[cva66snipe]

OK. I'll play. In an act of what some say was spite the discontinuation of the U.S. Navy's best ever built carrier based fighter. Not only did he end production he ended ANY possibility that if we needed future production it would even be possible. We lost about as many ships under Bush/ Sec of Def Cheney as we did Poppy. Better yet see for yourself. U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1917- 1989-1993 121 ships gone. 1993-2001 was 117 ships gone and six years of that was with a GOP majority sitting in both house thanks to ones such as John Warner who did nothing NOR HAS BUSH Jr/ Cheney now has they?.

Poppy/Sec of Def Cheney started us on an undermanned military course that even after a GOP majority in congress/senate and a two term GOP POTUS RINO we have yet to even begin to rebuild or recover from. We are at 1996 End Troop Strength Levels as well. Still want Cheney now?

The military downturn began under Poppy/Cheney. We lost a carrier thanks to poor maintenance funding of their era. I can back that one up as well. Poppy used cutting the military budget and maintenance for his 1000 points of Gerald Ford Liberalism.

[mkjessup]

Alright then, let’s begin:

1.) What carrier based fighter are you referring to?

2.) Have our current levels of ships affected our ability to project naval power, and if need be fight the ‘2-1/2 wars’ that strategic planners and thinkers talk about?

3.) As for the number of ships cut from 1989 to 2001, the decisions, right or wrong, were made by the Commanders-in-Chief at the time, i.e., Bush I and Clinton, not Dick Cheney.

Cheney’s input was certainly a factor, but the final decision(s) were made by those higher up the chain of command.

So what would YOU have done differently?