Hagel, obama cut military budget to 1940 size. Anything to weaken us.

[powderman]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/24/hagel-proposed-budget-will-reportedly-shrink-army-to-pre-wwii-numbers/
 
 Proposed budget will reportedly shrink Army to pre-WWII numbersPublished February 24, 2014FoxNews.com                               February 7, 2014: Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel holds a briefing at the Pentagon. (AP)Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will reportedly propose a Pentagon budget that will shrink the U.S. Army to its smallest number since 1940 and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets.
The New York Times reported late Sunday that Hagel's proposal, which will be released to lawmakers and the public on Monday, will call for a reduction in size of the military that will leave it capable of waging war, but unable to carry out protracted occupations of foreign territory, as in Afghanistan and Iraq.
 Under Hagel's plan, the number of troops in the Army will drop to between 440,000 and 450,000, a reduction of at least 120,000 soldiers from its post-Sept.11 peak.
 
Officials told the Times that Hagel's plan has been endorsed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and protects funding for Special Operations forces and cyberwarfare. It also calls for the Navy to maintain all eleven of its aircraft carriers currently in operation. However, the budget proposal mandates the elimination of the entire fleet of Air Force A-10 attack aircraft, as well as the retiring of the U-2 spy plane, a stalwart of Cold War operations.
The budget plan does keep money for the F-35 warplane, a project which has been beset by delays and criticism over design flaws.
 
Other characteristics of the budget will likely draw further ire from veterans groups and members of Congress. The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Hagel would recommend a limit on military pay raises, higher fees for health-care benefits, less generous housing allowances, and a one-year freeze on raises for top military brass.
"Personnel costs reflect some 50% of the Pentagon budget and cannot be exempted in the context of the significant cuts the department is facing," Defense Department spokesman Adm. John Kirby told the Journal. "Secretary Hagel has been clear that, while we do not want to, we ultimately must slow the growth of military pay and compensation."
 
"This is a real uphill battle with Congress," Mieke Eoyang, director of the National Security Program at Third Way, a centrist think tank in Washington, told the Journal
"God bless [Hagel] for trying to get a handle on these costs," she said. "But in this political environment, in an election year, it's going to be hard for members of Congress to accept anything that's viewed as taking benefits away from troops."
Click for more from The New York Times
Click for more from The Wall Street Journal

[magooch]

My view is that occupying any foreign country is pure folly.  If they are an enemy worth bothering with and they transgress sufficiently to require a response--remove the problem.


As much as our ground troops can be admired for their brave service, it should be clear by now that their sacrifice is not in the best interest for them, or our country.

[powderman]

I reckon Hussein figures that handing out MOH will make up for all that he has done TO our military, including this?? POWDERMAN. 

[Val]

This is typical and has been on-going for decades. The democrats always decimate our military capability and readiness in favor of welfare checks. Then, when the Republicans get back in they have to rebuild or military capability.

[ironglow]

Val;
  BINGO!!  you have it right!  Carter cut so far that we couldn't successfully run a rescue mission for the embassy hostages in Iran.  During Carter's 4 years, 7 more nations fell under communism..  So what did Carter do? He boycotted the Olympics, hurting mostly our Olympic athletes.
   
   Reagan/Bush came in and had decisive actions in Panama, Grenada and kicked the other Hussein's butt all the way back to Baghdad.  Then instead of more countries falling to communism, the Iron Curtain fell.

  Then Clinton came in and cut the military and Bush 43 had to rebuild it!

  Prior to WW@ Roosevelt cut it so far the Army had to practice with wooden guns and cardboard tanks..Good for us Hitler was busy with Russia at the time.

[clum sum]

Read pre WW11 or 1940 and post 9-11 , My sorce says that in 1940 the US Army had 269 023 personel and as far as the A10 and U2 , these are very old systems lets bring back the P 39 Air Crobra it was one of the best attack aircraft that ever was. All this was from FOX the same people that showed Jimmie Johnson winning the Daytona 500 yesterday.

[two-blocked]

I think we can afford to cut military expenses



We currently spend more on defense than the next 10 countries combined. Defense spending accounts for about 20 percent of all federal spending — nearly as much as Social Security, or the combined spending for Medicare and Medicaid. The sheer size of the defense budget suggests that it should be part of any serious effort to address America's long-term fiscal challenges. National security threats have evolved over the past 50 years, changing the nature of U.S. commitments around the world. We need a defense budget that matches these new security challenges, not the threats of the last century. We should also recognize that a strong economy is essential for providing the resources to meet future threats, and addressing our long-term structural debts will keep our economy strong. Indeed, as Admiral Mike Mullen, the past Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said: "The single greatest threat to our national security is our debt."

http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison

[sethk]

If we cut our military spending along the proposed lines, which potentially hostile countries (or alliances) would we be unable to defend against?


IG, I agree that we should be able to do things like protect/extract Americans that find themselves endanger abroad. How many billions does that require? I would say that prioritization is the key. Global communism (as something that doesn't work well) did a pretty good job of dying out without, perhaps,  the aid of millions upon millions of military (and more importantly, arguably, "intelligence") spending. (How many of those 7 nations that Carter let fall into communism are major threats to our wellbeing?)  And that only matters is you assume that the job of our military includes the shaping of foreign governments into ones that align with or benefit ours. As a side note, when, exactly, did Reagan kick "the other Hussein's butt"?

[Conan The Librarian]

There are two things. Cost of salaries and benefits in the military is absurdly high and out of control. Second thing is that spending  is insane and we are getting almost no value for our money. We are paying top dollar for a weak defense. Saying that the proposed cutbacks will revert our military to pre ww2 levels is ridiculous, and a lie. The US army was very small in 1939, owing to many factors, not the least of which was the inter war pacifist movement. Furthermore, in 1939 there were hardly any civilian contractors, today, almost everything is done by civilian contractors because the soldiers are considered skilled labor and don't get kitchen duty etc like they used to. At the same time the soldiers are not considered to be skilled enough, and need to be augmented heavily with skilled contractors. This is more the fault of republicans than democrats.

[ironglow]

If we cut our military spending along the proposed lines, which potentially hostile countries (or alliances) would we be unable to defend against?


IG, I agree that we should be able to do things like protect/extract Americans that find themselves endanger abroad. agreedHow many billions does that require? I would say that prioritization is the key. Yes, prioritize the military over such things as obamaphones Global communism (as something that doesn't work well) did a pretty good job of dying out without, perhaps, It didn't just "die" out, Reagan & Co killed it, but like a phoenix, it keeps rising again! the aid of millions upon millions of military (and more importantly, arguably, "intelligence") spending. (How many of those 7 nations that Carter let fall into communism are major threats to our wellbeing?) None at the moment, thanks to Reagan..but today we are threatened by communists right here among us! And that only matters is you assume that the job of our military includes the shaping of foreign governments into ones that align with or benefit ours. Where did I say that ?As a side note, when, exactly, did Reagan kick "the other Hussein's butt"?  You really need to work on your comprehension skills, read again..I said Reagan/Bush came in...   All said and done, neither Clinton, Bush 43 or certainly not Obama, hve given us such a clear cut victory!  With Barry, we don't even recognize the word "victory".. apology yes..but victory, no!
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

   Clum; That P39 Aircobra was a fine ground attack plane with it's central mounted 37mm cannon, however it was relegated to that task because it was such a sluggish air-to-air fighter.  My Dad worked on those during WW2.  Today, we have the finest ground attack airplane ever built; the A-10 Warthog.  That is the one Obama's military cuts just killed !
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  As Seth said "priorities"...   The preamble to the constitution says the three main thrusts of the federal government should be "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense".
  It seems there are many things (e.g. food stamps, obamaphones, billion$ wasted on solar farms and windmills, more billion$ wasted on foolish research grants like shrimp on treadmills or cow flatulence, the phony global warming scam.  None of which were even suggested by the constitution.
  Iran is building it's military, as are China, Russia, North korea and many other expansionist minded countries.

  So Obama cuts the real military..that will drive the married personnel out and leave his homosexuals to fill the rank ranks..lots of luck !

  So, does he give up on his brown shirt army, or does this loosen more funds to build the brown shirts?

  Graph from Free Republic:
 

[garbhead]

Its funny how "entitlements" always seem to morph as "welfare" or handouts, which is in actuality money paid by employees and employers into a fund that should have never been calculated as part of the budget, not as income or as expenses. Those two men Obama and Hagel sure have a lot of power to do all of that all by themselves.....LMFAO

[magooch]

Not that I don't think there is room for a lot of cuts in our military spending, but it should also be kept in mind that defense and security of the nation is the prime responsibility of the federal government and if that only amounts to 20 percent of the federal budget, there must be a whole lot of other spending that is out of control.

[Hairy Chest]

Sometimes you have to cut the fat.  Now for the foreign aid.  Way to go, Obama and Hagel.  Things are moving along.   

[guzzijohn]

Remember our military is way more effective than in WWII. One bomber now equals probably 100 or more B-17s as far as putting bombs on target. The gulf wars have shown that we probably do not need to operate nearly the number of tanks we do now due to their effectiveness. With supports we do not need nearly as many troops on the ground. Same with the navy. The other advantage of downsizing is that we may  think longer and harder before committing our military to every conflict out there in the world. The only real concern I see is the the phasing out of the A-10 Warthogs as I do not see any other plane that can do it's intended job as good or better.
GuzziJohn

[Hairy Chest]

Remember our military is way more effective than in WWII. One bomber now equals probably 100 or more B-17s as far as putting bombs on target. The gulf wars have shown that we probably do not need to operate nearly the number of tanks we do now due to their effectiveness. With supports we do not need nearly as many troops on the ground. Same with the navy. The other advantage of downsizing is that we may  think longer and harder before committing our military to every conflict out there in the world. The only real concern I see is the the phasing out of the A-10 Warthogs as I do not see any other plane that can do it's intended job as good or better.
GuzziJohn

Keep the troops employed.  Put them on the border. 

[garbhead]

from nationalwwiimuseum.org



"After World War I the United States returned to its traditional policy of isolation from armed conflicts abroad. America's military was reduced drastically. During the 1920s and 1930s its strength remained low. Even as war loomed in Europe and Asia, America made little effort to mobilize. In 1939 the United States armed forces ranked 18th in the world. The nation was far from being a military superpower. Only the navy, which had long been America's primary line of defense, was maintained at a level that commanded respect."

And the Japanese nearly destroyed our entire Navy at Pearl Harbor. 

If they would have launched a ground attack on West coast at same time, they prob could have whipped us.

[Val]

During the Clinton years, he cut the military budget so much that the US Army and the Marine Corps could not afford to purchase spare parts to maintain their systems. They could not train their depot maintenance personnel to trouble shoot and repair their systems. I know this for a fact because at the time I was the Production Product line Manager for the Airborne TOW anti tank missile systems. The US Army had to send their systems to me to trouble shoot and repair them and get them back into service. When the Army or Marines deployed we had to send engineers with them to support the system maintenance during the deployment. I had engineers in a compound in Bosnia who were subject to mortar attacks landing in the compound. My Army and Marine Corp customers thought that Clinton was an incompetent idiot. He deployed troops but cut their budgets so severely they needed civilians to go with them to provide the maintenance support.

[ironglow]

During the Clinton years, he cut the military budget so much that the US Army and the Marine Corps could not afford to purchase spare parts to maintain their systems. They could not train their depot maintenance personnel to trouble shoot and repair their systems. I know this for a fact because at the time I was the Production Product line Manager for the Airborne TOW anti tank missile systems. The US Army had to send their systems to me to trouble shoot and repair them and get them back into service. When the Army or Marines deployed we had to send engineers with them to support the system maintenance during the deployment. I had engineers in a compound in Bosnia who were subject to mortar attacks landing in the compound. My Army and Marine Corp customers thought that Clinton was an incompetent idiot. He deployed troops but cut their budgets so severely they needed civilians to go with them to provide the maintenance support.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

  Val has it correct!  During Carter's term even the Special Ops guys didn't get enough training and their planes and helicopters were hurting for regular maintenance.  Those helicopters weren't shot down into the Iranian desert, they went down due to poor maintenance..and the troops were hurting for the proper techniques..once down.
  I recall it was said at the time Reagan took office, the Navy didn't have enough ammo to fire each gun one time..
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  A bit of correction;
   It has been said here that the Japanese nearly destroyed our entire navy at Pearl Harbor.  This is hardly the case, since on 12/07/41our Navy consisted of 790 ships.  During the raid on Pearl 18 ships were either sunk or run aground.  Among the 18, five were battleships, which were by then well on their way to obsolescence.  The four carriers based in Hawaii were out to sea and never were touched by the attack.
      http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm#1938

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

  Yes, there was fear and confusion as to where the Japanese Empire would hit next, but the US military soon got their fighting feet under way.

[Hairy Chest]

All this media talk about how Defense cuts are making us weaker.  What made us weaker is spending $6 Trillion on wars we didn't need.  Now Iran and Iraq are buddies and Mr. Bush is writing his memoirs. 

Somebody has to still deal, though, with the massive debt, and there needs to be cuts.  I see military people all over my town.  They are just pork.  They walk around slow, looking at their Iphones without any sense of urgency.  The military industrial complex is the biggest piece of pork and it's unfair to complain when somebody does the conservative thing, and that is, to make cuts, to do things more efficiently.  Somebody has to make the hard choices.  It's funny how when we see a Democrat making spending cuts, now we hear all the whining and wailing from the usual small crowd.  Who put us into those wars that cost us Trillions?  Eh?  It was the war lobby, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II who gave us the failed wars.  Every one of them was a complete waste of taxpayer's expense. And the one who withdraws the troops and finally begins to do the right thing is somehow being too weak?    Liberals are the ones who like to have forces all over the world.  Protect everybody else, but ourselves.  Liberals like Wilson, FDR, LBJ.  Conservatives, on the other hand, don't like to get us embroiled in other people's quarrels.  We need to put America first.  Forget everybody else.  Let them do it on their own without needing the U.S.'s help.  It's only a big liberal who thinks we are a breadbasket to the world  Forget the world.  We need to withdraw the troops and become more isolationist.  Put them on the border.  If the boat people approach our shores, then redirect them back to their homeland.  Cutting back on wasteful spending is a traditional conservative approach.  They need to keep cutting.  Time to put the sword on the welfare state also.  That's going to hurt some Democrats with their constituencies.  Well, so be it.  We want to see action.  With welfare must come sterilization.  No amnesty and incentives to send many of these peoples home.  Immigration was a failed experiment.  It didn't work, they didn't assimilate.  Either party do it, or we'll put in people who will do what we want.  But this is what we want.  We want an end to the welfare state and all the baggage.  Tired of paying for the freeloaders.  Freeze all welfare and free healthcare to illegal aliens.  Let them wail.  Our pocketbooks are tired of doing the wailing.  Do it on their nickle.   
 

[Conan The Librarian]

I agree with Hairy Chest. There's a lot of pork.


Whether we are weak because we don't spend for people and systems, or we are weak because of wasteful and ineffective use of money and resources, it makes no difference. We are still weak.


The recent Iraq and afghan boondoggles gave shocking evidence about how wasteful and ineffective the military has gotten.

[ironglow]

  I agree there is much pork...much pork in all of government..  However, seeing as "provide for the common defense" is one of the three primary reasons we even have a federal government, surely most other pork should be cut first, before cutting the military..  Remember, Obama cut the military substantially right off as soon as he could.  Then came the "sequester" from which more than half was cuts to the military.
  I would be willing to see cuts to the military if the politicians would first cut all such pork as we see below, which is all unnecessary:

    Group Blasts Pork-Barrel Spending.  The watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste has released its latest edition of the “Pig Book,” a list of government earmark spending the organization considers egregious.  Here are some of the expenditures cited by the report:
  •  Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), $1,000 to buy every seat in a Lincoln, NE cineplex so he could watch National Treasure: Book Of Secrets in peace.
  •  Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), $6,500 for larger Congressional Softball League hats.
  •  Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), $20:  Federal Nutrition Assistance Program for Senators Who Forgot Their Wallets.
  •  Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), $10 million to build a one-mile, 20-lane highway outside of Salt Lake City.
  •  Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), $15 million:  erection of a Barbasol museum.
  •  Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), $19 million:  free-clam program to benefit people who have never eaten clams.
  •  Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), $2.8 million for increased Sen. Amy Klobuchar awareness.
  •  Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA), $100 billion to establish a National Aeronautics and Space Administration program.

  Maybe Pigs Really Do Fly.  [Scroll down] Some of the other “pork barrel” projects that were included in the 2008 Omnibus Spending Bill:
  •  $10 million for attorneys of ILLEGAL immigrants
  •  $100,000 for a swimming pool in Ottawa, Kansas
  •  $1.5 million for the Rep. Richard Gephardt Archive at the Missouri Historical Society
  •  $576,000 to manage weeds (no location specified)
  •  $700,000 for a bike trail in Minnesota
  •  $1 million for a river walk in Massachusetts
  •  $100,000 for signage in Los Angeles’ fashion district
  •  $250,000 for a wine and culinary center in Prosser, Washington
  •  $113,000 for rodent control in Alaska
  •  $213,000 for olive fruit fly research in FRANCE
  •  $200,000 for hunting and fishing museum in Pennsylvania
  •  $200,000 for post office museum in downtown Las Vegas

    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-worst-pork-of-2010-2010-4?op=1

[DDZ]

Well see IG, lots of people don't care about that kind of spending, that carries the "who cares its not our money mentality."  That is as long as they keep it quite and swept under the carpet.  Supporting a military is about the only duty our government is to be responsible for. When they support hundreds upon hundreds of programs they have no business at all running or supporting, I guess our military personal's wages and benefits become an easy target. I just can't believe people are all in on this. Kind of shows the mentality of the citizenry. Its no surprise at all we elected what we have.

[garbhead]

[

  A bit of correction;
   It has been said here that the Japanese nearly destroyed our entire navy at Pearl Harbor.

  Yes, there was fear and confusion as to where the Japanese Empire would hit next, but the US military soon got their fighting feet under way.

What I meant to say was they nearly destroyed our entire navy that was in Pearl Harbor at the time, not our total Naval forces everywhere. 
Also I agree Americans pulled together and in 4 short years defeated the Axis powers.  Not Republicans not Democrats..
Americans...that attitude is going to have to be adopted again to overcome our country's problems. But I don't see it happening unless another major catastrophe occurs but division of the people is at all-time high.

[powderman]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/25/increased-domestic-spending-may-be-behind-proposed-military-cuts-cbo-report/
 
 
Cuts caused by huge increase in domestic spending. POWDERMAN. 
 
 Increased domestic spending may be behind proposed military cuts, CBO report suggests                   By Doug McKelwayPublished February 25, 2014FoxNews.com            As the Obama administration announces proposed sweeping defense cuts, a Congressional Budget Office report documents how increases in other areas of domestic spending may be forcing the White House to reduce money for the military.

The CBO report finds that mandatory spending, which includes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, is projected to rise $85 billion, or 4 percent, to $2.1 trillion this year. Interest on the debt is worse. It is projected to increase 14 percent per year, almost quadrupling in dollar terms between 2014 and 2024. "We are going to be spending more in interest in a couple of years then we do on national defense," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif., told Fox News.

The Obama administration acknowledges the defense cuts are controversial but maintains they are being done with a specific intention:"...in order to sustain our readiness and technological superiority and to protect critical capabilities like special operations forces and cyber resources," Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel told reporters Monday.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen , D-Md., told Fox News the draw down from two wars is a logical time to save defense money. "We do not need for the defense of our country to be able to have a defense doctrine that calls for fighting two land wars at the same time," he said.
 
But history is filled with hard lessons in disarmament. Churchill warned a pacifist Britain, worn out from massive loss of life in World War I, of its unpreparedness for war with Germany as early as 1934. In 1936, he said in a speech to a disinterested Parliament, "A lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes... until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong... these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history."

McKeon offers a contemporary reprise of Churchill’s words. "The price is going to be paid for this whether it's in the Middle East, whether it's in the Pacific, whether it's in Europe," he said. "I don't know where. I don't know when. I don't know how, but some bad actor is going to challenge us."
 
House Republicans may have some leverage over the cuts and they can appropriate money for defense programs at higher amounts than the Pentagon calls for. And while Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told the Washington Examiner late Tuesday the defense cuts are "dead on arrival," the Senate Majority leader deferred judgment.
"I'm running the Senate...we'll weigh it when it gets here,"Harry Reid told reporters.
It’s not just Republicans who have concerns about the defense cuts. When and if military assembly lines slow and bases potentially close in Democratic districts, the cuts may find greater bi-partisan opposition.
 
 
Doug McKelway joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in November 2010 and serves as a Washington-based correspondent.

[ironglow]

Garb;
  I see we are on the same page and I am old enough to just remember those WW2 years, because I was in grade school at the time.  You are so correct.  It wasn't Democrats or Republicans who won that struggle, it was Americans pulling together.  I wish today's Americans could see how it worked in those days!  On our school playground we had piles of rubber, aluminum and other metals..all brought in by students to be sent to be reclaimed for the "war effort".  Kids brought in their dimes..they couldn't afford to buy a "war bond' but they could buy "Victory stamps" at 10 cents each!
  The enemy was referred to as "Krauts".. even though in my area, those names were being used by people of German extraction, and the term "Nazi" was equivalent to Satan's helpers!  Certainly, I would suppose that the slang word "Japs" was being used in some cases by Japanese Americans, since there was great loyalty to our country.  I can even recall some of the little ditties we used to chant concerning the enemy leaders
  Although I see that name-calling as a juvenile act, unlike today at least Americans back then were not afraid to recognize who their real enemy is.

  And this new "politics of division" , playing one group or faction of Americans against the other...would have been hooted out of existence!
    Then, in the early 1960s the education system morphed into an "indoctrination system" so we're at the point we now are..

[magooch]

The most insidious and dangerous enemy this country faces today is communism and it comes from within and is led by an arrogant, lying would be dick tater who has no allegiance to this country, or its Constitution.  He and the communist party that he leads will not be defeated by our military--but I wouldn't rule it out.  The next three years will be the most trying in this county's existence.

[Bob Riebe]

Hagel, obama----MAY--- cut military budget to 1940 size. Anything to weaken us.

It is always best to keep the possibility as a possibility, not as what it is not nor may be.

[Bob Riebe]

All this media talk about how Defense cuts are making us weaker.  What made us weaker is spending $6 Trillion on wars we didn't need.  Now Iran and Iraq are buddies and Mr. Bush is writing his memoirs. 

That has zero to do with spending but one hundred percent with the pathetic manner Bush ran the war; he worried more about killing persons he, in his ignorance thought were not a problem than not getting allied soldiers killed, or what would happen after his inept plan started.

The Shiites used his pathetic ignorance to make him look like the fool he is and get thousands of soldiers killed that should not have died.

The person he put in charge of defense sent our troops in ill equiped and ill prepared to save money for their "new" type of warfare that never existed nor will it ever.

[ironglow]

Bob Riebe says;
     " That has zero to do with spending but one hundred percent with the pathetic manner Bush ran the war; he worried more about killing persons he, in his ignorance thought were not a problem than not getting allied soldiers killed, or what would happen after his inept plan started."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  Granted, Bush had some teething problems in this new, asymmetrical style war, but he was nowhere near as handy at gettingour troops killed as Barry has.  Just check with troops who have served under both; the new ROE and almost every other policy forced upon the military since 2009, has been detrimental to the lives and morale of the troops.. 

[Gary G]