THIS IS NOT ->Delawareliberal


Friday, March 24, 2006


Wingnut Letter Writer Blames Clinton...

...and makes up some stuff for good measure.

From Today's News Journal:

I see and hear in the media that the Democrats are now criticizing the Bush administration for not sending sufficient numbers of troops to Iraq. Do they not recall that the Clinton administration reduced the level of our military by 40 percent across the board?

The Clinton administration also decimated the intelligence community by 50 percent. In a war on terrorism, intelligence is more vital than in conventional warfare.

We reap what you have sown, Democrats.

Hxxxx Hxxxxx, Wilmington (name withheld to protect the imbecilic)

Now I can understand being a freaked out wingnut right now. Bush has finally been fully exposed a corrupt liar. His Secretary of Defense is completely incompetent and every day this administration is allowed to stay in power is another day of happiness and contentment for our enemies. And yet, as bad as it may seem for Bush lovers right now, do they gain anything by flat out lying and making things up about Clinton? I tend to doubt it.

For the record here is some CNN from January 24, 2000

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A proposed hike in defense spending by President Bill Clinton is not presidential politics but rather the first step in fulfilling last year's pledge to add $112 billion to the defense budget over six years, Pentagon officials tell CNN.

When Clinton unveils the federal budget next month, Pentagon sources tell CNN, he will propose spending $291 billion on defense, a hike of more than $18 billion and nearly double last year's increase.

We all know that Republicans are not encumbered by things like facts and reality. Making up random statistics seems to be just part of the the job.

However, this letter makes me want to write a reply letter to the NJ. I mean when the guy tries to link Bush's failure in Iraq to an imagined Clinton era reduction in defense spending - that takes the cake.

I had been moving toward disclosing my real-life identity, but I'm not 100% sure I want to do that.

Any thoughts?
I recommend against using real names in general.

1. Delaware is a small place and you never know who will hold something against you or your family.

2. For example, suppose you or a family member applies for a job and doesn't get it. You may never know that it's because of something you wrote that turned up in Google. For example, there are a LOT of quiet pro-life types who would consider you Satan.

3. You are more exposed to ad hominem attacks.

4. You would naturally be forced to self-censor and moderate your style (less hyperbole and humor). You would find yourself editing out your best lines.

On the other hand, disclosing your real identity would be a good thing if you wanted to move to a more objective journalistic style and take credit for it.
First, you can't blame Clinton for Iraq. We had enough troops to send more in initially.

You also can't use something Clinton did in his eighth year of office as evidence. He cut and cut and cut defense and intelligence spending, and only in his last year did he change course.
He cut and cut and cut defense and intelligence spending

Rational behavior, to ratchet down Cold War spending given the the collapse of the Soviet Union and the desire to reap the peace dividend.

and only in his last year did he change course.

Also rational behavior given newly rising challenges from terrorism, spending in Kosovo, and the more distant challenge from China.
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home


November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   May 2007  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]