(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Because his dimwit father did?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer



To expand on that, I wonder is why Bush supporters think
he is strong on defense.

Even the Project for a New American Century criticized
Bush's defense policy (even asking Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz
to resign!) for all of 2001 up until sep 10, 2001.

Then 9/11 hit despite the warnings of Richard Clarke,
the FBI's John O'Neill (who left to work for the WTC
in Aug 2001), Hart/Rudman report, the April 2001 PDB,
and Janet Reno's prioritizing of terrorism.

So Bush has warning throughout 2001 and *conservative*
criticism on defense and *then* 9/11 hits?

What would you think the natural reaction should be?

Post-9/11 *any* President would be strong on Defense.
Running up the record deficits Bush has, *any* President
could spent their way into a somewhat recovering economy.

I think Team Bush fell asleep at the wheel.

- Bush was more concerned with tax cuts and China.
- Rumsfeld was more concerned with missile defense.
- Ashcroft was more concerned with Christian-based moralizing.
- Rice was more concerned with *not* "policing" the world.
- Cheney was meeting with Kenneth Lay.

9/11 hits and Team Bush has to cover their asses.

Fortunately Team Wolfowitz, Feith and Pearle have a
ready-made war plan to dust off.


http://www.newamericancentury.org/def_natl_sec_025.htm
Aug 14, 2000 Business week. "Bush's Foreign Policy: Like Father,
Like Son?" by Stan Crock - Summary: Daddy Bush might have
gone to war in Iraq in part for oil, but he was not ideological
like W might be. Daddy Bush acted in a way that was strategically
good for America and far more pragmatic than W who might back
policies for moralistic reasons. One key factor is W's
influential advisor (Chalabi's schoolmate) Paul Wolfowitz.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010116.htm
Jan 16, 2001 New American Century Memorandum by Thomas Donnelly
"Gulf War Anniversary." Summary: The need to go into Iraq to
unseat Saddam from power will require a much larger military
force than it did ten years ago, even if the Iraqi army will
likely collapse even more quickly than during the Gulf War.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Ed...l_Jan22_01.pdf
Jan 22, 2001 The Weekly Standard. "Spend More on Defense Now" by
Gary Schmitt and Tom Donnelly. Summary: W has not yet
increased Defense spending within the first few weeks of his
inauguration like Reagan did.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010207.htm
Feb 7, 2001 Washington Post. "Read My Lips, Part II - Shorting the
Military" by Robert Kagan. Summary: Ari Fleischer announces
that Bush will not seek Defense budget increases for FY 2001 or
2002, deferring to the budgets Clinton left behind - This despite
Bush's strong-on-defense campaign run.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/af...tan-030801.htm
Mar 8, 2001 New York Times. "Taking Sides in Afghanistan" by Reuel
Marc Gerecht. Summary: Osama bin Laden, Afghanstan resident
since 1996, may have found a spiritual connection with the
Taliban. Citing long-standing problems beginning with the Clinton
administration, Bush is urged to focus on Afghanistan in light of
the Cole bombing.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Ed...l_Mar12_01.pdf
Mar 12, 2001 The Weekly Standard: Editorial "Clinton's Foreign
Policy" by Robert Kagan and William Kristol. Summary: Bush's
adoption of Clinton's meager Defense budget might have been
motivated by budgetary reasons related to Bush's desire for tax
cuts. Bush's contemplation of easing sanctions on Iraq might be
signal a further weakening of America's resolve.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20010514.htm
May 14, 2001 The Weekly Standard. "Liberate Iraq" by Reuel Marc
Gerecht. Summary: Discusses the unfinished business the US has
with Saddam. Saddam's tenacity betrays an apparent American
weakness. They fear Bush may take the "French" approach of
diplomacy. There are chances that Bush may fight, but such an
endeavor must be done with the proper resources and cannot be done
on the cheap. There is also an even-handed assessment of Chalabi,
who may or may not be a credible advisor.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010604.htm
Jun 4, 2001 The Weekly Standard: Memorandum. "Defense" by Gary
Schmitt. Summary: Citing the New York Times and The Weekly
Standard, there is concern that the military budget might be
neglected in favor of Bush's tax cuts.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/nato-20010618.htm
Jun 18, 2001: The Washington Post. "A Good Week's Work" by Robert
Kagan. Summary: Bush is quoted as saying "I am not a
unilateralist." when addressing Europe, as he rejected his
counsel to pull troops out of the Balkans. The "no more peace-
keeping" doctrine favored by Rice and Rumsfeld was scuttled.
(Nothing to do with Iraq. Just a reference to the above
discussion about Clinton's decision to go after Milosovic.)

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-070601.htm
Jul 6, 2001 New American Century Memorandum "Iraq" by Tom Donnelly.
Summary: Bush's tough campaign talk regarding the Persian Gulf
may go unrealized. Furthermore, Rumsfeld's defense review may
wipe out 20% of Army combat units, which may require any
occupation of Iraq to pull too many forces from the US, Europe
and Korea.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010712.htm
Jul 12, 2001 New American Century Memorandum "Defense" by William
Kristol and Gary Schmitt. Summary: Bush's defense spending is
being sacrificed for tax cuts and a fear against cutting domestic
spending. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld are asking for more Defense
spending, citing a lack of vision in 1950 when defense spending
was lax just prior to US engagement in Korea.

www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010723.pdf
Jul 23, 2001 The Weekly Standard Editorial. "No Defense" by Robert
Kagan and William Kristol. Summary: Advice to Rumsfeld and
Wolfowitz: resign. Rumsfeld asked for a minimum of $35 billion
for FY 2002 and was given $18 billion by Bush's administration.
There is also concern about replacing the decades-old two-war
standard for a smaller, sleeker, more technologically-dependant
military, which would require a thinning of military resources
in Europe and East Asia. An incursion into Iraq might further
stretch our resources.

www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010730.pdf
Jul 30, 2001 The Weekly Standard. "A Cowering Superpower" by Reuel
Marc Gerecht. Summary: bin Laden's bombing of the Cole and the
tenacity of Saddam Hussein to resist the US might enable
terrorists who might see America as a paper tiger. It also
mentions the threats of al Quaeda "sleepers" and the efficacy of
worldwide CNN terrorist bulletins. It also deeply criticizes
the proposed "smart sanctions" against Iraq.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/nato-20010805.htm
Aug 5, 2001 The New York Times. Allies in America's National
Interest by Jeffrey Gedmin and Gary Schmitt. Summary:
Criticizes Bush's unilateral position on rejecting Kyoto. Says
a long-term consequence may be that other pacts dependant on
international cooperation might suffer, specifically those
regarding Iraq and Iran.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010910.htm
Sep 10, 2001 The Weekly Standard. The Phony Defense Budget War by
Gary Schmitt and Tom Donnelly. Summary: Another critique
against Bush's priority of tax cuts over increasing the military
budget. It also criticizes the renouncing of the standard of
winning two "major theater wars" in favor of a smaller military
which would likely make an occupation of Iraq difficult or
impossible.