Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rumsfeld Slams Clinton Military Cutbacks
Newsmax ^ | Sunday Jan. 20, 2002; 1:10 p.m. EST | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Posted on 01/20/2002 9:49:47 AM PST by cody32127

While noting that U.S. armed forces remain the most powerful in the world, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld blasted the Clinton administration Sunday for defense cutbacks he said left the military in such a "run down" condition that rebuilding could take up to a decade.

"The infrastructure had decayed and it is still decayed and it will take now probably six, eight, ten years to get it back to the place that it ought to be," Rumsfeld told NBC "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert.

The Bush Defense Secretary then added, "It takes time to run down a great military and it takes time to build one back up."

He suggested that the full dimension of the Clinton cutbacks were only now being felt. "During a president's term of office, what he does with the military has very little effect during that period of time. Each president inherits what was done in preceding periods."

Rumsfeld was responding to Democratic Party and media arguments that the U.S.'s success in the Afghanistan war shows that criticism of Clinton's military cutbacks is unjustified.

Separately, the New York Post reported Sunday that a full 89 percent of Clinton budget cuts under the president's "Reinventing Government" initiative came at the expense of the armed forces.

In his recent book "In the Arena," former Reagan administration Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger contends that President Clinton had reduced U.S. military forces by approximately 50 percent during his eight years in office.


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: clintonscandals; militarycuts; rumsfeldpinglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

1 posted on 01/20/2002 9:49:47 AM PST by cody32127 (cody32127@hotmail.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *Rumsfeld ping list; lawgirl; Howlin; mystery-ak; mtngrl@vrwc; kayak; swheats; ladyinred...
Rummy bump


To find all articles tagged or indexed using Rumsfeld, click below:
  click here >>> Rumsfeld <<< click here  
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

2 posted on 01/20/2002 9:53:00 AM PST by Hipixs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hipixs
Real man vs. rapist & traitor bump
3 posted on 01/20/2002 9:56:14 AM PST by Bigg Red
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hipixs
Real man vs. rapist & traitor bump
4 posted on 01/20/2002 9:56:15 AM PST by Bigg Red
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hipixs
Real man vs. rapist & traitor bump
5 posted on 01/20/2002 9:56:16 AM PST by Bigg Red
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hipixs
Real man vs. rapist & traitor bump
6 posted on 01/20/2002 9:56:16 AM PST by Bigg Red
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hipixs
Real man vs. rapist & traitor bump
7 posted on 01/20/2002 9:56:17 AM PST by Bigg Red
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cody32127
"Separately, the New York Post reported Sunday that a full 89 percent of Clinton budget cuts under the president's "Reinventing Government" initiative came at the expense of the armed forces. "

question...when the klintoons when globe hopping, searching for more "campaign cash"; they leaned heavily on the military for transport.
did this come out of the defense budget? so, instead of buying spare parts; they were just a "taxi service" for mr n mrs bill klintoon

8 posted on 01/20/2002 9:57:04 AM PST by hoot2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cody32127
Rumsfeld continues to be the MAN!
9 posted on 01/20/2002 9:59:08 AM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hipixs
Rumsfeld's word against Clinton's? I like that matchup.
10 posted on 01/20/2002 10:01:27 AM PST by PMCarey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cody32127;clintonscandals
Red said it best:

Real man vs. rapist & traitor bump

To find all articles tagged or indexed using clintonscandals, click below:
  click here >>> clintonscandals <<< click here  
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)


11 posted on 01/20/2002 10:05:00 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
Ping**

Greg

12 posted on 01/20/2002 10:05:14 AM PST by gwmoore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cody32127
While noting that U.S. armed forces remain the most powerful in the world, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld blasted the Clinton administration Sunday for defense cutbacks he said left the military in such a "run down" condition that rebuilding could take up to a decade. "The infrastructure had decayed and it is still decayed and it will take now probably six, eight, ten years to get it back to the place that it ought to be," Rumsfeld told NBC "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert.

The Bush Defense Secretary then added, "It takes time to run down a great military and it takes time to build one back up."

He suggested that the full dimension of the Clinton cutbacks were only now being felt. "During a president's term of office, what he does with the military has very little effect during that period of time. Each president inherits what was done in preceding periods."

Well Rummy as long as we're placing blame take a look at some you work with as well. You need to go no further than the Congressional Record to see that Bush sr/Cheney are as much to blame for this. Eat your own words Rummy It takes a while to let it get that way right? Here is a look see of the Bush SR military and it is not a good one either. How did an aircraft carrier just fall apart in the first few months of Bush sr's watch. The second newest conventional powered carrier to be exact? No the problems began in 1989 when GHW Bush sr was sworn in as POTUS and not one person since that time in the oval office or congress has done one thing to correct it either.

Congressional Record 24 February 1994 [Page: S1853]

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, almost every evening on the news we see the U.S. military protecting American interests around the globe. More often than not these American military forces include naval forces.

A year ago, it was Navy carrier-based aircraft that were keeping the pressure on Saddam Hussein in Iraq. A few months later it was an American aircraft carrier sent to the coast of Somalia to provide protection to American and other U.N. peacekeeping troops. That same aircraft carrier also operated off the coast of the former Yugoslavia, ready to provide military muscle to back up diplomatic efforts to achieve a ceasefire in war-torn Bosnia.

For more than 50 years, America's interests have been served by aircraft carrier battle groups deployed around the globe.

I am pleased that President Clinton has included a request for funds to build a new aircraft carrier in this years' defense budget. The President and the Secretary of Defense understand the military and diplomatic necessity of maintaining strong naval power to protect America's interests into the next century.

This week's edition of U.S. News and World Report contains a cover story on one U.S. aircraft carrier and follows the ship through its most recent deployment. The article is entitled: `The Big Mean War Machine' and is subtitled: `Diplomacy's Gunboat.'

Mr. President, this article provides great insight not only into the military and diplomatic capabilities of an aircraft carrier, but also into the tremendous dedication and commitment of the men and women who serve aboard our Navy ships.

I urge my colleagues to read this article and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in full at this point in the Record.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Diplomacy's Gunboat

(BY BRUCE B. AUSTER)

AUGUST 10, 1993--GOODBYE Petty Officer Jose Mora and his wife, Loretta, finish a late dinner at McDonald's and slowly walk the few blocks to the pier where his floodlit ship is docked. He hugs her, feeling her swollen belly pressed up against him. They part, and he begins walking toward the towering ship, waving his pass at the sentry and crossing over to the other side of the chain-link fence separating sailors and their families. He tries to look back over his shoulder but his sea bag blocks his view, so he keeps on. His wife--eight months pregnant, her hands resting on her stomach, fingers interlocked--watches and then starts walking, alone, back to the car.

The next morning, the aircraft carrier USS America pushes away from the Norfolk pier, turns up Hampton Roads amid a flotilla of small craft that have come out to see it depart, passes the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel and sets out across the Atlantic. The ship carries a crew of 4,700 sailors, including 20-year-old petty Officer 3rd Class Mora, who services the ship's 14 F-14A fighters. During the next six months, the America's pilots will crisscross the skies over Bosnia, its crew will pass through the Suez Canal en route to Somalia, and its planes will enforce the United Nations no-fly zone over southern Iraq. For different intervals during this 39,982-mile cruise, the America also will play host to a U.S. News reporter, photographer and graphic artist, who in the following pages examine one of the most powerful warships ever built, its crew and its changing missions.

For 50 years, the United States has counted on big carriers like the America to show the flag, to respond to crises and, until recently, to keep the Soviet Navy at bay. Carrier-based aircraft bombed Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Libya, and Iraq. Helicopters launched from the USS Nimitz tried to rescue the U.S. hostages in Iran; fighters from the Saratoga, which now patrols the Balkan skies, helped nab the terrorists who hijacked the cruise ship Achilles Lauro in 1985.

War machine

To an adversary, an aircraft carrier, its seven-story island protruding from the flight deck that sits 65 feet above the water, is an imposing offshore city that can appear overnight. Its 70-plane air wing is equipped to kill in many different ways: A single A-6E Intruder, small enough to take off and land on a ship, can carry 9 tons of bombs--more than twice as much as World War II B-17s, the Flying fortresses, could carry--and deliver them to a target 500 miles away without refueling. F-14 Tomcats can fly 600 miles, then shoot down enemy planes 60 miles away with their Phoenix missiles. The airborne jammers aboard an EA-6B Prowler can wreak electronic havoc on enemy command centers and communications, turning television screens to snow.

Aegis guided-missile cruisers, part of a carrier battle group that also includes attack submarines, destroyers and supply ships, have sophisticated air defense radars, antiaircraft missiles and 122 tubes capable of launching unmanned Tomahawk cruise missiles. `It has the most awesome war-making potential in any one place,' says Rear Adm. Arthur Cebrowski, the commander of the America's 14-ship task force. `And we're ready to fight on arrival.'

[Page: S1854]

New missions

All this firepower does not come cheap: A new carrier costs taxpayers $4.4 billion; its operating costs are $440 million a year. And with the United States no longer facing a global rival, defense spending declining and the nation more concerned with foreign markets than with foreign militaries, the Navy is scrambling to find new roles for its carriers. In order to keep 12 of them in service, the Navy is cutting its force of surface ships by 65 through 1999, letting go about 100,000 sailors and changing the way it uses aircraft carriers. The blue-water Navy that once prepared to fight the Soviets on the high seas now sends its carriers along coastlines and into confined spaces such as the Persian Gulf and Adriatic Sea.

The Navy's efforts to adapt to new circumstances will produce a number of firsts on this cruise of the America: It is the first carrier to sail with a three-ship Marine Expeditionary Unit, or MEU, as part of its 14-ship battle group; it is carrying more than 200 marines; and before it returns to Norfolk it will, mostly by happenstance, have become the first carrier to bring women into a combat area.

But on this August day in Norfolk, the sailors, aviators and marines aboard the America are not thinking about politics or military strategy. They know that while they are gone, babies will be born, parents will die, Christmas and Thanksgiving will come and go, cars will break down and wives will give up on Navy life and leave their absent husbands. But as sailors have always done, the America's crewmen are turning their backs on the land to face life at sea.

It is a hard life for the officers and aviators whose work revolves around the America's flight deck and a harder one for the crew members who will spend most of the next six months below decks, away not only from home but also from fresh air and sunlight. With its 1,048-foot length and 80,000-ton displacement, the America is bigger than the average oceangoing cruise ship, but there are no portholes and it is claustrophobic.

Below the open, sunlit expanse of the 4 1/2 -acre flight deck is a small city: Most sailors eat, work and sleep on one of the ship's 10 decks, surrounded by white-painted steam pipes, water lines and air ducts that run along bulkheads and hang above desks and beds. Only two passageways run the length of the ship; 250 bulkheads, the walls that form the ship's skeleton, divide the America into the cramped, watertight, fireproof compartments that are its offices, mess decks, bathrooms and berths. Even the huge hangar bay can be partitioned by steel doors that are so big they echo throughout the ship when they close.

The ship's sailors and aviators divide their lives into compartments, too, It is their way of passing the months at sea, far from home. Pilots must block out fear and land a plane with one engine. Fathers who miss their families and sailors whose wives move and leave no forwarding address must forget about home. A month before the cruise, says Capt. Bill Deaver, the America's air wing commander, he begins distancing himself from his family, immersing himself in flying and shipboard life. `You start building the wall, one brick a day,' he says.

Thoughts of home are reserved for bedtime: In cramped berthing spaces throughout the America, sailors, aviators and marines tape photos of their families near their pillows. Before they turn out the light, those pictures are the last thing they see.

Navy families back home also must cope. Two days before Chaplain Gil Gibson set sail in August, his wife found a lump in her breast. She didn't tell him about it until after he was at sea and the lump had been declared benign.

SEPTEMBER 13, 1993--LIFE AT SEA

As they go about shrinking the Navy and the Marine Corps, Pentagon officials are mindful of the morale and well-being of sailors, marines and aviators. The Navy and Marines fought then Secretary of Defense Les Aspin's proposal to cut the Navy from 12 to 10 carrier task forces and Marine troop levels from 177,000 to 159,000: Fewer ships and people would mean sea tours longer than six months for the remaining ships and people. `If we go to eight-months cruises, we'll lose a lot of people,' says Lt. Cmdr. Brian Scott, an aviator on the America.

Slimming down

The Navy insists that peacetime deployments will be held to six months. `Forces won't stay ready if you deploy them too much,' says Adm. Jeremy Boorda, NATO's southern forces commander in Europe, who can up through the enlisted ranks to earn his four stars and is now a leading candidate for the Navy's top job, chief of naval operations. `Six months is an arduous amount of duty; it's a long time away from home if you have a family.' Aspin was convinced.

Even so, there is not room for everyone in the new Navy. On this September day, Lt. Jerry Leekey, and F-14 pilot with the America's Diamondback squadron, is waiting to learn whether a personnel board will let him stay in the Navy. `This is the best possible job, even with all the time spent away from my wife,' the lanky, freckled redhead says after a morning of dogfighting with an F/A-18 `I signed up to race around at Mach 1.'

Although he serves on active duty, Lieutenant Leekey received his commission through the Naval Reserve rather than the Naval Academy or the Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps. It cost the Navy $800,000 to teach him to fly his Mach 2 fighter, but now it is letting go its active-duty reservists. Cmdr. Steven Collins, Lieutenant Leekey's squadron commander, has orchestrated a letter-writing campaign, endorsed by the task force commander, to retain his young officer. Leekey can only fly and hope.

Below decks

For a pilot, getting up in the morning means another day to break the sound barrier. For most of the America's crew, however, especially the 18-year-old enlisted sailors, the shrill whistle of the boatswain's pipe that announces reveille each morning at 6 o'clock ushers in another day of drudgery. Time stands still in the 120-degree heat of the engine rooms. Seaman Ryan Hall sits on a bucket under an air vent for two four-hour shifts a day, struggling to stay awake as he monitors a generator in one of the engineering spaces, where oil-fired boilers make steam to turn the shaft of one of the ship's four 69,000-pound propellers.

The America needs constant attention. Commissioned in 1965, it is showing its age. A month before leaving Norfolk, a senior enlisted crew member complained to his congressman: The ship was operating on only two of its six electric generators, without radar and unable to pump fuel. This would be its third six-month cruise in three years, and without the standard 18 months at home for repairs, salt water and full steaming had taken their toll. See link below for the rest of this article.

Click here to get to the link

This was a picture not of the Clinton military but of the Bush sr / Cheney Navy. This ship was in as worse shape or more so than the KENNEDY a ship a year it's younger is. Rummy can not lay all this at the feet of Clinton. I despise Bill Clinton as much as any other but Rummy needs to come clean on this one. That ship did 5 years of steming in three years minus needed maintenance. What do we see now? The USS KENNEDY the newest conventional powered carrier ready for the scrap yard. But think on this for a moment. Two other carriers 10 years older and same class ship are still at sea.

13 posted on 01/20/2002 10:33:31 AM PST by cva66snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
How did an aircraft carrier just fall apart in the first few months of Bush sr's watch

Should read: How did an aircraft carrier just fall apart in the first few months after Bush sr's watch was over. From Jan 93- August 93 is the time frame I'm refering to.

14 posted on 01/20/2002 10:36:34 AM PST by cva66snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
You can find other like-minded Anti-American turds at Demo Underground( which is exactly where your ideology should be).
15 posted on 01/20/2002 10:37:52 AM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red
Did anyone happen to catch the FNC show this morning where they had a round table discussion? One of the things discussed was how the Secret Service had to remove clips from Military Police (I think he said police, it could have just been military) when Clinton came around. He said it showed just how despised Clinton was by the military when Secret Service wouldn't let you have bullets for your weapons.
16 posted on 01/20/2002 10:42:40 AM PST by RikaStrom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: gwmoore
Thank you for the ping.. I look foward to responding in more detail later..

David

17 posted on 01/20/2002 10:45:20 AM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ohioman
Click on my name and have a look see. This was my ship. I was on it during the Carter years and it NEVER got to that deplorable shape. Whats wrong with you it seems is it's not politically correct to point out a wrong cause it might hurt precious party! If you think so then DEMs might be just the place for you they love litter box politics too you will get along great there. Let's cover up Teds mistakes and Bills and whoever only you are saying let's cover up all the Bush wrongs the Cheney wrongs all was well. A wrong is a wrong I don't give a care about anyones political party. I care about this nation and those who serve it.
18 posted on 01/20/2002 10:45:46 AM PST by cva66snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hoot2
That came out of the defense budget- just as Clinton's joy rides and aid for hurricane relief in Central America came out of the Military Airlift Command's budget.
19 posted on 01/20/2002 10:56:42 AM PST by piasa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cody32127
He suggested that the full dimension of the Clinton cutbacks were only now being felt. "During a president's term of office, what he does with the military has very little effect during that period of time. Each president inherits what was done in preceding periods."

The same could be said about the economy.

RUMSFELD BUMP!!!

20 posted on 01/20/2002 11:31:28 AM PST by SunStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
Sorry your experience in the bowels of one ship was so unpleasant there, Snipe. But the condition of one CVN does not reflect the overall condition and readiness of the entire military. There is simply no comparison to the run-down Armed Forces which Reagan inherited from the depths of the Ford and Carter years, or the well-oiled machine which Bush-41 took over after Reagan rebuilt it.

The sad fact is that our Armed Forces are pitifully small, its weapons systems are aging, and the constant tempo of deployment is taking a terrible toll on training, procurement, infrastructure, families and morale. Virtually NOTHING of any size or duration can be undertaken today without heavy and sustained involvement of activated reservists. Desert Storm could not be repeated today, because we have eliminated between 30-50% of the ground force structure, sea power, sealift, air power and airlift which existed in 1990.

God help us if Iraq and North Korea ever decide to move simultaneously -- not to mention our new "friends" in China...

21 posted on 01/20/2002 11:40:47 AM PST by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
CONCERNED CITIZEN BUMP.
22 posted on 01/20/2002 11:52:35 AM PST by JusPasenThru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cody32127
Comments from a guy who just retired after 20 years (me), who went through the Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, and beginning of Bush2 years.

Reagan: Hate to admit it, because it ain't manly, but when Reagan departed, and I heard his final "God Bless America," my eyes got misty. No one built us up like he did. I remember him at the hangar at Ft Campbell after the Gander Newfoundland air crash when we lost 260+ troops returning from the Sinai mission. He walked down that row of bereaved families and was a Leader to them, and a FATHER to them.

Bush1: I worried about GHWBush at first, mostly because of his voodoo economics attacks on Pres. Reagan. But he was committed to a strong military. I didn't handle the decision to downsize after the fall of the Iron Curtain too well. I thought it was a bit to quick. But when the Desert Storm deal happened, Bush1 earned my respect for ONE OVERRIDING reason....He let his war experts fight his war. He gave guidance and then let the military execute. It was a great show. I was totally surprised by the fickle public's rejection of him just shortly after that great victory. He deserved better.

Clinton: Didn't inhale. Despised the military. Campaigned for Ho Chi Mihn from Moscow. Gays in the military. Social engineering in the military so that "inclusive feelings" became more important than training rounds downrange. The cuts became so bad that we didn't have enough people to do the job, and those we did have were gone all the time to Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo. He tucked tail and ran from Somalia effectively telling the families of the dead that those loved ones' lives were lost on a merely whimsical policy, that nothing important was really happening in Somalia worth of the death of anyone. Sold out to China the secrets that will mean a new nuclear race. He let terrorists kill, kill, and kill again and sicced the FBI on them, as if nation-states would allow a policeman to arrest someone in a country not their own. He burned out the force and caused innumerable GREAT YOUNG SOLDIERS to leave because they were overworked, underpaid, and unappreciated. The worst military president in the history of the republic.

Bush2: Largest pay raise two years running. Rebuilding the force, but he needs to add more people, not just more pay. He's trusting his military experts. He's honorable and loyal, so trust is being restored. Let's pray for him. He might well be a GREAT president.

23 posted on 01/20/2002 11:52:37 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Well said. I concur...
24 posted on 01/20/2002 11:55:37 AM PST by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red
America needs to stand up against Clinton and the Democrats who Controlled the House and Senate form 1993-2001. They are all responsible for cutting back our military so much that we have not yet had a decisive victory over terrorism.
25 posted on 01/20/2002 12:05:15 PM PST by log_cabin_gop_boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cody32127
BUMP for the TRUTH about Clintoon!
26 posted on 01/20/2002 12:08:05 PM PST by The Real Deal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Real Deal
BUMP for the TRUTH about Clintoon!

Don't forget about the BUMP for the Democratic Controlled House and Senate from 1993 to 2001 that voted to cut back the military. They are all traitors.

27 posted on 01/20/2002 12:13:51 PM PST by log_cabin_gop_boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
Sorry your experience in the bowels of one ship was so unpleasant there, Snipe. But the condition of one CVN does not reflect the overall condition and readiness of the entire military. There is simply no comparison to the run-down Armed Forces which Reagan inherited from the depths of the Ford and Carter years, or the well-oiled machine which Bush-41 took over after Reagan rebuilt it.

It wasn't bad and I wasn't CVN that's actually a nuke powered carrier. But I was in Jimmy's Peanuts Navy my entire enlistment. We never got to the point the condition of the AMERICA under Bush sr nor the KENNEDY from Clinton-Bush jr. We never had to miss a deployment. Actually speaking from being in during that time the military was turning around toward the end of Carters term. Morale was being addressed seriously as well as retention.

The Navy in the early 70's made some changes that did it harm. One was doing away with the traditional uniform the cracker jack. When I left it was again Uniform of the Day. The traditional Bosuns whistle could be heard from each ship as well. Retention bonunes of $15K were common along with next rank and shore duty for re-ups.

When I went in the Navy in 76 people were going AWOL for 30 days and taking General Discharges. That had about stopped in late 1980. Reagan did a fine job restoring the military.

With that being said what happened to it in less than 4 years? What happened to the Navy the Gipper built? Yes we had a war but we had a crisis under Carter as well. Two carriers one from each coast were pulled from rotations three were already on station in the Iran area when the hostage crisis broke out. In less than a month 5 were on station manned and ready. That was Carters Navy BTW.

A conventional carrier goes on a six month deployment and needs 3 months yard work. I would say that is true for nukes as well. The idea a nuke can deploy for extended periods minus yards is a myth. The reactor may take it but the Auxillary equipment will not hold up to it. So at the end of each 6 month deployment a ship see's a three month yard down time for maintenance. That allows you to do repairs and replace equipment in a safe enviroment to do so. In many cases holes have to be cut several decks down to replace equipment. You do not do that sitting at a pier at an NOB or at sea. Every 5 years a conventional sees a 1 year down time including drydock for hull maintenance.

What happened? AMERICA sits in Philly with the Navy calling it unfit for even a museum due to detiorated hull condition. Did you see the KENNEDY threads? These are our two newest conventionals anybody besides me think it odd that two other carriers nearly 10 years older than them are in realitivly good shape these being the same class ships?

IMO KENNEDY was going to be a fleet reduction it wasn't meant to be kept up as it is promised to Boston. The war came along and General Frank want's a carrier there in March of this year. The Rosie was due to be rotated and the Navy was caught unready. Looking at the schedule the others I take it were either in the yards or commited elsewhere. So they call a ship out that nobody has tried to keep battle ready and seriously underfunded then tried to make the Captain a ScapeGoat for that as well. The crew didn't care because the Pentagon didn't care about them or the ship. It's now a reserve ship and the Pentagon isn't saying as much. That means it is manned mostly by reserves and not an active duty crew there's a huge difference. If you live there 4 years you keep it up. If you live there 2 weeks a year let the other crew fix it. Bush had nearly a year to address the KENNEDY issue.

Overdeployment is overdeployment and if we are to take the Pentagon and Bush at their word this is going to be an extended war. Would it not be wise then to get some ships recomissioned to active service and a troop build up? The nukes aren't gonna hold up to this any better than conventional are. Yet we hear nothing being said to address this problem. If we continue at our present deployment rates our nuke fleet will suffer if it hasn't already.

28 posted on 01/20/2002 12:19:02 PM PST by cva66snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cody32127
Rummy-bump!
29 posted on 01/20/2002 12:38:31 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cody32127
I hope the sheeple were listening!!
30 posted on 01/20/2002 1:08:55 PM PST by kassie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe; Bigg Red
Red said it best: Real man vs. rapist & traitor bump
And often. . .
31 posted on 01/20/2002 1:21:55 PM PST by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RikaStrom
...it showed just how despised Clinton was by the military...

True Story:

We were stationed at an Air Force Base when x42 was Pres. He was scheduled to "visit" our base (on the way to a fundraiser...) one afternoon. The various commanders were asking their troops how many planned to be at the hangar to "greet" the Pres. So few said they'd be there that the base commander ended up having to make it "mandatory" for everyone to be there (unless they were on leave or in hospital). My husband (and quite a few other guys in the neighborhood) took a day of leave in order to get out of this "duty" -- that's how much we despised this guy.

BTW--Clintoon kept those troops and their families waiting for over 5 hours -- once they were cleared into the hangar they were not allowed to leave -- and the dork was late (as usual)

32 posted on 01/20/2002 2:26:32 PM PST by twyn1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: lawgirl; valis; summer; katherineisgreat; coolguy
ping
33 posted on 01/20/2002 2:29:13 PM PST by kinganamort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cody32127
BTTT!!!
34 posted on 01/20/2002 2:35:45 PM PST by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
A wrong is a wrong I don't give a care about anyones political party. I care about this nation and those who serve it.

You are totally right about this, corruption/scandal/negligence/apathy is everywhere and we need people to put their money where their mouth is regarding actually doing something about these problems.

My suggestion to Mr. Rumsfeld is to purge all the politically correct ticket-punchers out of the military before pumping the military back up. I don't want my tax dollars supporting people for whom 'The Mission' is secondary.

35 posted on 01/20/2002 2:39:34 PM PST by Looking4Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red
Real man vs. rapist & traitor bump.

Another 'that says it all' bump.

36 posted on 01/20/2002 2:44:08 PM PST by Looking4Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
You sound very very very bitter. I have been in the active duty Navy starting with Gerald Ford . .. . and am in the Navy Reserve now as an Engineering Duty Officer.

I know that the cut backs STARTED under G.H.W.Bush, but some of the cutbacks were FORCED by the Democrats in Congress. The SAME EXPLETIVE DELETED CONGRESS that Broke G.Bush's arm to force a tax raise (they refused to discuss the budget until he backed down on the "No New Taxes" promise, and they were holding the FY 1990 budget as hostage. We had started the Desert Shield build-up, and the same Congress that had a LARGE number of traitorous Democrats that voted against supporting the troops and authorizing Bush to use force to evict Saddam from Kuwait .. the same Congress was going to not have a budget in place, and this would have cut the legs out of the military buildup in the Gulf. So Bush had to renege (he shouldn't have, and should have taken his case to the American people ... but he didn't want to risk the troops already present in the Gulf...) The Same Congress pushed onto G.H.W.Bush the bigger cuts than what Bush wanted.

Go ahead and Blame Bush if you want. You will find very few military, active, reserve or retired - who will agree with you. Most of us know that Bush (41) made mistakes .. . but we know he loved and respected the military, and wouldn't deliberately do anything that would hurt readiness or morale.

You, on the other hand, remind me of a Chief who refused to vote for Bush (41) and voted for Clinton. "Bush lied to me" said the Chief. But in '96, the Chief still voted for Clinton ("What about all the lies Clinton told", I asked. "Lies, what lies" he replied???) This guy, while serving in the military honorably, did not understand the difference between honor and dishonor, did not understand the difference between mistakes that Bush made vs. those that Clinton did DELIBERATELY. Even Reagan made some goofs (Beirut, 1983) ... but you could tell that he bled inwardly for his mistakes, and he resolved to try to avoid them in the future, and he never had a callous disregard for the military ... unlike Clinton.

So my question is... Why are you so upset about Bush?? Do you think he deliberately set about cutbacks that he forced on Congress, or are you just unhappy that he didn't fight Congress more to keep cutbacks from happening.

I have been "active" in the Reserve these past years, plus work as a Civil Servant at a Naval Shipyard ... so I have "my finger on the pulse" and I can tell you - the military have lots of love and respect for Reagan, Bush(41) and Bush(43) - and nothing but contempt for Clinton.

Mike

37 posted on 01/20/2002 2:44:13 PM PST by Vineyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: cody32127
I almost puked up my breakfast when russert asked the question (actually more like a hopeful statement about how clintons military has been pretty good) but soon regained my appetite when rummy shot him down
38 posted on 01/20/2002 2:48:51 PM PST by TheRedSoxWinThePennant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cody32127;carl/newsmax
Bump to newsmax
39 posted on 01/20/2002 2:52:56 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hipixs
Yeah! George Snufalopogus mentioned the "Clinton Military" on Sam and Cokie.

I will admit that Clinton did see to the maintenance of the military skills necessary for walking the dog, serving the meals on Air Force One and other demeaning tasks for the military he loathes. He didn't see anything wrong with using half the C-5 fleet for his world jaunts.

I wish we could continually remind these liberal eggs what the Dad of one of the "Blackhawk Down" heros said to X42s when he wouldn't shake that slackers hand!

40 posted on 01/20/2002 3:15:17 PM PST by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Young Werther
The "Clinton's Military" spin is perhaps the dumbest attempt by the Dems to shore up Clinton's now tattered legacy. Do they really believe that people are going to buy it? What a crock.

89% of Clinton's reinventing government came at the expense of the armed forces. 89%!!!!! Good grief.

41 posted on 01/20/2002 3:18:23 PM PST by Wphile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
Demonrats are shameless
42 posted on 01/20/2002 3:22:32 PM PST by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
Ain't that the truth.
43 posted on 01/20/2002 3:29:00 PM PST by Wphile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RikaStrom
One of the things discussed was how the Secret Service had to remove clips from Military Police (I think he said police, it could have just been military) when Clinton came around. He said it showed just how despised Clinton was by the military when Secret Service wouldn't let you have bullets for your weapons.

this is kinda mind blowing but not totally unexpected since ol' rapist was throwing the GAY thing in their faces in an attempt to destroy the military.

44 posted on 01/20/2002 3:34:17 PM PST by prophetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
I'm glad someone has finally admitted that Clinton did indeed cut the military up. You see, I was in the military under Clinton's watch. Our maintenance budget got stolen from my unit for some unstated purpose. We got our funding slashed by 75% and then another 50%. You do the math. My unit couldn't replace parts it needed, nor could it commence training as it should have. Morale was in the can and getting worse and retention of soldiers was non-existent.

Now, Have anything to say about that? My unit hemo'd soldiers worse than an arterial cut. People jumped ship like rats. And under Clinton, officers that had nothing better to do than getting their command killed got promoted faster than those that were worth following. Mostly kiss ups and psychofants. And it wasn't just my unit that experienced this. But since I am out now, I can say something about it. We were threatened if anyone blew a whistle about it. Never heard about that? Doesn't surprise me one bit. It was under the, "You can't speak disparaging words against the bent one, traitor, sleazebag in the Ovary office, Chicken in Charge." bullcrap they handed us.

45 posted on 01/20/2002 3:56:15 PM PST by Darksheare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Vineyard
So my question is... Why are you so upset about Bush?? Do you think he deliberately set about cutbacks that he forced on Congress, or are you just unhappy that he didn't fight Congress more to keep cutbacks from happening.

I have been "active" in the Reserve these past years, plus work as a Civil Servant at a Naval Shipyard ... so I have "my finger on the pulse" and I can tell you - the military have lots of love and respect for Reagan, Bush(41) and Bush(43) - and nothing but contempt for Clinton.

Look I've posted this before and I'll say it again. I blame GHW Bush, Bill Clinton, both of their S.O.D.'s both houses during those terms and both parties sitting during those terms. Even when the GOP won the houses they sat there like a bunch of idiots letting Clinton put it deeper and deeper simply because they thought it would make him look bad and them look good and didn't give a care one way or another if any ship floated or gun fired.Bush should have fought harder. He was no Ronald Reagan mainly because he was against most of Reagans policies. The crapolla that candidates shouldn't speak evil against the party chosen is hilarious Bush Sr done it till the day Reagan made him running mate.

Go back and read that article I linked. We were down to 12 carriers at the end of Bush sr SOD Aspin wanted 10 Borda said 12. I think W wants 10 as well. Like I said if we are supposedly entering an extended conflict somebody better start acting like it then and do the necessary build up. But let's address the real issue here. It is the constitutional duty of government to provide for the nations defense. That alone above all else should be priority #1. If we ask a sailor to spend 6 months operating those 8 boilers then we should make sure those 8 boilers and related machinery and piping are safe enough so that sailor and half his shipmates are blown to bits and burned to death by a steam break because some politician wanted to save a buck for the national forest or faith based programs. Forget that we are supposed to be at war right? Our defense is suffering and all aviable money should be going there till the level of readiness is sufficent that we can handle problems without calling up reserves all the time and equipment maintenance get's done in a timely manner. The patch and go military we have been using for the past 13 years needs to be halted. The maintenance needs to be done properly that means down time.

Look I support all military including down to the local NG's. Why are we using them as deployed troops? That is not the same thing as a combat ready unit and you know it. NG's especially Army NG's are vets from the Navy and Air Force as well and probably make up 50% of the units. These guys never touched an M-16 except with blanks, never had combat training and yet we allow them to be deployed as ready troops? This garbage started under Pappy Bush because the military had already been down graded to that point. If you see nothing wrong with a carrier having on two of it's generators functional, fuel problems and no radar as a ship ready for a 6 month deployment then me and you have very opposing views on combat readiness. I'll explain to you why there was no radar in the article I posted. With two generators that meant no chillers were functional. Chillers are the ships airconditioning system. No air conditioning no electronics believe me on that one I spent 4 years in the AC&R shop.

The gyro would have possibly been functional as it's location had a back up A/C unit. Now when both parties of congress and the senate as well as POTUS start addressing this problem with the seriousness it deserves ahead of spending money on nonsense issues some even beyond legitimate function of government then I'll reconsider.

46 posted on 01/20/2002 3:56:25 PM PST by cva66snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Comment #47 Removed by Moderator

To: xzins
I remember him at the hangar at Ft Campbell after the Gander Newfoundland air crash when we lost 260+ troops returning from the Sinai mission. He walked down that row of bereaved families and was a Leader to them, and a FATHER to them.

I remember that too. I was watching from the comfort of my home, of course. But I felt nothing but awe and admiration for Ronald Reagan and MRS. REAGAN, comforting the families and the troops. I just shook my head and told my husband that that man had the hardest job in the world and he would always have my deepest admiration for the way he and Nancy carried it out. No smirking jokes and phony tears like X42 at Ron Brown's funeral. Reagan was a real man, like GW Bush is proving to be.

48 posted on 01/20/2002 4:24:23 PM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
Your first paragraph said it all: Look I've posted this before and I'll say it again. I blame GHW Bush, Bill Clinton, both of their S.O.D.'s both houses during those terms and both parties sitting during those terms. Even when the GOP won the houses they sat there like a bunch of idiots letting Clinton put it deeper and deeper simply because they thought it would make him look bad and them look good and didn't give a care one way or another if any ship floated or gun fired.Bush should have fought harder. You "BLAME" . .. . you "BLAME". You might as well BLAME every American. [I blame every voter who voted for Clinton. I blame every voter who voted for Perot. I blame every non-voter who sat on his/her hands and was too stupid to vote for Republican in Congress or Republicans for President.

This nation has been cursed with legions of lazy people who vote Democrat. The Democrats in Congress cut spending for the military (except their own little pork barrel projects that the military want). Republican Presidents have never had a clear Republican House and Senate to help them steer the "ship of state" onto a proper course.

Where were YOU when the 1994 Republican House and Republican Senate were pilloried by the Democrats and the Media for their "Medicare Cuts", "School Lunch Cuts", "Shutting down the Government" .. .. that effort cut the heart out of the conservative movement ... and too few conservatives were speaking out against the lies. Where were you when the Democrats forced the military cuts onto Bush(41). Were you rallying your friends and family to speak out, letter write, etc.?? Were you writing to Bush to ask him to "stay the course" and resist the Democrat Congress.

It is convenient to blame someone else ... but fact is, it is more your own DAMN FAULT than it is Bush's. He probably wondered where the moral support was when he got boxed into corner after corner by the Democraps and the Media, and groups failed to speak out to support him.

I go back to the bottom line . .. Bush respected the military, and did not mis-use them. He tried, and for that, I will forgive him his mistakes. Clinton - his actions weren't mistakes, they were deliberate, and are unforgiveable. You lack clarity to see the difference, you lack charity to forgive an honorable man, and thus you show you lack honor and don't deserve any charity for YOUR mistakes.

I will retract this harsh condemnation against you if you can show me that the PUBLIC wanted different than what the Democraps delivered and the public fought against the Congress for more military funding. Or show me that Bush wanted the same or less military spending than the Congress forced him to accept ... but absent that .. . you have no claim to be accusing others when in fact you too might be part of the "silent masses" that silently acquiesed to the gradual deterioration of the military because no one stood up to the Democraps and called them for what they are ... "TRAITORS and SOCIALISTS". It is convenient to "BLAME" ... but what the heck have you done that is so good and helpful to the military? Right now, you seem to give aid and comfort to the Democraps - ("everyone does it" and "it started with Bush" is the Democrap mantra to shift blame away from Clinton.) Heck, the military growth started under Reagan, but the peak spending year was in 1986, so some Democraps say that the decline started with Reagan in 1987 - another variation of "it's not Clinton's fault".

I would suggest that you look at G.H.W.Bush's military record, his record of service, including V.P. under Reagan, how he waged the Gulf War . ... and give him the respect that he has EARNED ... and cut him some slack over his mistakes. I have yet to find any serious conservative who is ready to trash R.Reagan for the 1983 Beirut barracks massacre ... give R.Reagan's overall record ...he earned the respect of the military.

Mike

49 posted on 01/20/2002 4:46:43 PM PST by Vineyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: redsoxallthewayintwothousand2
I almost puked up my breakfast when russert asked the question (actually more like a hopeful statement about how clintons military has been pretty good) but soon regained my appetite when rummy shot him down

I had the same experience sitting at home eating breakfast surrounded by a nice new snow cover,when I saw that weasel Russert implying the military that was doing such a great job was Clinton's military.

Rumsfield did a good job of deflating that baloon.

I only wished that Rummy would have gotten a little more agressive and said. We have a good military in spite of Clinton . Militay people love this country and will get the job done in spite of the commander in chief. - Tom

50 posted on 01/20/2002 5:00:01 PM PST by Capt. Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson