You Have To Give Them Credit For Brazeness

Laura Lee Donoho writes about this unbelievably brazen claim by some Clinton Democrats:

A group of former Clinton administration national security experts on Tuesday joined Democrats in Congress in criticizing the Bush administration for what they called “a serious failure of civil stewardship of the military.”

In a letter to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi the National Security Advisory Group expressed its “deep concern about the U.S. Army’s current state of readiness” and urged them “to take immediate action to address the urgent problem.”

The group is chaired by former Defense Secretary William Perry and includes other Clinton-era officials like former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger.See what I mean about brazen? Sandy Berger! That man should be hiding under a rock in shame and never again allowed any shred of credibility on any matter of national importance, especially anything dealing with national security or defense. His name alone should earn the group laughing stock status. Even if he were not included, though, the claims are laughable to anyone who was alive during the Clinton years. Laura cites some of the reasons.

The nerve of these former Clinton administration hypocrites is incredible. Perry, Berger and Albright working for Bill Clinton used the military for global social services throughout the two terms of the Clinton administration, draining it of the readiness, training and material support needed to be ready for any and all military engagements and now they’re talking funding actual military needs? Talking military readiness at this time only means one thing to Democrats……votes. November is approaching.

According to my husband who served as a Lt. COL. in the J-8 (the Joint Staff Resource Management Office) in the pentagon during Mr. Clinton’s presidency, the issues regarding the readiness posture of the Armed Forces are directly attributable to Mr. Clinton and the democrats.

President Bush inherited a military that was drastically different from what it had been prior to Clinton. Although the first Bush started some cuts to the military, his were nothing compared to the massive cuts by Clinton and were closely coordinated with his military advisors. Clinton directed the cuts with little regard to the issues and concerns put forward by the Joint Staff. Clinton’s only requirement was that the cuts not be real obvious to the casual observer.

The military lost the Depot System, which had quickly provided replacement parts, ammunition, and service to military vehicles. It was replaced by contractor support which in the long run has cost a great deal more than the old system and has not provided timely material requirements as the old system did.Read it all, as well as Laura’s earlier post on this subject as it relates to the generals. Here is an excerpt from it:

The peace dividend taken by President Clinton over his two terms castrated the military. However, to ensure that there was no bad press the Clinton administration required the cuts to be in the areas which were less visible.

A great deal of the general officers at that time rose up and in protest submitted their resignations. (this was integrity) The rumors around the Pentagon were that they would publicly decry the destruction of the military’s ability to defend our country.

This did not happen. From what my husband heard through the grapevine the administration made very viable threats against the mass protest and they had a reputation of making good on their threats.

What is little known to the public is how these cuts were accomodated by the newly appointed generals who replaced those who had resigned. They redefined the support structure of the military combat units.

My husband saw the results of these cuts when he was a senior planner for the Iraq Invasion. The accomodation made by the Clinton administration generals was to do away with support structure by contracting out the majority of our logistics. This presented a tremendous amount of problems which in Iraq, resulted in the lack of specific equipment (armored Humvees, body armor, sufficient repair parts, and transportation assets) and in some cases resulted in losses.In Laura’s excellent posts at The Wide Awake Cafe, she cites specifics. Read them all.

More Qana Propaganda
A Question To Ponder

22 Comments

  1. 914 August 2, 2006
  2. Rob LA Ca. August 2, 2006
  3. Synova August 2, 2006
  4. Mitchell August 2, 2006
  5. moseby August 2, 2006
  6. Falze August 2, 2006
  7. sean nyc/aa August 2, 2006
  8. Paul L. August 2, 2006
  9. Vegas Vic August 2, 2006
  10. Lee August 2, 2006
  11. Synova August 2, 2006
  12. Synova August 2, 2006
  13. stan25 August 2, 2006
  14. Lee August 2, 2006
  15. Falze August 2, 2006
  16. Falze August 2, 2006
  17. Paul L. August 2, 2006
  18. Synova August 2, 2006
  19. Mark August 2, 2006
  20. James Cloninger August 2, 2006
  21. Mitchell August 2, 2006
  22. MikeB August 3, 2006