Jump to content

OUTRAGE! Obama Administration Is Secretly Declaring Thousands of US Veterans Incompetent – Then Taking Away Their Second Amendment Rights


Recommended Posts

Majorsco
Ever considered that might be because there were more of them that returned home under his administration? And that it actually has nothing to do with Obama?[/

 

It was Obama's admin's homeland security dept that labeled returning vets a security concern , not prior admins.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Majorsco

    18

  • lamoe

    6

  • Irenicus

    6

  • senseless

    5

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I know my opinions on some subjects are not popular with many, that is why I usually move on  but his concerns veterans - so I want to make sure that Veterans have good information to base their decis

Elementary British Army officer training - if your soldiers are not complaining about anything, there is something wrong.

Posted Images

senseless
Ever considered that might be because there were more of them that returned home under his administration? And that it actually has nothing to do with Obama?[/

 

It was Obama's admin's homeland security dept that labeled returning vets a security concern , not prior admins.

 

Not true, I've been hearing about this since before he was in office. If ignoring reality helps you sleep at night, so be it. Existing federal firearm laws (for nearly 40 years now) has barred people with mental illness from owning weapons. PTSD is a mental illness. Soldiers with PTSD have their data shared to the FBI (pre-9/11 so there was no DHS) from the VA. After the creation of DHS, the data went there as opposed to the FBI. Like I said, just more screwed up soldiers returning home under obama than under bush. Under NICS with the brady bill government agencies can submit information about the mentally ill to, again, then the FBI, now the DHS. As soldiers with PTSD came home their information was shared and those with PTSD, since it's considered a mental illness, were placed onto the no-buy list for mental health reasons.

 

I suppose if blaming a democrat is required for you to sleep, you could blame Clinton and the Brady Bill. But again, this was happening under bush.

 

Personally, having people who could snap into flash backs or break down not own guns is probably a good idea. There have been multiple cases of soldiers with PTSD snapping, killing their wives, killing themselves, killing others, and more. Based on what I saw about 20% of all returning vets have PTSD and are then barred from owning weapons. If soldiers want to keep their weapons then they either need to keep quiet about their crazy episodes and not tell anyone, or to get their head straight so they don't have crazy episodes to begin with.

 

I have to wonder why some so called conservatives (and liberals) are so nuts. Are they just incapable of researching a topic? Does it make them feel better as if they're the good guy and they're working to defeat evil people? Maybe one day you will wake up and see there's no difference between the 2 parties. They're both going to destroy the country. Maybe it's just easier to believe whatever bullshit big poppa bill throws at them. Sigh, and people couldn't understand why I would want to give up my citizenship. Here's an example of why. American exceptional-ism has gone to everyone's head. They believe into the propaganda without fulfilling the requirements.

Edited by senseless
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Majorsco

Not true, I've been hearing about this since before he was in office. If ignoring reality helps you sleep at night, so be it. Existing federal firearm laws (for nearly 40 years now) has barred people with mental illness from owning weapons. PTSD is a mental illness. Soldiers with PTSD have their data shared to the FBI (pre-9/11 so there was no DHS) from the VA. After the creation of DHS, the data went there as opposed to the FBI. Like I said, just more screwed up soldiers returning home under obama than under bush. Under NICS with the brady bill government agencies can submit information about the mentally ill to, again, then the FBI, now the DHS. As soldiers with PTSD came home their information was shared and those with PTSD, since it's considered a mental illness, were placed onto the no-buy list for mental health reasons.

 

I suppose if blaming a democrat is required for you to sleep, you could blame Clinton and the Brady Bill. But again, this was happening under bush.

 

Personally, having people who could snap into flash backs or break down not own guns is probably a good idea. There have been multiple cases of soldiers with PTSD snapping, killing their wives, killing themselves, killing others, and more. Based on what I saw about 20% of all returning vets have PTSD and are then barred from owning weapons. If soldiers want to keep their weapons then they either need to keep quiet about their crazy episodes and not tell anyone, or to get their head straight so they don't have crazy episodes to begin with.

 

I have to wonder why some so called conservatives (and liberals) are so nuts. Are they just incapable of researching a topic? Does it make them feel better as if they're the good guy and they're working to defeat evil people? Maybe one day you will wake up and see there's no difference between the 2 parties. They're both going to destroy the country. Maybe it's just easier to believe whatever bullshit big poppa bill throws at them. Sigh, and people couldn't understand why I would want to give up my citizenship. Here's an example of why. American exceptional-ism has gone to everyone's head. They believe into the propaganda without fulfilling the requirements.

I'm not talking about PTSD issues. Homeland security labeled ALL returning vets a security risk in the first year of Obama's admin. Got lots of news coverage and they were forced to pull it back .

 

Democrats categorically don't like the military since Carter. All have tried to decimate and marginalized it. Carter did it, Clinton did it, and now Obama.

 

Then when a national emergency comes they come to the militAry and complain when it's not ready enough.

 

I'm a retired officer and have personally seen it since 1980 when I was sworn in.

 

No one that hasn't been in the military during those years will know a lick about it because they got the benefit of protection without cRing about how it was achieved.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
senseless

I'm not talking about PTSD issues.

 

You are (and other similar issues), as they're being declared "mentally incompetent". The rest of your post is a classic "them vs us" scenario I was speaking about above. "We're right, they're wrong. We're good, They're bad." I'm not sure why the democrats wouldn't like the military since the ranks are filled with poor inner city folk (their key demographic). This entire thread is filled with ridiculous half truths, unfounded assumptions, fear and loathing.

Edited by senseless
Link to post
Share on other sites
Majorsco

You are (and other similar issues), as they're being declared "mentally incompetent".

 

The rest of your post is a classic "them vs us" scenario I was speaking about above. "We're right, they're wrong. We're good, They're bad."

 

I'm not sure why the democrats wouldn't like the military since the ranks are filled with poor inner city folk (their key demographic).

No I'm not! I'm talking about DHS directives sent out to state police organizations back in the early days of the admin that listed vets along with TEA party members, religious groups and anyone displaying significant patriotic displays as national security risks.

 

You can ignore and try it change what I'm saying to fit your narrative but it's what happened.

 

The entire PTSD debate is sad but separate!

Link to post
Share on other sites
senseless

No I'm not! I'm talking about DHS directives sent out to state police organizations back in the early days of the admin that listed vets along with TEA party members, religious groups and anyone displaying significant patriotic displays as national security risks.

 

You can ignore and try it change what I'm saying to fit your narrative but it's what happened.

 

The entire PTSD debate is sad but separate!

 

Assuming for a second what you say is true. How do you know obama was directly involved? How do you know it wasn't done by some crazy ass nut case like Janet Napolitano (or similar)?

 

And btw, if you think there aren't right wing nut cases talking about overthrowing the govt, revolution, taking up arms, etc specifically in the tea party movement. Well, all you need to do is listen to some of the callers on the Alex Jones show (and similar) to refute that.

Edited by senseless
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Mike

Obama is never directly involved in anything! ( duh, that is the plan!)  Lead from behind...WTH? "I.... do not remember, was not informed. I have no information"....BS!...I say again.... BS! This current WH is occupied by Obama sycophants and the US public...has no clue! Jay Carney (the story telling, piece of crap)  sporting new facial hair, needs to be smacked!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Majorsco

Assuming for a second what you say is true. How do you know obama was directly involved? How do you know it wasn't done by some crazy ass nut case like Janet Napolitano (or similar)?

 

And btw, if you think there aren't right wing nut cases talking about overthrowing the govt, revolution, taking up arms, etc specifically in the tea party movement. Well, all you need to do is listen to some of the callers on the Alex Jones show (and similar) to refute that.

 

 

Former DHS Secretary Napolitano was hand picked by Obama and was a trusted member of the administration.  As such, it was Obama's administration taking the action.  You can't let Obama off the hook for responsibility because he is the president and  is responsible for his administration and their actions.  It may be an inconvienent truth against the Obama administration but it is still truth.  And yes, this had nothing to do with PTSD!

 

See Story below: (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/?page=all)

 

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.

But the top House Democrat with oversight of the Department of Homeland Security said in a letter to Ms. Napolitano that he was “dumbfounded” that such a report would be issued.

“This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans - including war veterans,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, in his letter sent Tuesday night.

The letter was representative of a public furor over the nine-page document since its existence was reported in The Washington Times on Tuesday.

In her statement Wednesday, Ms. Napolitano defended the report, which says “rightwing extremism” may include groups opposed to abortion and immigration, as merely one among several threat assessments. But she agreed to meet with the head of the American Legion, who had expressed anger over the report, when she returns to Washington next week from a tour of the U.S.-Mexico border.

RELATED STORIES:

Federal agency warns of radicals on right

Legion objects to vets as terror risk

Obama promises new beginning ahead of trip

“The document on right-wing extremism sent last week by this department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis is one in an ongoing series of assessments to provide situational awareness to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on the phenomenon and trends of violent radicalization in the United States,” Ms. Napolitano said in her statement.

“I was briefed on the general topic, which is one that struck a nerve as someone personally involved in the Timothy McVeigh prosecution,” Ms. Napolitano said.

Click here to download a PDF of the report.

Ms. Napolitano insisted that the department was not planning on engaging in any form of ideological profiling.

“Let me be very clear: We monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States. We don’t have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence,” Ms. Napolitano said.

“We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not - nor will we ever - monitor ideology or political beliefs. We take seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources.”

The Times reported Tuesday that the department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) issued April 7 the nine-page document titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” Outcry from veterans groups, Republican lawmakers and conservative activists followed, but the reaction spread Wednesday to Democratic lawmakers and liberal-leaning groups.

In his letter to Ms. Napolitano, Mr. Thompson demanded that Homeland Security officials explain how and why they wrote the report and whether it poses any threat to civil liberties.

“As I am certain you agree, freedom of association and freedom of speech are guaranteed to all Americans - whether a person’s beliefs, whatever their political orientation, are ‘extremist’ or not,” Mr. Thompson said.

Mr. Thompson said the report “blurred the line,” and that he is “disappointed and surprised that the department would allow this report to be disseminated” to law enforcement officials nationwide.

Homeland Security officials have declined to say who wrote report, except that it was a career official and not a political appointee.

Only three employees are listed in the Federal Yellow Book as working for the I&A office - acting Undersecretary Roger Mackin and two executive assistants.

Mr. Thompson’s letter said, “I am particularly struck by the report’s conclusion which states that I&A ‘will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization.’ ” He demanded to know what types of activities the Homeland Security Department had planned for “the next several months.”

“Rightwing extremism,” the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to “those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”

“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” said the report, which also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks.

The assessment is not the first Homeland Security product to examine threats based on political extremism. In January, the department sent law enforcement officials an assessment of cyberterrorism threats from such left-leaning sources as environmental, animal rights and anarchist groups.

Mike German, policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union and a former FBI agent, said his organization was concerned about law enforcement agencies’ focus on radicalization, regardless of the specific ideology.

“Certainly, the right-wing report is focused far too much on rhetoric and things people say and things people think rather than on criminal activity and the people involved in criminal activity,” he said. “There is plenty of crime out there for federal, state and local law enforcement to worry about. They don’t need to invent threats that they have no factual basis for supporting.”

The American Legion on Tuesday said the latest report unfairly stereotypes veterans.

“I am aware of the letter from American Legion National Commander [David K.] Rehbein, and my staff has already contacted him to set up a meeting next week once I return from travel. I will tell him face-to-face that we honor veterans at DHS and employ thousands across the department, up to and including the Deputy Secretary,” Ms. Napolitano said.

“As the department responsible for protecting the homeland, DHS will continue to work with its state and local partners to prevent and protect against the potential threat to the United States associated with any rise in violent extremist activity,” Ms. Napolitano said.

Asked about the report at Wednesday’s White House briefing, press secretary Robert Gibbs said he has not spoken with President Obama specifically about it.

“Without getting into the report, I think the president works hard every day to make sure that all Americans are safe and secure,” Mr. Gibbs said.

“And I would say that, as it relates to some aspect of the report, that the president believes those who serve our country represent the very best of it,” Mr. Gibbs said.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said Wednesday that the department owes veterans an apology.

“To characterize men and women returning home after defending our country as potential terrorists is offensive and unacceptable,” he said. “Everyone agrees that the department should be focused on protecting America, but using such broad-based generalizations about the American people is simply outrageous.”

Rep. Steve Buyer of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, called it “inconceivable” that the Obama administration would categorize veterans as a potential threat.

“This kind of mischaracterization can lead to discrimination against veterans in our society, especially in the job market,” Mr. Buyer said. “Vietnam veterans were subjected to this unfair treatment, and I call upon President Obama and members of Congress to refute any similar stereotyping of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.”

 

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/#ixzz2prZyIqvn

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
lamoe

No I'm not! I'm talking about DHS directives sent out to state police organizations back in the early days of the admin that listed vets along with TEA party members, religious groups and anyone displaying significant patriotic displays as national security risks.

 

You can ignore and try it change what I'm saying to fit your narrative but it's what happened.

 

The entire PTSD debate is sad but separate!

 

 

It is true. As I've stated before daughter is County Sheriff. Came over to my house and said "Dad I may have to arrest you someday"  then showed me piece of fuc*ing shit Obama's admin sent out.

 

No he didn't sign it himself but do you remember that other lie of his?  The buck stops with me? That means he's responsible for any and every thing done by his administration Yep he did say it - didn't mean it of course - never does

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31259.html

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
smokey

Obama is never directly involved in anything! ( duh, that is the plan!)  Lead from behind...WTH? "I.... do not remember, was not informed. I have no information"....BS!...I say again.... BS! This current WH is occupied by Obama sycophants and the US public...has no clue! Jay Carney (the story telling, piece of crap)  sporting new facial hair, needs to be smacked!

so that is why bush went with the WMD  he was in the backround

Link to post
Share on other sites
Majorsco

so that is why bush went with the WMD he was in the backround

Remember Bush was not alone. Many many countries had the same intelligence. Oh, but people conveniently forget that and lay the blame solely on Bush's lap.

 

Bush never said he found out about it from the news media, or was never told. He accepted the intelligence failure and worked to correct it. He accepted responsibility.

 

Obama never accepts responsibility for anything.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Irenicus

Democrats categorically don't like the military since Carter. All have tried to decimate and marginalized it. Carter did it, Clinton did it, and now Obama.

 

 

Bullshit.  

 

Military spending has increased under Obama. Military spending (with inflation adjustments factored in) is the highest its been since the end of WW2.

 

Here's a pretty graph.

 

post-14529-0-53887800-1389258987_thumb.png

 

Source:  http://rogueoperator.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/obama-beats-bush-in-military-and-war-spending/

 

So much for hope and change. Same old, same old.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any Vet living in Cebu...has given up their guns...in moving here...only guns you can have in your home in the Philippines legally, would be in a spouse that is a Philippine citizen...or another family member that is a Philippine citizen...

You are correct, thank you.  But I do know that Vets still living in the US read these pages and a lot of the Vets in the Philippines are only part timers 

 

So get half a lawyer to protect half you rights....  ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Majorsco

Bullshit.  

 

Military spending has increased under Obama. Military spending (with inflation adjustments factored in) is the highest its been since the end of WW2.

 

Here's a pretty graph.

 

attachicon.gif800px-u-s-_defense_spending_trends.png

 

Source:  http://rogueoperator.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/obama-beats-bush-in-military-and-war-spending/

 

So much for hope and change. Same old, same old.

 

I appologize in advance for the extent of the info to follow, but a lib, Obama worshiper needs their eyes opened to history and current military reductions.  I'll not include the revelations that former Obama Defense Secretary Bill Gates just brought to the fore.  That's fodder for a different discussion. 

 

I myself retired during the massive military reduction in force in 1997 under Bill Clinton that had gone on for a few years (I waited till it just about ended to retire early).

 

 

A.  Obama Admin New Reductions in Defense Capabilities.

 

1. The U.S. military will steadily shrink the Army and Marine Corps, reduce forces in Europe and probably make further cuts to the nation’s nuclear arsenal, the Obama administration said Thursday in a preview of how it intends to reshape the armed forces after a decade of war.

The downsizing of the Pentagon, prompted by the country’s dire fiscal problems, means that the military will depend more on coalitions with allies and avoid the large-scale counterinsurgency and nation-building operations that have marked the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-announces-new-military-approach/2012/01/05/gIQAFWcmcP_story.html

 

2.  AF announces additional force management programs to reduce force size.   Air Force leaders announced force management programs Dec. 11 designed to reduce the force by thousands of Airmen over the next five years as a result of sequestration.

 

Fiscal 2014 force management initiatives are in addition to the announcement made in July, stating the Air Force will implement several force management programs to meet budget reduction requirements.

 

 http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/467713/af-announces-additional-force-management-programs-to-reduce-force-size.aspx

 

3. PENTAGON: The Army’s widely publicized decision to cut 10 brigade combat teams from bases in eight states is just part of the story of the incredible shrinking armed services. To start with, it’s not actually 10 brigades: It’s 11, the 10 announced this afternoon and a player to be named later. Or, if you count two brigades being eliminated at bases in Europe, an announcement made months ago, it’s 13. http://breakingdefense.com/2013/06/army-cuts-10-combat-brigades-or-11-or-13-and-thats-before-sequester/

 

B.  Pre 9/11 Military Reductions (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/trends-us-military-spending) as well as additional current insight.

 

Military budgets are only one gauge of military power. A given financial commitment may be adequate or inadequate depending on the number and capability of a nation's adversaries, how well it spends its investment, and what it seeks to accomplish, among other factors. Nevertheless, trends in military spending do reveal something about a country's capacity for coercion. The following charts, from the Council of Foreign Relations, present historical trends in U.S. military spending and analyze the forces that may drive it lower.

These charts draw on data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Both data sets include spending on overseas contingency operations as well as defense. This distinguishes them from data used in the U.S. budget, which separate defense spending from spending on overseas operations.

 

 

001_military_spending_dollars.png

  • In inflation-adjusted dollars, SIPRI's measure of U.S. military spending rose sharply after the terrorist attacks of 2001.
  • In 2011, military spending declined by almost $9 billion, the first such decline since 1998.
  • Sequestration scheduled to take effect in January promises about $55 billion in cuts to U.S. military spending, although the baseline against which these cuts will be made remains unclear.
  • The president's 2013 budget requests $728 billion in military spending. If this were used as the baseline, sequestration would mean a 7.5 percent reduction in military spending from the president's requested level in FY 2013.

002_military_spending_percent_of_world.p

 

 

The following charts provide some historical perspective on military spending.

 

009_national_defense_1928.png

  • U.S. national defense spending has ranged widely, from less than 1 percent of GDP in 1929 up to 43 percent in 1944. These extremes illustrate that resource allocation to defense can increase rapidly when a war demands it.

 

010_national_defense_1948.png

  • Focusing just on the post-World War II period, U.S. national defense spending as a percent of GDP has ranged from a high of 15 percent in 1952 (during the Korean War) to a low of 3.7 percent in 2000 (the period of relative tranquility preceding the terrorist attacks of the following year).

 

011_national_defense_1988.png

  • In the post-Cold War world, the U.S. national defense budget has fluctuated within a relatively narrow band. It fell by about three percentage points of GDP as the nation reaped the peace dividend of the 1990s, then rose after the terrorist attacks of 2001.
  • President Obama's budget proposes cutting security spending to 3.7% of GDP in 2018. This would match the 2000 level and represent the lowest allocation of GDP to defense spending in the post-World War II era

C.  Clinton Reductions:

 

By ERIC SCHMITT

Published: February 04, 1993

Defense Secretary Les Aspin has directed the Pentagon to produce a spending plan for the next fiscal year that is at least $14 billion less than the budget for the current year, according to internal Pentagon documents.

Before he left office, President Bush had already proposed spending $3 billion less on the military in the next fiscal year, which begins on Oct. 1. But Mr. Aspin's directive would cut the spending by nearly four times as much and make the Clinton Administration's first step toward honoring a campaign pledge to reduce military spending more.

About $8.3 billion of what Mr. Aspin hopes to cut is to come from the operating budgets of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines. That is likely to mean faster cuts in troops, less training time and fewer ships than President Bush had envisioned in his final budget. Reducing Troops in Europe

The military budget for the current year is $283 billion, in 1994 dollars, adjusted for anticipated inflation of 3.7 percent. Before he left office, former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney had proposed a $280 billion spending plan for the next fiscal year

 

2.  At a Republican debate in Orlando on Oct. 21, 2007, Mitt Romney blamed President Clinton for shrinking the military.

"During the Clinton years, the president said we're going to take a peace dividend," Romney said. "We got the dividend. We didn't get the peace. He reduced the scale of our military dramatically, took 500,000 troops out, cut back our Navy by 80 ships."

This claim is similar to others made by Romney in campaign speeches that we have previously checked and found were misleading.

In April 2007, he said, "Following the end of the Cold War, President Clinton began to dismantle our military. He reduced our forces by 500,000. He retired almost 80 ships. Our spending on national defense dropped from over 6 percent of GDP to 3.8 percent today."

He is correct that military forces were reduced significantly under Clinton. The active-duty military totaled 1.8-million at the start of his presidency in 1993 and declined to 1.4-million in 2000. Romney is also correct that the naval fleet shrank dramatically. The Navy had 454 ships in 1993, but as vessels were retired and not replaced, the fleet was down to 341 by 2000. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/oct/22/mitt-romney/defense-cuts-had-gop-support-too/  (For completeness, Some reductions had started under Pres. H. W. Bush, but accelerated under Clinton.

 

3. 

U.S. Military Resources Have Been Depleted

by Years of Clinton/Gore Neglect

 

 

 

  • The Clinton/Gore Administration had stretched our military forces thin in the past eight years. Between 1960 and 1991, the United States Army conducted 10 "operational events." In the past eight years, the Army has conducted 26 operational events --- 2 1/2 times that number in 1/3 the time span.
  • Today, there are 265,000 American troops in 135 countries.
  • Since the end of the Gulf War, our military has shrunk by 40 percent. Army divisions have dropped from 18 to 10. The Army has reduced its ranks by more than 630,000 soldiers and civilians and closed over 700 installations at home and overseas.
  • Since 1990, the Air Force has shrunk from 36 fighter wings (active and reserve) to 20. The Air Force has downsized by nearly 40 percent while simultaneously experiencing a fourfold increase in operational commitments.
  • At the height of the Reagan Administration build-up, the Navy had 586 ships. Now it only has 324. The Clinton Administrations blueprint called for that number to further drop to 305. If the rate of ship construction and retirement by this administration is continued, that number could fall to only 200 ships by 2020.
  • Since 1987, active duty military personnel have been reduced by more than 800,000. To illustrate that problem:

  1. Last June, the
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    carrier battle group deployed with 770 fewer personnel than it did on its previous deployment three years before.
    • At about the same time, the
      USS Dwight D. Eisenhower
      , another carrier, began a 6-month deployment 464 people short of its 2,963 authorized billets.
      • Late last year, the
        USS Enterprise
        deployed for the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf short 400 personnel.

The Navy has total of 22,000 empty slots in a 324-ship fleet.

  • The armed services already suffer a severe ammunition shortfall going into the Kosovo engagement. According to the Service Chiefs, the FY99 ammunition shortfall for the Marine Corps is $193 million. For the Army in FY00, it is a shocking $3.5 billion.
  • The equipment we have is aging.

  1. The average age of the B-52H bombersnow in use in the Balkansis 37 years old.
    • The average age of the Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV) is 26 years old.
      • The design of the CH-46 helicoptera Marine mainstayis approximately 40 years old.

  • A-10 pilots flying over Kosovo have been forced to spend their own money to buy inferior, off-the-shelf GPS receivers at local stores and attach them with Velcro to their planes to use in conjunction with their outdated survival radios should their planes crash.
  • At a congressional hearing held in February at the Navys Strike and Air Warfare Center in Fallen, NV the world-renowned "Top Gun" fighter pilot school Members were told that mechanical problems had grounded 14 of the centers 23 aircraft.
  • More than half of the B1-Bs at Ellsworth AFB are not mission capable because they lack critical parts.

 

 

 

National Security Crisis Created by Clinton-Gore Neglect

 

 

 

  • The Clinton/Gore Administration had created a national security emergency by neglecting the defense budget for the past eight years while stretching our troops around the world with a record number of deployments.
  • Clinton's decision to call up 25,000 reservists less than a month into a "small" operation underscores our nations national defense crisis.
  • This Republican Congress is committed to protecting the lives of our men and women in the military by acting swiftly and decisively to restore our armed services to levels of readiness necessary for the defense of our nation.
  • National defense is the only major category of federal spending to decline between FY 1990 and FY 2000. Republicans have added some $29.5 billion to Clinton's defense requests since 1995, but even with these significant increases, Clinton's reductions have been so great that defense spending still has not kept pace with inflation.
  • In the limited time that the line-item veto was available to this President, he focused it almost exclusively on defense programs. Over 90 percent of the spending that Clinton sought to cut using his line-item veto authority was for military programs.
  • If there were another military flare-up somewhere else in the world, the United States would not have the military resources to respond. It is already necessary to divert planes from their patrol over the Iraqi No Fly Zone in order to fly Kosovo missions.

 

  • Clinton's request of $6 billion to cover the current costs of the NATO operation in Kosovo is woefully inadequate. It is not enough to simply replace bomb for bomb or bullet for bullet, leaving our military as vulnerable as before.

 

 

 

The Facts About Military Readiness

 

 

 

Al Gore said that the military is the "strongest and the best" in the world.

Readiness measures the ability of a military unit.to accomplish its assigned missions. Logistics, available spare parts, training, equipment, and morale all contribute to readiness.

Evidence of a widespread lack of readiness within the U.S. armed forces exists. Recently leaked Army documents report that 12 of the 20 schools that are training soldiers in skills such as field artillery, infantry, and aviation have received the lowest readiness rating. And the Pentagon in November rated two of the Army's 10 active divisions at the lowest readiness level.

The Facts About Readiness. In the early 1990s, the Bush Administration began to reduce the size of the U.S. military so that it would be consistent with post-Cold War threats. Under the Clinton Administration, however, these reductions in forces escalated rapidly, with too little defense spending, while U.S. forces were deployed more often.

Because the security of the United States is at stake, it is imperative to present the facts about military readiness:

FACT #1. The size of the U.S. military has been cut drastically in the past decade.

Between 1992 and 2000, the Clinton Administration cut national defense by more than half a million personnel and $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. The Army alone has lost four active divisions and two Reserve divisions. The number of total active personnel in the Air Force has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreased from around 393 ships in the fleet in 1992 to 316 today. Even the Marines have dropped 22,000 personnel.

In spite of these drastic force reductions, military missions and operations tempo increased. Because every mission affects far greater numbers of servicemen than those directly involved, most operations other than warfare, such as peacekeeping, have a significant negative impact on readiness.

FACT #2. Military deployments have increased dramatically throughout the 1990s.

The pace of deployments has increased 16-fold since the end of the Cold War. Between 1960 and 1991, the Army conducted 10 operations outside of normal training and alliance commitments, but between 1992 and 1998, the Army conducted 26 such operations. Similarly, the Marines conducted 15 contingency operations between 1982 and 1989, and 62 since 1989. During the 1990s, U.S. forces of 20,000 or more troops were engaged in non-warfighting missions in Somalia (1993), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1996), and Iraq and Kuwait (1998).

This dramatic increase in the use of America's armed forces has had a detrimental effect on overall combat readiness. Both people and equipment wear out faster with frequent use. Frequent deployments also take funding away from ongoing expenses such as training, fuel, and supplies. Moreover, the stress of frequent and often unexpected deployments can be detrimental to troop morale and jeopardize the armed forces' ability to retain high-quality people.

FACT #3. America's military is aging rapidly.

Most of the equipment that the U.S. military uses today, such as Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters, Bradley fighting vehicles, surface ships, submarines, bombers, and tactical aircraft, are aging much faster than they are being replaced. Due to a shortsighted modernization strategy, some systems are not even being replaced. Lack of funding coupled with increased tempo and reduced forces strains the U.S. military's ability to defend vital national interests.

As weapons age, they become less reliable and more expensive to maintain. The services have attempted to provide for their higher maintenance costs by reallocating funds, but they often take the funds from procurement accounts, effectively removing the money from modernization programs. Shortages of parts and aging equipment are already affecting readiness, and the effects are expected to worsen. Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon recently reported that spare parts are so scarce that the Air Force is made to "cannibalize" perfectly good aircraft for spare parts.

FACT #4. Morale is on the decline in the U.S. armed forces.

According to an August 1999 U.S. General Accounting Office review, more than half of the officers and enlisted personnel surveyed "were dissatisfied and intended to leave the military after their current obligation or term of enlistment was up." Because U.S. servicemen are the military's greatest asset, a ready U.S. military requires bright, well-trained, and highly motivated active and reserve personnel. Unfortunately, due largely to low morale, the services are finding it difficult to recruit and retain servicemen.

Conclusion. Under the Clinton Administration, the U.S military has suffered under a dangerous combination of reduced budgets, diminished forces, and increased missions. The result has been a steep decline in readiness and an overall decline in U.S. military strength. Nearly a decade of misdirected policy coupled with a myopic modernization strategy has rendered America's armed forces years away from top form.

To deny that the United States military has readiness problems is to deny the men and women in uniform the respect they deserve. America's military prowess can be restored, but policymakers must first admit there is a problem. Only then can the President and Congress work together to reestablish America's top readiness capabilities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reduce, demean and dismantle the military and nuclear arsenal little by little and eventually the US will be able to be taken over by another country, wait isn't that the big plan in the first place, a one world govt.  


  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..

Capture.JPG

I Understand...