The Laughing Man
April 15th 2003, 10:37 PM
These people just can't let Clinton go. If they could break the law and make him president again (and permanently), they no doubt would. Geez...
The Truth About Clinton’s Military (http://www.bushcountry.org/news/columnists/jonathan-clark/c_041503_jonathan-clark_clinton_military.htm)
It started on Wednesday with a column from Tribune Media Services writer, Matthew Miller. Miller, who it should be noted, served as Senior Advisor to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1993 to 1995 – the Clinton years part I. In his April 9th column he attempts to credit Bill Clinton with the effectiveness of today’s military.
"The remarkable feats in Iraq are being performed by Bill Clinton's military.
...
Miller then had the audacity to attempt a re-write of history to paint Clinton as a supporter of the military and sustained defense budgets.
"But politics explains why Bill Clinton insisted the Pentagon maintain a Cold War budget even without a Cold War, to protect his party's right flank."
I hate to confuse the situation with the facts Mr. Miller, but quite the opposite is true. The Clinton/Gore Administration stretched our military forces very thin from 1993 to 1999. In addition, they increased spending on social experiments while cutting defense spending."
...
Pelosi talked of the toppling of Saddam’s regime as if were some sort of public works project. And as Mrs. Pelosi praised the troops, she also said their success was owed "in large measure" to former President Bill Clinton.
Pelosi continued with the left’s defense of Clinton saying "This best-trained, best-equipped, best-led force for peace in the history of the world was not invented in the last two years. This had a strong influence and strong support during the Clinton years," she said.
The problem with this line of reasoning besides it being factually incorrect is that if this is ‘Clinton’s Military’, then this is also ‘Clinton’s Economy’. As always they want to have it both ways.
Funny how just last week, the pundits were blaming Bush for basically what amounted to their own impatience with how they thought the war should have progressed. Now that the success is so overwhelmingly apparent, they attempt to re-write history.
Ah, but of course Bush didn't inherit the bad economy from Clinton. :rofl:
The Truth About Clinton’s Military (http://www.bushcountry.org/news/columnists/jonathan-clark/c_041503_jonathan-clark_clinton_military.htm)
It started on Wednesday with a column from Tribune Media Services writer, Matthew Miller. Miller, who it should be noted, served as Senior Advisor to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1993 to 1995 – the Clinton years part I. In his April 9th column he attempts to credit Bill Clinton with the effectiveness of today’s military.
"The remarkable feats in Iraq are being performed by Bill Clinton's military.
...
Miller then had the audacity to attempt a re-write of history to paint Clinton as a supporter of the military and sustained defense budgets.
"But politics explains why Bill Clinton insisted the Pentagon maintain a Cold War budget even without a Cold War, to protect his party's right flank."
I hate to confuse the situation with the facts Mr. Miller, but quite the opposite is true. The Clinton/Gore Administration stretched our military forces very thin from 1993 to 1999. In addition, they increased spending on social experiments while cutting defense spending."
...
Pelosi talked of the toppling of Saddam’s regime as if were some sort of public works project. And as Mrs. Pelosi praised the troops, she also said their success was owed "in large measure" to former President Bill Clinton.
Pelosi continued with the left’s defense of Clinton saying "This best-trained, best-equipped, best-led force for peace in the history of the world was not invented in the last two years. This had a strong influence and strong support during the Clinton years," she said.
The problem with this line of reasoning besides it being factually incorrect is that if this is ‘Clinton’s Military’, then this is also ‘Clinton’s Economy’. As always they want to have it both ways.
Funny how just last week, the pundits were blaming Bush for basically what amounted to their own impatience with how they thought the war should have progressed. Now that the success is so overwhelmingly apparent, they attempt to re-write history.
Ah, but of course Bush didn't inherit the bad economy from Clinton. :rofl: