The Clinton budget cuts during the peacetime 90s forced units to cannibalize equipment and reduce training, which contributed to deteriorating morale and readiness across the board.

I recall this clearly. Many units that were slotted to deploy to a conflict early (the ones who always train) never had enough ammo to even qualify let alone train.

I also recall some sort of quick scandal when Bubber was first sending troops to Bosnia, without enough ammo.

Of course the drive-by media dutifully covered for him.

Not having the funds in place would not force a withdrawal from Iraq, yet, but it would greatly degrade the military’s readiness on the home front.

This makes me wonder if this is the reason the defeatocrats are always demanding Bush certify the readiness of troops before deployment in their never ending terms of surrender bills.

They know their readiness would be degraded since the funding to improve their readiness would be degraded.

and lay off about 100,000 defense department employees and an equal number of civilian contractors.

The first criteria for the layoffs, of course, should be the direct importance of those possibly layed off to the war effort and national defense. After that people and companies in the home districts of pelosi, reid, kennedy, feinstein, schumer and hagel and the rest of the traitors.

The Democrats believe that they were handed Congress in 2006 to end LOSE the war in Iraq.

Fixed that for you. This dereliction of duty is just another element in their “Lose At All Costs!” strategy.

i believe the response would be stunning.

stenwin77 on November 15, 2007 at 7:26 PM

lol. It would be stunning alright.

Set up an account for any American that wants to fund the war at this critical point could send money in specifically for that purpose. I think it would smack the Dems right on the head. i believe the response would be stunning.

NO SIR,,, their actions are Sedition. Every American war time president that oversaw a successful war effort (not counting short actions) have been forced to deal with the American Left.

Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, all at varying degress imposed presidential powers to limit or outright arrest the American left during times of war.

Korea/Truman didn’t do it, and we got a stalemate. Vietnam/Nixon/Johnson/Kennedy didn’t do it and we got a outright DEFEAT. Which list will Bush put his name in, the defeated or victorious?

No where in the constitution does it have a freedom to commit mutual suicide.

At that point the problem becomes, ‘what are we going to do about it’?

Hollowpoint on November 15, 2007 at 6:14 PM

My thought exactly. Besides, isn’t Murtha’s district feeding well out of the Dense contract trough?

Good for Gates, man.

TK made the mistake of asking “why the Army was so strapped in Iraq” and was promptly told it was because of the cuts that were made in the 90s.

Woops.

Why do the Democrats even bother pulling stunts like this? Is it because they want to throw the nutroots like Daily Kos and MoveOn a bone? Is it because they think Bush will eventually give up and do what they want? I just don’t get it.

SoulGlo on November 15, 2007 at 6:22 PM

Well, to paraphrase the Waco Kid, You’ve got to remember that these are just simple Democrats. These are people of the blue districts. The common clay of the progressive left. You know- Morons!

Also, sense the whole world is watching this play out; what is stopping China from annexing Taiwan or north Korea from going on a food run down south?

Take away the big stick, who watches the carrots?