Did I hear ABC correctly?

Yeff wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 16:33:51 -0600, No Spam! wrote:

Since the US has gutted all its Armed Forces by at least 1/3 starting
during the Clinton days,

Wrong. We were in an active draw-down at the same time we were deploying
forces for Desert Shield. That was pre-Clinton.

It was not only pre-Clinton but, unless I'm mistaken, it started under Reagan
after Gorby folded his tent and raised the economic white flag. That was when
BRAC started along with force reduction. And I do recall widespread RIFs at the
end of the Gulf War, which daddy Bush can take credit for.

I don't know what the Republicans would have done if Clinton hadn't come along
for two terms and made himself available to be blamed for everything that ever
went wrong in the world. Can you see them blaming one of their own, even when
the evidence supported placing responsibility precisely there? Not very damned
likely, especially when it would have required them to be honest about who did
what to who.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Yeff wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 16:33:51 -0600, No Spam! wrote:

Since the US has gutted all its Armed Forces by at least 1/3 starting
during the Clinton days,

Wrong. We were in an active draw-down at the same time we were
deploying
forces for Desert Shield. That was pre-Clinton.

It was not only pre-Clinton but, unless I'm mistaken, it started under
Reagan
after Gorby folded his tent and raised the economic white flag. That was
when
BRAC started along with force reduction. And I do recall widespread RIFs
at the
end of the Gulf War, which daddy Bush can take credit for.

I don't know what the Republicans would have done if Clinton hadn't come
along
for two terms and made himself available to be blamed for everything that
ever
went wrong in the world. Can you see them blaming one of their own, even
when
the evidence supported placing responsibility precisely there? Not very
damned
likely, especially when it would have required them to be honest about who
did
what to who.

George, you need to take your own advice to heart a bit. Yeah, the drawdown
started to gain steam under Bush, Sr. (but no, it was not a "RIF", not as
that term is normally used--neither was it a RIF under the Clinton
administration when it gained further steam). Great. Now, when was the last
time you found yourself able to humbly admit to one the very real mistakes
(from among many) of your hero Clinton? For example, under the Bush, Sr.
plan we did indeed draw down, but at least those remaining had training
funds--when your boy came along, those quickly evaporated to zilch (at one
point getting so bad such that we could not recruit individuals into certain
required MOS's because we lacked the funding to train them. Not good at all.
Or Clinton's handling of Somalia--Bush left him with a clear cut force
in-place to facilitate humanitarian support, and your little buddy took it
on himself to expand the mission while at the same time refusing the
requests of his commanders in the field for the few items they specifically
requested (like AC-130's and armor to support that wonderful, "Let's go get
Aidid" strategy that Clinton had laid on them) because he feared the "image"
they would create (but apparently the image of a couple of dozen or so US
KIA was just hunky-dory)? Or his vaunted promise that we'd be out of Bosnia
by 1997 (oops, we are still there, though GWB has pared that one to the
bone, and rightfully)? If you can't fess up to these Clintonian screw-ups,
then it would appear you are not much above those danged Republicans you are
squeaking about.

Brooks


George Z.

but no, it was not a "RIF", not as
that term is normally used

Uhh, that's the exact term that was used when thousands of officers were
involuntarily seperated in 1992. Twas an interesting time for a young 2nd Lt.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
but no, it was not a "RIF", not as
that term is normally used

Uhh, that's the exact term that was used when thousands of officers were
involuntarily seperated in 1992. Twas an interesting time for a young 2nd
Lt.

Well, I don't recall that happening on the US Army side of the house. I do
recall the various voluntary searation programs, including the bonus and
annuity options, and I know we got one rather fresh academy grad into our
Guard unit at that time well before his normal time because he took
advantage of the situation and requested early release. I also recall the
Army cut its requirement for *new* 2LT assessions for a short while (and
were soon right back to begging folks to come on active duty), but i just
plain don't recall any involuntary separations, especially of regulars. It
was threatened if the volunatary efforts came up short, but as I recall that
did not happen.

Brooks



BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

but i just
plain don't recall any involuntary separations, especially of regulars.

The Army seperated active duty officers as well, and did it much more fairly
than the USAF. As far as regulars being seperated, it didn't happen. Those
seperated in the USAF all had reserve commisions.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
t...

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
but no, it was not a "RIF", not as
that term is normally used

Uhh, that's the exact term that was used when thousands of officers were
involuntarily seperated in 1992. Twas an interesting time for a young
2nd
Lt.

Well, I don't recall that happening on the US Army side of the house. I do
recall the various voluntary searation programs, including the bonus and
annuity options, and I know we got one rather fresh academy grad into our
Guard unit at that time well before his normal time because he took
advantage of the situation and requested early release

I left active duty as an Army LT in 1990. The Army had already been offering
early release from active duty to Regular Army officers, including Academy
grads, in 1989.

The plans were in place in 1989 to move to a smaller army.

http://www.army.mil/aps/98/chapter2.htm

. I also recall the
Army cut its requirement for *new* 2LT assessions for a short while (and
were soon right back to begging folks to come on active duty), but i just
plain don't recall any involuntary separations, especially of regulars. It
was threatened if the volunatary efforts came up short, but as I recall
that
did not happen.

And most of the LTs getting out early in my battalion were Academy grads.
Only one stayed in.

Glenn D.

And I do recall widespread RIFs at the
end of the Gulf War, which daddy Bush can take credit for.

I don't know what the Republicans would have done if Clinton hadn't come
along
for two terms and made himself available to be blamed for

In a pre OIF interview, President Bush (41) said his last cuts, in '93, would
have been the end of his draw down. Both his Sec. of State (James Baker) and
SecDef (our current VP Cheney) backed this up. Clinton went much further, and
much faster than Bush (41) was prepared to go.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR wrote:

In a pre OIF interview, President Bush (41) said his last cuts, in
'93, would have been the end of his draw down.

He also said "no new taxes." It's very easy for Bush to say *now* that he
would have not cut further, but there's no way to be sure what would have
actually happened in the event. Congress was certainly pushing for more
cuts. They wanted (and got) a balanced budget. Defense was the most
obvious bill-payer.

I'm inclined to believe that Bush would have run into the same basic
financial constraints in a notional second term. I suspect they probably
would have reassessed their plans and made further cuts.

Both his Sec. of State
(James Baker) and SecDef (our current VP Cheney) backed this up.

Clinton went much further, and much faster than Bush (41) was
prepared to go.

Right, and they have no reason to be anything but totally frank. Granted
you can't prove a counterfactual, but what people say they would have done
is not always the same as what they would have actually done.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Granted
you can't prove a counterfactual, but what people say they would have done
is not always the same as what they would have actually done.

Bush disbanded the Base Realignment And Closure (BRAC) comittees, Clinton had
to institute them again in '94. If Bush had planned further cuts, he would have
left BRAC as a staning comittee like Clinton did from '94-99.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR wrote:
Granted
you can't prove a counterfactual, but what people say they would
have done
is not always the same as what they would have actually done.

Bush disbanded the Base Realignment And Closure (BRAC) comittees,
Clinton had to institute them again in '94. If Bush had planned
further cuts, he would have left BRAC as a staning comittee like
Clinton did from '94-99.


It might have helped if you had read the rest of my post. I did not say
Bush planned more cuts. I said he might have had to change his plans had he
gotten a second term. The fiscal pressures would have been much the same,
regardless of who was president.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)