Obama Kills Bin Ladin!

Your correct, you people have short memories
slick willie cut the SH*T, out of our military, G.W. had to REBUILT IT!

Do you recall Bush 41 doing the same? The USSR had fallen and there was no need for the size of military that we were keeping. Yep, short memories.

Good research project....

Apparently your memory is even shorter....

"When the Cold War ended 20 years ago, when I was Chairman [of the Joint Chiefs] and Mr. [Richard] Cheney was Secretary of Defense, we cut the defense budget by 25 percent, and we reduced the force by 500,000 active duty soldiers."
--Retired Gen. Colin L. Powell, January 23, 2011

At a time when the United States is facing a fiscal crisis and a mountain of debt, the former Secretary of State offered this history lesson on CNN Sunday to rebut claims that the defense budget is "sacrosanct and it can't be touched." By today's standards, the numbers seem mind-boggling. Was the defense budget really cut by 25 percent in one four-year presidential term?

The Facts

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 brought forth demands for a "peace dividend," especially from members of Congress. Even before then, military leaders such as Powell recognized that Reagan era defense spending could not sustained, so they sought ways to stay ahead of the congressional demands.

Powell, in a May 1990 interview with The Washington Post, revealed that he thought "the deepest cuts the military could withstand in dollars and troops was 20 to 25 percent." That was significantly higher that a two-percent-cut-a-year plan that Cheney advocated--and the article earned Powell a chewing out by Defense Secretary--but President George H.W. Bush ultimately embraced the idea. By curious coincidence, Bush announced the goal to draw down U.S. forces by 25 percent on August 2, 1990--the day Saddam Hussein's troops invaded Kuwait.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-c ... udget.html

Dang... "Facts are persistent things..."

TPP wrote: Your correct, you people have short memories
slick willie cut the SH*T, out of our military, G.W. had to REBUILT IT!

He cut the military budget because we were basically at peace during his term. But I'm not talking about funding levels, I'm talking about the FUBAR that was the plan for the invasion of Iraq. If you can CALL something a plan that basically depended on a great big 4th of July bombing followed by what amounts to NO PLAN AT ALL for what happens next...

This was a screw up of monumental proportions, and it can all be laid at the door of the Bush administration's lack of ability to effectively organize and execute. All hat, no cattle.

http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm? ... paper=1346

Logistics problems, which senior Army officials played down at the time, were much worse than have previously been reported. While the study serves mainly as a technical examination of how the Army performed and the problems it faced, it could also serve as a political document that could advance the Army's interests within the Pentagon.

Tank engines sat on warehouse shelves in Kuwait with no truck drivers to take them north. Broken-down trucks were scavenged for usable parts. Artillery units cannibalized parts from captured Iraqi guns to keep their howitzers operating. Army medics foraged medical supplies from combat hospitals.

In most cases, soldiers improvised solutions to keep the offensive rolling. But the study found that the Third Infantry Division, the Army's lead combat force, was within two weeks of being halted by a lack of spare parts, and Army logisticians had no effective distribution system.

"The morass of problems that confounded delivering parts and supplies - running the gamut of paper clips to tank engines - stems from the lack of a means to assign responsibility clearly," the study said.

It also found that the Pentagon's decision to send mostly combat units in the weeks before the invasion had the "unintended consequence" of holding back support troops until much later, contributing greatly to the logistics problems.

The findings are contained in a 504-page internal Army history of the war written by the Army's Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. The unclassified study, a draft of which was obtained by The New York Times, was ordered last spring by the former Army chief of staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, who clashed with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld over troop strength for postwar Iraq. It draws on interviews with 2,300 people, 68,000 photographs and nearly 120,000 documents.

Medical science is wonderful! Bin Laden is the poster child for survival after kidney failure. In the barren deserts of Pakistan he survived for 10 years without a kidney machine. Oh, the marvels of modern medicine.
Whodda thunk it?

Another mother to add to the growing list of mothers we want to honor.....my mom is still living at 93, my avatar is her 90th Birthday picture.

archer wrote: Another mother to add to the growing list of mothers we want to honor.....my mom is still living at 93, my avatar is her 90th Birthday picture.

Great picture Archer! She looks AMAZING for being 90. I would have guessed a lot younger than that. It must be wonderful still having your mum around. Enjoy every minute as I'm sure you do.

Several years ago it struck me that I had never seen my mother with makeup. I thought that strange.
archer, your mother appears in the photo to be a happy woman with an active mind.

Why didn't ya say it was from the New tork Times (the left propaganda wing)?
"The bulk of the study, a book entitled "On Point," is a lucid narrative devoted largely to detailed accounts of several pivotal battles"
The Only book I found with that title was : "On point: the United States Army in Operation Iraqi Freedom" and (unlike the posted article, on page 58 it states "Moreover, with the Army gearing up for combat the usually scarce training sources - ammunition, time, fuel - were abundant"

Phil Taylor's Web Site
The Institute of Communications Studies, University of Leeds, UK
BACK TO : PSYOPS IN IRAQ 2003-6
Army Study of Iraq War Details a 'Morass' of Supply Shortages by Eric Schmitt
New York Times, February 3, 2004
Army Study of Iraq War Details a 'Morass' of Supply Shortages
By ERIC SCHMITT
"Despite elaborate Army planning for a final battle in Baghdad - including the mapping of every section and building in the city of 5.5 million people - commanders and intelligence analysts were at a loss to determine how the Iraqis would defend Baghdad, if at all.
"Intelligence officers at all echelons continued to have great difficulty accurately describing the threat in the city," the study concluded."

Leftist with leftist agenda.
On BTW, from your hero...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-15/michael-moore-on-the-iraq-war-the-liberals-backed-it/
Liberals Sold the Iraq War
by Michael Moore Info
"Bush & Co. may be to blame for the invasion of Iraq, but the U.S. media elite and our leading newspaper, The New York Times, gave them the cover they needed.

I know we've been "free" of the Iraq War for two weeks now and our minds have turned to the new football season and Fashion Week in New York. And how exciting that the new fall TV season is just days away!

We invaded Iraq because most Americans—including good liberals like Al Franken, Nicholas Kristof and Bill Keller of The New York Times, David Remnick of The New Yorker, the editors of The Atlantic and The New Republic, Harvey Weinstein, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and John Kerry—wanted to."

So, as you clearly see it can't ALL "be laid at the door of the Bush administration".


Edited: Also why did the dems ok the mission if they didn't want to?
Senate approves Iraq war resolutionIRAQ
October 11, 2002
In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-10-11/politics/iraq.us_1_biological-weapons-weapons-inspectors-iraq?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Oct. 11, 2002
Congress Says Yes To Iraq Resolution
Senate Joins House In Giving Bush War Authorization(CBS) Both the House and the Senate have now voted to authorize war-making powers for President Bush, who heralded the chamber's vote as a resounding message to United Nations and to the world that "the gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally."
In the House, the vote was 296-133, with a majority of Democrats voting against the resolution.
In the Senate, the vote was 77-23, with 21 Democrats voting no, joined by Independent Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont and Republican Sen. Linc Chafee of Rhode Island.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/attack/main524191.shtml