Clinton and the democrats.
President Bush inherited a military that was drastically different from what it had been prior to Clinton. Although the first Bush started some cuts to the military, his were nothing compared to the massive cuts by Clinton and were closely coordinated with his military advisors. Clinton directed the cuts with little regard to the issues and concerns put forward by the Joint Staff. Clinton's only requirement was that the cuts not be real obvious to the casual observer.

The military lost the Depot System, which had quickly provided replacement parts, ammunition, and service to military vehicles. It was replaced by contractor support which in the long run has cost a great deal more than the old system and has not provided timely material requirements as the old system did.

Read it all, as well as Laura's earlier post on this subject as it relates to the generals. Here is an excerpt from it:
The peace dividend taken by President Clinton over his two terms castrated the military. However, to ensure that there was no bad press the Clinton administration required the cuts to be in the areas which were less visible.

A great deal of the general officers at that time rose up and in protest submitted their resignations. (this was integrity) The rumors around the Pentagon were that they would publicly decry the destruction of the military's ability to defend our country.

This did not happen. From what my husband heard through the grapevine the administration made very viable threats against the mass protest and they had a reputation of making good on their threats.

What is little known to the public is how these cuts were accomodated by the newly appointed generals who replaced those who had resigned. They redefined the support structure of the military combat units.

My husband saw the results of these cuts when he was a senior planner for the Iraq Invasion. The accomodation made by the Clinton administration generals was to do away with support structure by contracting out the majority of our logistics. This presented a tremendous amount of problems which in Iraq, resulted in the lack of specific equipment (armored Humvees, body armor, sufficient repair parts, and transportation assets) and in some cases resulted in losses.

In Laura's excellent posts at The Wide Awake Cafe, she cites specifics. Read them all.

Comments (22)

God forbid this group of re... (Below threshold)

God forbid this group of refuse get anywhere near the horns of power again.

These criminal jackass ju... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

These criminal jackass just never know when to go away. One disgrace after another. They truly believe their perpetual fraud is still working. Deport these POS Commycrats or give them a lobotomy.

From the bottom of the enli... (Below threshold)

From the bottom of the enlisted heap, serving under Clinton was a slow seepage of troops... people would transfer out of the shop and no one would transfer back in again. Scheduling shifts got harder and finding time for "military" training got harder. By military training I mean all the training necessary for "what if people start shooting at us", "what if we have to pick up and move", "what if we have personel losses", "what if our position is overrun." Our continuity files (so a whole different crew could run the shop without anyone there to show them procedures or where anything was kept) went to crap in short order.

Rather than enlistment bonuses troops often qualified for non-enlistment bonuses... a nice fat severance check if you chose not to stay in the miltiary. Normally I'm tremendously critical of anyone who takes the pregnancy route out of the military, but they *wanted* us to leave, the more the better. So I did.

(If I'd been thinking straight I'd have stayed one more year and got *paid* to leave. Never NEVER make important decisions while half your brain is mush.)

Didn't a few come out for a... (Below threshold)

Didn't a few come out for armed strikes, for Pete's sake, against North Korea and its missiles?

That's the ultimate nerve, egging on this administration to do what they would never contemplate doing in the Clinton administration.

Like so many of their ilk, they can't see the staggering hypocrisy.

Ooooh, that's quite a group... (Below threshold)

Ooooh, that's quite a group of turds collecting at the bottom of the cesspool. Do democrats actually do anything productive?

Interesting figures from US... (Below threshold)

Interesting figures from USA Today, passed along in Buckley's latest column, comparing spending changes, adjusted for inflation, for an entire presidency, for defense among other things.

Here are the just some of the numbers that he provides, for overall changes in defense spending...

Johnson, +5% (Vietnam escalation)
Nixon/Ford, -6% (post-Vietnam reductions)
Reagan, +4% (I thought this would be higher)
Bush, GHW, -4% (post-cold war downsizing)
Clinton, -2%
Bush, GW, +8%

I dunno, I find it interesting that Clinton cut another 2% in the face of increasing world-wide terror attacks, including in the US and on our citizens, after dad Bush had already scaled back the cold war military. In other words, what do you cut after you've already started cutting to the bone? And, speaking as someone definitely on the right side of the aisle, don't forget to ask why Newt went along with it in the name of a balanced budget. It's only fair.

Oh, and here's a really interesting figure...Johnson boosted defense spending 5% and education spending an eye-popping 31%. Makes me sorta think there's a typo in there. Either that or the federal government was spending next to nothing on education...if true I'd have to say 'those were the days'.

And, speaking as someone... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

And, speaking as someone definitely on the right side of the aisle, don't forget to ask why Newt went along with it in the name of a balanced budget. It's only fair.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;

US Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8

Clinton signed them into law, but Congress wrote the bills. This cannot be blamed solely on the Clinton Administration, the significant amount of the blame must lie directly at Congress's feet considering it is their Constitutional duty to fund the army.

And wasn't is essentially Clinton's army that went into Afghanistan in 2001? Seems they were doing a pretty good job ther until Bush moved them over to Iraq.

And, speaking as someone... (Below threshold)

And, speaking as someone definitely on the right side of the aisle, don't forget to ask why Newt went along with it in the name of a balanced budget. It's only fair.
There is the bully pulpit.
Let's not forgot how well Clinton used the Government shutdown against Republicans when it came to the budget.

I'm Sorry, but the fact tha... (Below threshold)
Vegas Vic:

I'm Sorry, but the fact that Sandy "what Bulge Officer" Berger is NOT in jail is that the Republicans did not push his theft of Federal Documents. Some of which we're (Admittedly) destroyed by him. Anyone else would still be in federal prison writing a "tell All Book!!

Nice to see someone is prep... (Below threshold)

Nice to see someone is preparing for the future. Gawd knows Bush and the Republicans won't do it - they are so lost and dazed from all this terrorizing they've been victims of they are often seen wandering around like street people, asking for "spare votes".

Preparing what for the futu... (Below threshold)

Preparing what for the future?

Lee, you aren't even coherent. Not that it's unusual, but I keep on having hope.

Preparing what for the futu... (Below threshold)

Preparing what for the future?

Lee, you aren't even coherent. Not that it's unusual, but I keep on having hope.

Nice to see someon... (Below threshold)
Nice to see someone is preparing for the future. Gawd knows Bush and the Republicans won't do it - they are so lost and dazed from all this terrorizing they've been victims of they are often seen wandering around like street people, asking for "spare votes".

Hey Lee, if you get your wish, we won’t have any military if the next DemocRatic administration comes into power. If fact, we will be at the beck anc call of the Unholy Nations for our defense. That is what Clintoon and his cronies wanted to do. You can also be sure that if the Poodle or the Hildabeast get in, the first thing that they will do is cut and run from Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP

Synova, Thanks for asking!<... (Below threshold)

Synova, Thanks for asking!

Drink the Kool-aid and you'll see much more clearly. The Democrats have picked up the flag dropped by the Republicans, and are pushing forward on initiatives to upgrade our military readiness, which has been decimated by the Republican party's war on the MSM --

I mean war on Democrats --

I mean war on everyday American citizens --

oh you know - that whole WAR thing the conservatives have been waging on anyone that isn't White, Chrisitan, and living in a Red State.

It's obvious the military is talking with the incoming party-in-power to make ready for the future.

Hey, did you notice -- Murtha was right about the Marine's murdering civilians in Haditha. Now how did he get that inside info? hmmm.....

Paul...yeah, I knew the shu... (Below threshold)

Paul...yeah, I knew the shutdown figured into it somewhere, but still, when you consider that no one even reads the budget or knows what's in it, I do think it's fair to question Congress' role in the gutting of the military. I think you probably agree with that, though.

Oh, geez, that sounds bad..... (Below threshold)

Oh, geez, that sounds bad...I meant you'd agree that it's OK to question Congress' role...not that you'd agree with the gutting of the military.

Falze, I am not giving a pa... (Below threshold)

Falze, I am not giving a pass to Congress. Just pointing out what they had to go up against to increase Military spending.

Such as Clinton's bully pulpit and the Democrats/MSM demagoguing the "peace dividend".

Lee, you're deluded. The m... (Below threshold)

Lee, you're deluded. The military is talking to the next party in power, the one that insists that we don't ever need to fight anyone, the one who's premier expert on the military views "preparedness" as retreating so as to be "prepared" to re-deploy? It's obvious to you that the military is set to get cozy with the Democratic party? Oh, and you didn't fail to make accusations of racism and proclaim, yet again, a group of Marines guilty without trial.

You typed more words without managing to say anything. Dang, Lee. That takes talent.

If you think its true that ... (Below threshold)

If you think its true that Clinton significantly weakened our military,

(which I do.) You have to ask yourself what kind of idiots would

jump into a major conflict without rebuilding it? Or making Clinton

et al.

pay a political price for it.

Lee, each time you use the ... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Lee, each time you use the slogan "Drink the Kool-Aid", you look that much stupider. Find a new slogan, or write more coherant and on-topic posts.

By the way, Jim Jones served Flavor-Aide, not Kool-Aid.

Lee needs to sue the taxide... (Below threshold)

Lee needs to sue the taxidermist what sowed up his haid.

Momma dropped him on it when she went to find that crack pipe in her pocket book.

Perry, Albright, and Berger... (Below threshold)

Perry, Albright, and Berger ? Larry, Moe, and Curly weren't available ?

- MikeB






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy