Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: OzmO on August 16, 2007, 09:08:14 PM
-
Pentagon Paid $998,798 to Ship Two 19-Cent Washers (Update3)
doesn't this just make you feel great all over?
-
Pentagon Paid $998,798 to Ship Two 19-Cent Washers
Tony Capaccio
Thu Aug 16, 12:52 PM ET
Aug. 16 (Bloomberg) -- A small South Carolina parts supplier collected about $20.5 million over six years from the Pentagon for fraudulent shipping costs, including $998,798 for sending two 19-cent washers to a Texas base, U.S. officials said.
The company also billed and was paid $455,009 to ship three machine screws costing $1.31 each to Marines in Habbaniyah, Iraq, and $293,451 to ship an 89-cent split washer to Patrick Air Force Base in Cape Canaveral, Florida, Pentagon records show.
The owners of C&D Distributors in Lexington, South Carolina -- twin sisters -- exploited a flaw in an automated Defense Department purchasing system: bills for shipping to combat areas or U.S. bases that were labeled ``priority'' were usually paid automatically, said Cynthia Stroot, a Pentagon investigator.
C&D's fraudulent billing started in 2000, Stroot, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service's chief agent in Raleigh, North Carolina, said in an interview. ``As time went on they got more aggressive in the amounts they put in.''
The price the military paid for each item shipped rarely reached $100 and totaled just $68,000 over the six years in contrast to the $20.5 million paid for shipping, she said.
``The majority, if not all of these parts, were going to high-priority, conflict areas -- that's why they got paid,'' Stroot said. If the item was earmarked ``priority,'' destined for the military in Iraq, Afghanistan or certain other locations, ``there was no oversight.''
Scheme Detected
The scheme unraveled in September after a purchasing agent noticed a bill for shipping two more 19-cent washers: $969,000. That order was rejected and a review turned up the $998,798 payment earlier that month for shipping two 19-cent washers to Fort Bliss, Texas, Stroot said.
The Pentagon Defense Logistics Agency orders millions of parts a year. Stroot said the agency and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, which pays contractors, have made major changes, including thorough evaluations of the priciest shipping charges.
Dawn Dearden, a spokeswoman for the logistics agency, said finance and procurement officials immediately examined all billing records. Stroot said the review showed that fraudulent billing is ``is not a widespread problem.''
``C&D was a rogue contractor,'' Stroot said. While other questionable billing has been uncovered, nothing came close to C&D's, she said. The next-highest contractor billed $2 million in questionable transport costs, she said.
Guilty Pleas
C&D and two of its officials were barred in December from receiving federal contracts. A federal judge in Columbia, South Carolina, today accepted the guilty plea of the company and one sister, Charlene Corley, to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to launder money, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin McDonald said.
Corley, 46, was fined $750,000. She faces a maximum prison sentence of 20 years on each count and will be sentenced in the near future, McDonald said in a telephone interview from Columbia. Stroot said her sibling died last year.
Corley didn't immediately return a phone message left on her answering machine at her office in Lexington. Her attorney, Gregory Harris, didn't immediately return a phone call placed to his office in Columbia.
Stroot said the Pentagon hopes to recoup most of the $20.5 million by auctioning homes, beach property, jewelry and ``high- end automobiles'' that the sisters spent the money on.
``They took a lot of vacations,'' she said.
**************************
Not too certain about the accuracy of this article. While Bloomberg's version is the most prevalent, I've heard conflicting reports from out of Columbia South Carolina, that this scam took place starting in 1997, and that Charlene Corley & Diane Wooten, the C&D of C&D Distributing were actually cousins not sisters, and that a guilt ridden Diane committed suicide upon learning of the investigation, and provided full co-operation with investigators prior to committing suicide.
-
Hey Jag, do you have the copyright holders permission to reproduce this article in its entirety?
-
This is what you get--corruption-- with unsupervised privatization of government services. It is the tip of the iceberg.
The Pentagon couldn't account for more than a trillion dollars in monies spent. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2004/0708gaopenta.html
-
The government is not more efficient than the private sector. I'd rather have private industry doing as much as possible. You'll have corruption regardless of whether government or private industry is in control, but by and large you'll get better service and a better product from a "corporation" than from the government.
-
I bet its Bush's fault
-
The government is not more efficient than the private sector. I'd rather have private industry doing as much as possible. You'll have corruption regardless of whether government or private industry is in control, but by and large you'll get better service and a better product from a "corporation" than from the government.
It depends on what service you are looking at.
The Social security Administration is light years ahead of any private insurance company as far as administrative costs are concerned.
You don't have corruption regardless of who's in control. Corruption in government is largely private corporations exploiting governmental contracts. Not the other way around. Not govermental employees absconding with funds or such.
-
They had an Army Col get busted with some ridiculous amount of cash stuffed in his matteress, in Korea. His Korean wife was running the scandal. She was shaking down contractors. I think he had gotten 450 grand total, but they found 90 grand cash in his mattress. Generally speaking we don't get away with crap, as far as funds.
-
I bet its Bush's fault
who would have been blamed under Clinton :-\ uh huh...
-
The guy above did it under Clinton.....not Bill's fault but Bush gets blamed for everthing.
-
The guy above did it under Clinton.....not Bill's fault but Bush gets blamed for everthing.
oh brother, cut the shit... All I've heard from the right the whole time Bush has been in office is that every last mistake is due to Bill Clinton... It's been a freaking broken record with these clowns ::) It's the standard go-to, "It's Clinton's fault"
-
The guy above did it under Clinton.....not Bill's fault but Bush gets blamed for everthing.
Now Bush is a victim? LOL
I remember a time when Clinton was getting bashed for EVERYTHING. Some of it he deserved and some of it he didn't. The vast difference is that Clinton wasn't nearly as bad as Bush 43 has turned out to be.
Bush as a victim, that's hilarious.
-
Clinton screwed up the Military, but he was great for the economy. His folks didn't see the threat of Bin Laden, enabling 911. But at this point, finger pointing is pointless. We have to fix the problems and let history point fingers later.
-
Epic lack of decent bookeeping.
-
Clinton is a traitor so is Bush and finger pointing is not only ok but required. Later my ass... None of this, oh well, it's already done, nothing we can do, we're already headed toward self destruction, to late... fuck that...
What's ironic is that Clinton gets all the credit for the military cutbacks,... righwingers don't seem to mention how many of these were innitiated by Cheney right up to his last moments at work in the Pentagon. While he was at the Pentagon the size of the Army was reduced by more than 26 percent, the Air Force by 22 percent, the Navy by 14 percent, and the Marines by 10 percent.
I also seem to recall very well the republican uproar of "wag the dog" when Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden ::) You shouldn't get your info from that ABC fakumentary which had its origins from extreme rightwing organizations.
-
Now Bush is a victim? LOL
I remember a time when Clinton was getting bashed for EVERYTHING. Some of it he deserved and some of it he didn't. The vast difference is that Clinton wasn't nearly as bad as Bush 43 has turned out to be.
Bush as a victim, that's hilarious.
ditto that... Clinton bad, but he looks like the best president ever next to the high crimes of Bush
-
Clinton screwed up the Military, but he was great for the economy. His folks didn't see the threat of Bin Laden, enabling 911. But at this point, finger pointing is pointless. We have to fix the problems and let history point fingers later.
How did Clinton screw up the military?
I think Clinton focused on terrorism like a laser. Was he perfect? no. But can you look at this list and tell me that he was asleep at the wheel like his successor was?:
Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation
$1.097 billion.
Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million
Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million
Passenger Profiling: $10 million
Screener Training: $5.3 million
Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million
Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
million
Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million
Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million
Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million
Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million
Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million
Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million
Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million
Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million
Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million
Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million
Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million
Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million
Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million
Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million
Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million
Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies.
-
Throwing money at the problem..didn't the Dems bash Bush for doing the same...
On the Military... The U.S. military was used as a 'meals on wheels' service by the Clinton administration in its nation building adventures, the military had its own humanitarian crises at home on its own bases. The pay freeze instituted by Clinton was imposed on a military in which 80 percent of all troops earned $30,000 per year or less. Food stamp applications soared and re-enlistment rates dropped....My pay keeps going up under Bush.....We were miserable under Bill, he was an embarrasment. Mybe not him personally but many younger staffers hated the military, many in his government etc.
Bin Laden and his terrorist-related activities were well known to the United States by 1995. Clinton had an opportunity to capture him in the fall of 1998, but did not. Ideologically, the Clinton administration was committed to the idea that most terrorists were misunderstood, had legitimate grievances, and could be appeased, which is why such military action as the administration authorized was so halfhearted, and ineffective, and designed more for 'show' than for honestly eliminating a threat. He pulled out of Somalia...this led to Bin laden thinking we were soft. Bin Laden said this himself. Clinton sought "to pacify truly dangerous nations with unilateral concessions, under the flawed notion that totalitarian regimes will return kindness for kindness. The head in the sand approach is still being conducted by mnay on the liberal left. Bill wasn't even a Liberal but he allowed way to many foreign policy decisions to be made by idiots who leaned that way.
Its not all Clinton's fault..but what he did led directly to the events of 911.
-
Throwing money at the problem..didn't the Dems bash Bush for doing the same...
On the Military... The U.S. military was used as a 'meals on wheels' service by the Clinton administration in its nation building adventures, the military had its own humanitarian crises at home on its own bases. The pay freeze instituted by Clinton was imposed on a military in which 80 percent of all troops earned $30,000 per year or less. Food stamp applications soared and re-enlistment rates dropped....My pay keeps going up under Bush.....We were miserable under Bill, he was an embarrasment. Mybe not him personally but many younger staffers hated the military, many in his government etc.
Bin Laden and his terrorist-related activities were well known to the United States by 1995. Clinton had an opportunity to capture him in the fall of 1998, but did not. Ideologically, the Clinton administration was committed to the idea that most terrorists were misunderstood, had legitimate grievances, and could be appeased, which is why such military action as the administration authorized was so halfhearted, and ineffective, and designed more for 'show' than for honestly eliminating a threat. He pulled out of Somalia...this led to Bin laden thinking we were soft. Bin Laden said this himself. Clinton sought "to pacify truly dangerous nations with unilateral concessions, under the flawed notion that totalitarian regimes will return kindness for kindness. The head in the sand approach is still being conducted by mnay on the liberal left. Bill wasn't even a Liberal but he allowed way to many foreign policy decisions to be made by idiots who leaned that way.
Its not all Clinton's fault..but what he did led directly to the events of 911.
I wasn't posting the dollar amounts to show the efficacy of the programs, rather I was rebutting your assertion that Clinton didn't 'see the threat of 9/11" when I think he did.
Clinton presided over a "military recession" where any and every politician--including Dick Cheney--was making budget concessions on military spending b/c the cold war race was over.
I mean defense spending in the US budget is the single largest outlay. Sometimes it has to be roped in.
I'm sorry that some of that cutting was done at your and the rank and file's expense. That blows. I'd rather see a few lucrative military contracts--weapons or what not--get shitcanned.
The Clinton 1998 story no doubt refers to the Sudanese offering OBL up on a platter to Clinton who turned it down inexplicably.
That is a nice Fox News talking point but it didn't happen that way. The man that's the source of that bullshit is MANSOOR IJAZ--a con man expecting the Clinton administration to lift sanctions against the Sudan so that he could pursue business interests there. Even the 9/11 Commission came to that conclusion. http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf
Yes, I recall Bin Laden's statement about the US's softness. But I must tell you that terrorists say anything and take credit for anything that can give them leverage. OBL took credit for the attacks of 9/11 but there still is not enough evidence out there showing that which could survive a simple motion to dismiss.
I don't recall Clinton's critics stating his head was in the sand when he bombed Iraq? Do you? No they accused him of trying to divert attention from the hallowed impeachment trial for lying about blowjobs. Why I too felt like a Shakespearian character in that 'tragic chapter.'
I do agree with you though. Clinton does share in the blame for 9/11.
-
He could have had him pure and simple...even bombing him..they could have made sure etc.....Now I'm not laying the blame at Clinton..he plays a part. Bin Laden's quote about the US being soft was BEFORE 911. Its chillling. Even so..its pretty easy to see why folks would think we're soft after Somalia.
About the military..GHW Bush started it...but Clinton gutted it and instituted stupid policies. Things like the air war in Kosovo also emboldened our enemies....high tech instead of muddy boots. Anything we do is analyzed by our enemies. Sometime we don't look at what everybody else is doing...had we studied Chechnya more maybe we'd be doing better in Iraq.
Certain systems we don't need.....why the F-22 which is the swiss army knife of jets that may not do any one thing well....instead of the F-16..which cost 16 million to produce when they first rolled it out. Jets like the F-16 helped win the cold war. I am in no way a defender of the MIC....they don't serve our best interest. Anyway that should cover most of you're post......
-
doesn't this just make you feel great all over?
bahahaha... george w sure has things under control!!!
-
bahahaha... george w sure has things under control!!!
I'd have given them washers at a 50% discount ;D
-
He could have had him pure and simple...even bombing him..they could have made sure etc.....Now I'm not laying the blame at Clinton..he plays a part. Bin Laden's quote about the US being soft was BEFORE 911. Its chillling. Even so..its pretty easy to see why folks would think we're soft after Somalia.
About the military..GHW Bush started it...but Clinton gutted it and instituted stupid policies. Things like the air war in Kosovo also emboldened our enemies....high tech instead of muddy boots. Anything we do is analyzed by our enemies. Sometime we don't look at what everybody else is doing...had we studied Chechnya more maybe we'd be doing better in Iraq.
Certain systems we don't need.....why the F-22 which is the swiss army knife of jets that may not do any one thing well....instead of the F-16..which cost 16 million to produce when they first rolled it out. Jets like the F-16 helped win the cold war. I am in no way a defender of the MIC....they don't serve our best interest. Anyway that should cover most of you're post......
The 9/11 Commission did not conclude that Clinton could have had Bin Laden "pure and simple"...that's just not the case.
Clinton did not gut the military. That is propaganda. Type the following phrase "Clinton gutted the military" and look at all the results that state that assertion verbatim. It's a propagandistic talking point.
National Defense Spending
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf, page 49-51
In Millions of Current Dollars
Year Budget total As % of Outlays As % of GDP
LBJ 1963 $53,400 48.00% 8.90%
1964 (Vietnam) $54,757 46.20% 8.50%
1965 (Vietnam) $50,620 42.80% 7.40%
1966 (Vietnam) $58,111 43.20% 7.70%
1967 (Vietnam) $71,417 45.40% 8.80%
1968 (Vietnam) $81,926 46.00% 9.40%
Nixon 1969 (Vietnam) $82,497 44.90% 8.70%
1970 (Vietnam) $81,692 41.80% 8.10%
1971 (Vietnam) $78,872 37.50% 7.30%
1972 (Vietnam) $79,174 34.30% 6.70%
1973 $76,681 31.20% 5.80%
Ford 1974 $79,347 29.50% 5.50%
1975 $86,509 26.00% 5.50%
1976 $89,619 24.10% 5.20%
Carter 1977 $97,241 23.80% 4.90%
1978 $104,495 22.80% 4.70%
1979 $116,342 23.10% 4.60%
1980 $133,995 22.70% 4.90%
Reagan 1981 $157,513 23.20% 5.10%
1982 $185,309 24.80% 5.70%
1983 $209,903 26.00% 6.10%
1984 $227,413 26.70% 5.90%
1985 $252,748 26.70% 6.10%
1986 $273,375 27.60% 6.20%
1987 $281,999 28.10% 6.10%
1988 $290,361 27.30% 5.80%
Bush 1989 $303,559 26.50% 5.60%
1990 (Gulf) $299,331 23.90% 5.20%
1991 (Gulf, CW End) $273,292 20.60% 4.60%
1992 $298,350 21.60% 4.80%
Clinton 1993 $291,086 20.70% 4.40%
1994 $281,642 19.30% 4.00%
1995 $272,066 17.90% 3.70%
1996 $265,753 17.00% 3.50%
1997 $270,505 16.90% 3.30%
1998 $268,456 16.20% 3.10%
1999 $274,873 16.20% 3.00%
2000 $394,495 16.50% 3.00%
Bush 2001 (Afghanistan) $305,500 16.40% 3.00%
2002 (Afghanistan) $348,555 17.30% 3.40%
2003 (Afghanistan, Iraq) $404,920 18.80% 3.70%
He did cut some spending that was attendant to the end of the cold war. But to characterize that as "gutting" is nonsense. The US's military expenditures account for about 50% of all military expenditures worldwide. We spend 8 times what the Chinese (second largest spender) spend.
The gutted military seemed to perform well in Afghanistan.
As for the Kososvo military action, wasn't the mission accomplished without a single US casualty from the attack?
-
Wow, facts about Clinton over propaganda infused beliefs......
Go figure.
-
Dude we cut division after division...spending increases only mean we bought sexier equipment instead of stuff we needed. Case in point 7th ID gone..2nd AD gone 3AD gone 24th ID (Mech) gone.....The fiscal 1999 defense-budget request represented the 14th consecutive year of real decline in defense spending
During the last decade, the U.S. military has shrunk from approximately 2.2 million active-duty service members to 1.4 million active-duty soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. In fact, since the Persian Gulf War, Army divisions have been reduced from 18 to 10, Navy ships cut from 547 to 346 and Air Force fighter wings reduced from 36 to 19.
Yet, at the same time our military forces continued to shrink, they are being called upon to do more all over the world. For instance, the Army, which conducted 10 operational events outside of normal training and alliance commitments during the 31-year period of 1960-1991, had conducted 26 operational events since 1991. The Marine Corps, which undertook 15 contingency operations between 1982 and 1989, has conducted 62 such operations since the fall of the Berlin Wall. And, for the first time, the Air Force is experiencing frequent, long-term deployments.
Looks like draw done to me...
-
These are facts....
By 1993, the drawdown had reduced the Army well below the floor established by Colin Powell's Base Force Plan. But in 1996, the Clinton administration made it clear that even these levels weren't enough. In the mid—to—late 90s, the Army was under pressure to not only reduce the number of active duty divisions, but to also reduce the numbers of Soldiers within the combat divisions themselves. The Force XXI experiments initiated some major changes in the armor and mechanized infantry maneuver battalions that included eliminating an entire maneuver company from the battalion organization. Instead of four companies, battalions now had only three. They got rid of Delta Companies.....so u end up with 42 tanks instead of 54...big difference when u employ tanks to scare the shit out of the enemy. Its based on doctrine and wild bill could have cared less...save money save money....
-
Sure stuff was cut, but was it gutted? no. The military and their role was changing due to the end of the cold war and frankly we couldn't afford to keep spending at the level we were in the cold war. So things had to change. Just as i'm sure you've seen the military change in the last 5-7 years with the new high tech quick strike and deployment approach that Rumsfield spear headed.
-
Yeah except now we're growing again....ever friggen time we draw down we end up with a war. Not only that...Clinton had us all over the place during his time. 18 Div's to 10..thats gutted, especially in light of what we face now.
-
Dude we cut division after division...spending increases only mean we bought sexier equipment instead of stuff we needed. Case in point 7th ID gone..2nd AD gone 3AD gone 24th ID (Mech) gone.....The fiscal 1999 defense-budget request represented the 14th consecutive year of real decline in defense spending
During the last decade, the U.S. military has shrunk from approximately 2.2 million active-duty service members to 1.4 million active-duty soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. In fact, since the Persian Gulf War, Army divisions have been reduced from 18 to 10, Navy ships cut from 547 to 346 and Air Force fighter wings reduced from 36 to 19.
Yet, at the same time our military forces continued to shrink, they are being called upon to do more all over the world. For instance, the Army, which conducted 10 operational events outside of normal training and alliance commitments during the 31-year period of 1960-1991, had conducted 26 operational events since 1991. The Marine Corps, which undertook 15 contingency operations between 1982 and 1989, has conducted 62 such operations since the fall of the Berlin Wall. And, for the first time, the Air Force is experiencing frequent, long-term deployments.
Looks like draw done to me...
Of course it was a draw down.
Even Bush closed bases. Under Bush, 33 base closings were proposed with a net loss of almost 11,000 military positions, a net loss of over 18,000 civilian positions, also 755 bases were to undergo partial closings….all during a time of war. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/13/base.closings/index.html
Under Clinton, the reductions in the military were a bi-partisan effort to rein in spending. The president can’t do this stuff alone. The republican-led congress under Clinton gave its full support for the closings otherwise it wouldn’t have happened.
“The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act (10 U.S.C.A. § 2687), passed by Congress in 1990" (Under Bush I), "set off a firestorm of controversy over which bases should be closed and whether the country's military readiness was being irrevocably compromised. The act created a presidential commission to decide which bases to close based on Pentagon recommendations. The commission's decisions are sent to the president, who accepts or rejects them in their entirety. If accepted, the recommendations are sent to Congress, which can only block the closings if both houses pass a resolution of disapproval within forty-five days.” http://www.answers.com/topic/armed-force?cat=biz-fin
-
Yeah except now we're growing again....ever friggen time we draw down we end up with a war. Not only that...Clinton had us all over the place during his time. 18 Div's to 10..thats gutted, especially in light of what we face now.
I disagree with your terminology.
So the Pentagon, which proposed the base closings in the first place as it did with the base closings under Bush II, is gutting its own military?
I would rethink that.
We face two wars now b/c of the current president's complete fuck up in attacking Iraq. Thank him for stretching the resources to the breaking point.
-
You don't understand how it works, nor would I expect u to. Its beyond Yes Bush senior began the draw down. Colin Powell drafted a plan which took us down to an extent, saved money etc..no problem. they also closed and realigned bases..no issues either. However Clinton took us down far more..he wanted deeper cuts and he got them This is how it works in the Pentagon....u have us, the uniformed guys..we don't stay very long 3-4 years maybe, then u have the beaurocrats, who are there for life..DOD employee's.....GS folks. They run the show. There was a big turnover of folks during the early clinton years...alot of new post cold warriors came aboard. Also there is this group called the executive service corp or some such group. They are all retired COl and General officers...apparently they are a very political group..they are beholden to the Military Industrial complex to some extent as well. I only know about this crap because my Boss is bucking to be one. Well alot of these guys knew that by cutting man power, that they could buy alot of sexy hardware.....they were only concerned with their lane and were not worried about emerging threats, AQ or anything. So the bottom line is that, we, the Uniformed service have as much to do with cuts as u do....its sucks. The game is very discouraging.
-
You don't understand how it works, nor would I expect u to. Its beyond Yes Bush senior began the draw down. Colin Powell drafted a plan which took us down to an extent, saved money etc..no problem. they also closed and realigned bases..no issues either. However Clinton took us down far more..he wanted deeper cuts and he got them This is how it works in the Pentagon....u have us, the uniformed guys..we don't stay very long 3-4 years maybe, then u have the beaurocrats, who are there for life..DOD employee's.....GS folks. They run the show. There was a big turnover of folks during the early clinton years...alot of new post cold warriors came aboard. Also there is this group called the executive service corp or some such group. They are all retired COl and General officers...apparently they are a very political group..they are beholden to the Military Industrial complex to some extent as well. I only know about this crap because my Boss is bucking to be one. Well alot of these guys knew that by cutting man power, that they could buy alot of sexy hardware.....they were only concerned with their lane and were not worried about emerging threats, AQ or anything. So the bottom line is that, we, the Uniformed service have as much to do with cuts as u do....its sucks. The game is very discouraging.
Here’s my take on how the US government pares down the size of its military. The Secretary of Defense, US Army Base Realignment and Closure Division, The Joint Chiefs of Staff (the Pentagon), and the General Accounting Office all have input to the president on how the draw down is going to happen—effects, costs.
The president is responsible for the final list of closings/reconfigurings and this list must pass any objection from Congress.
If I have this wrong, then please tell me.
As far as Clinton taking the military ‘down far more’, President Clinton could not have ‘gutted’ the military without an okey-dokey from Congress—a republican majority congress no less.
-
Part A...yeah in a perfect world but thats how it works....with the usual BS thrown in.
Once it gets to congress it becomes a mess...here's why. Say I' m Congressman Smith with FT Scmoe in my district. Well Uncle sam is closing Ft Scmoe and moving those folks to Ft Hood. I bitch because thats my job. The FT Hood Rep happens to be on a committy that MR Smith has stuff going through. They make a deal, Smith stops bitching and gets his stuff through, which happens to be more important to his reelection bid then keeping Ft Scmoe open. This sorta happened with FT Mcclellan and Ft Leonard Wood...simplified but u get it. The Repubs came to power in 94'. The ball was rolling before then. I here what your saying, but much like Bush and this mess..the buck stops with Clinton and his part, large or small.
-
Part A...yeah in a perfect world but thats how it works....with the usual BS thrown in.
Once it gets to congress it becomes a mess...here's why. Say I' m Congressman Smith with FT Scmoe in my district. Well Uncle sam is closing Ft Scmoe and moving those folks to Ft Hood. I bitch because thats my job. The FT Hood Rep happens to be on a committy that MR Smith has stuff going through. They make a deal, Smith stops bitching and gets his stuff through, which happens to be more important to his reelection bid then keeping Ft Scmoe open. This sorta happened with FT Mcclellan and Ft Leonard Wood...simplified but u get it. The Repubs came to power in 94'. The ball was rolling before then. I here what your saying, but much like Bush and this mess..the buck stops with Clinton and his part, large or small.
Politics is ugly isn't it. It's a wonder anyone goes into this shit willingly to serve.
I am in agreement that the buck does stop with the president...he is the leader and sets the tone.
-
HBO did a movie on the evolution of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle..i think Cary Elwes and Rip Torn were in it..u have to see it. Its saterical but i guess very true..its everthing I just posted in a nutshell.
-
HH6,
off subject. What do you think of those strikers? Are they gonna replace the M-1 and Bradley eventually? Or will we always have a need for heavy armor?