Girly-men repubs; soft on defense, always destroying the defense budget

Is it even possible to get more things wrong in such a short sentence??? Not very easily. Good grief, rightwingnuts are such totally duped, conned, tricked rubes!

These clowns destroy the defense budget, then blame Bush that the soldiers don't have enough equipment. They eviscerate military manpower and then complain that Bush didn't send enough troops to war (after they complained that he shouldn't have sent any to war in the first place).

http://www.all-encompassingly.com/archives/000382.php

1.These clowns destroy the defense budget,

FACTS:

-With the exception of Ronald Reagan, every Cold War Republican president actually cut military spending. Every Cold War Democratic President increased it.

-Republican Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford cut defense while Democrats Kennedy, Johnson and Carter increased defense spending.

http://www.cdi.org/issues/milspend.html

GHW Bush:

"Two years ago, I began planning cuts in military spending that reflected the changes of the new era. But now, this year, with imperial communism gone, that process can be accelerated. After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office."

-State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992
http://www.c-span.org/executive/transcript.asp?cat=current_event&code=bush_admin&year=1992

*sigh* Rightwingnuts. Always destroying the defense budget.

Rumsfeld:

"Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend."

Cheney

"The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward. AH-64 . . . forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.

-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Jan. 31, 1992

Cheney proceeded to lay into the then-Democratically controlled Congress for refusing to cut more weapons systems.

"Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them."

-Secretary of Defense Cheney, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, February 1 1992,

Gen. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearings, testifying about plans to cut Army divisions by one-third, Navy aircraft carriers by one-fifth, and active armed forces by half a million men and women, to say nothing of "major reductions" in fighter wings and strategic bombers.

*sigh* Rightwingnuts. SOFT on defense.

gw bush

2005 budget; Pentagon plans to cut costly weapons programs such as an Air Force advanced fighter plane, a stealthy Navy destroyer and the next generation of nuclear submarines. Bush's missile defense program would likewise lose billions of dollars in funding in coming years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3319-2005Feb6.html

Pentagon Scales Back Arms Plans

Rising war costs and a stubborn budget deficit have forced the Pentagon to propose billions of dollars in cuts to advanced weapons systems...

With the cutbacks and additions, the Pentagon would trim $30 billion over the next six years from its original $89 billion defense buildup.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48425-2005Jan4.html

Plans to reduce Pentagon spending for weapons in order to pay for the war in Iraq would cut sharply into missile-defense programs managed in Huntsville and kill two Army missile programs outright.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's office wants to slash missile-defense spending by $1 billion in the fiscal 2006 budget that the White House plans to send Congress in the next few weeks. The plan would continue to reduce missile-defense spending by $800 million a year until 2011.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050123-missile-projects.htm

So of course blame the libruls.

Claim: Senator John Kerry "voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988."

Status: False.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp

2. then blame Bush that the soldiers don't have enough equipment

-As pointed out in #1, it's the republican girly-men doing the cutting.

And all this time, I'd thought it was BUSH THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF who ordered our troops rushed to war. Gee, me a US military officer's wife for over a decade, and all that time, I thought it was the responsibility of the CiC to ensure the troops have all they need BEFORE the CiC rushes them to war.

Cushy job! All the glory! No danger! Fly around on the taxpayers' dollars in cool jets! Order American men, women & teens to war to die for your lies! And NO RESPONSIBILITY OR ACCOUNTABILITY at all!

repub girly-men. :eyes:

3. eviscerate military manpower

Gen. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearings, testifying about plans to cut active armed forces by half a million men and women.
-testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Jan. 31, 1992

Rumsfeld

"...for the first time in 35 years, U.S. military leaders are talking about increasing troop strength. To some politicians and commentators, the bombing of the lightly guarded U.N. headquarters in Baghdad last week was an argument for increasing not only the U.S. presence in Iraq but the overall size of the military too. Officially, the Pentagon insisted that neither was necessary.

As for the idea of expanding the Army generally, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is opposed.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030901-army-stretched01.htm

Lawmakers have already authorised the Pentagon to use emergency war budgets temporarily to increase the size of the army by 30,000 to 512,000 soldiers. But Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, has opposed legislative changes that would force the army permanently to increase its so-called "end strength" or numbers.

http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=1456

Dick Cheney

Cheney also moved to cut the armed forces by a half-million troops, and to shut down more than 40 military bases that, as a result, would no longer be needed.

http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Dick_Cheney_Defense.htm

bush Cartel

More Military Bases in US to Be Closed

The Pentagon plans to shut down or scale back some of the 425 facilities, the first such effort to save money in 10 years. The downsizing is part of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's long-term transformation of the Cold War-era military.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=516956

Soldiers and their families can just live on the street. Maybe bush will spring for a cardboard box per family. Nahhhh. bush is a cheap bastard who hates spending a dime on our troops.

No Bankruptcy Protection for Troops

U.S. Senate Republicans blocked an effort by Democrats to shield military personnel from changes to bankruptcy law that would force more debtors to repay their creditors.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aamWalvvBr.8&refer=us

Veterans' Benefits "hurtful" to National Security, says Pentagon

The Wall Street Journal describes the pittance set aside for veteran’s benefits as "Congress’ generosity," even as the Republican-controlled Congress and Bush Pentagon get set to slash billions more from Veterans Administration’s (VA) programs. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (1-25-05), Pentagon official David Chu, in a mockery of the contribution of veterans, defended a new round of cuts by ironically describing funding for programs like veterans’ education and job training, health care, pensions, VA housing and the like as "hurtful" to national security.
http://classwarnotes.blogspot.com/2005/01/veterans-benefits-hurtful-to-national_26.html

Back from Iraq - and suddenly out on the streets

An increasing number of veterans returning from Iraq or Afghanistan ending up homeless. Psychological trauma, high housing costs, gaps in pay between civilians and the military which mean ex-servicemen cannot save for deposits and the lag in getting VA assistance all contribute to this growing problem.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0208/p02s01-ussc.html

Bush Budget Raises Drug Prices for Many Veterans

President Bush's budget would more than double the co-payment charged to many veterans for prescription drugs and would require some to pay a new fee of $250 a year for the privilege of using government health care, administration officials said...

The government had no immediate estimate of how many veterans would be affected if the user fee and co-payment proposals were adopted. But veterans' groups said that hundreds of thousands of people would end up paying more and that many would be affected by both changes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/politics/07budget.html?oref=login

Soldiers dying for lack of $20 tourniquets

Since at least a month before the war in Iraq began, medical experts in the Army and other services have called on the Pentagon to equip every American soldier in the war zone with a modern tourniquet. The simple first-aid tool - a more sophisticated version of the cloth-and-stick device used by armies for centuries - could all but eliminate deaths caused by blood loss from extremity wounds, the most common cause of preventable death in combat, they argue. The cost would not likely exceed $2 million, or about two-thousandths of a percent of the $82 billion proposed for the war this year.

Yet many of the nation's soldiers - tens of thousands, some doctors and Army medical officials estimate - continue to enter battle without tourniquets. And some bleed to death from battlefield injuries that would not be life-threatening if a proper tourniquet were available, according to more than a dozen military doctors and medics...
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.tourniquet06mar06,1,4505132.story?coll=bal-home-utility&ctrack=3&cset=true

So of course blame the libruls. Ain't that a GIRLY-MAN thing to do.

4. and then complain that Bush didn't send enough troops to war (after they complained that he shouldn't have sent any to war in the first place).

Wow. :wow: That's even stupid for rightwingnuts.

We DIDN'T want our troops sent to an illegal war of aggression; many REPUBLICANS didn't want it, either. In fact, the vast majority of the entire world didn't want it. But bush and his little love-bots were going to rush our troops to invasion come hell or high water.

THE VERY FRIGGING LEAST bush could have done, determined as he was to send them regardless, was to ensure ENOUGH TROOPS got sent to do the job bush ordered them to do and which would have provided more SECURITY AND SAFETY FOR THE TROOPS.

Now think about how STUPID the rethugerinas gotta be to not have understood us "clowns".

Rightwingnuts; stupidest MFer GIRLY-MEN on the planet.

It's clearly misogynist to equate the term girly = weak ... just a polite request and/or suggestion NOT to buy into the ArNold *craze* and perhaps instead choose "gutless wonder" or "wimpish" Republicans?

FYI I have the pleasure of interacting with real GIRLYs between the ages of 10 and 12 years old, who could kick most BURLY men's butts down the street (and back!). Hint: In martial arts, knowledge and conditioning far outweigh brute strength.

Excuse please, but DAMN I hate that term!

Signed - A Girly Woman. :P

might, just maybe, have been being a bit facetious? Possibly, just maybe, using that term because it's one of "their" own that she can throw in their faces?

Sheesh.

Redstone

I don't know why we always have to argue our defense position. Do they honestly think that Democrats want an America that's totally defenseless? How do they get away with spreading the word that we want to eliminate the military?

We don't. We do, however, want to get to a point where we wouldn't need a military. The summit of defense. As Sun Tzu put it in The Art of War: "Winning 100 victories in 100 battles is not the greatest accomplishment of warfare, undermining your enemy without fighting is."

Anyway... this reminds me of a certain desktop image:

Anyway, thanks for the info!

Why do we as the greatest superpower in the world have to keep acting like the playground bully to PROVE our strength?

Our military power is there for all to see without all this senseless KILLING. I'm saddened that our great nation determined a horrific path of preemption and invaded a country that was NOT a threat to our existence. This is a breech of international law.

Strength is not constantly proclaiming your superiority. I regret that we've seen too many Action Movies and have mistaken them for reality.

Look at our true WWII war heroes who later on served in politics. The men who proved to be the most heroic and patriotic, are also those who don't choose "war" as the first solution. The names George McGovern and Jimmy Carter come first to mind.

As Democrats we should NOT play the Right Wing Radicals SICK demonstrative game: Who's the biggest, baddest MF on this planet.

Why must we play well with other nations of the world? Because we will find out AGAIN that it's Human Dignity and persistence that cumulates into Nationalism ... this unending struggle and resistance will serve to once again hand the mighty USA our "Empire wannabe" a**es by the end of the decade.

When will we ever learn? Our strength would be respected around the world if we used it for humanitarian purposes, environmental protections and nuclear disarmaments. Too bad that would only be true leadership and not exciting like some Bruce Willis "die hard" flick. :(

Can't justify spending new money on new smarter weapons if the old ones they were bragging about are still in inventory.

I still contend the first Gulf War was strictly about simultaneous muscle flexing and inventory turnover.
The Professor

many off dees Republican Gurly-men vus too busy vashing ouwt dere prettee liddel dolly clowse and peenk liddel tooo-toos to go to Veeyet-nahm!

But they trundled men and women off to war without giving it a second thought.

and teach the little girly boys and girls from all backgrounds that das no *reset* button when their older siblings are shipped off to the Middle East.

"Bang Bang, Game over man." Big brother is coming home in a box.

But I do agree that teaching the reality and consequences of violence is indeed an excellent idea.