Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Will there ever be a USS Bill Clinton?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 04:03 PM
Original message
Will there ever be a USS Bill Clinton?
I for one would love to see an aircraft carrier named after Bill Clinton. I would even be willing to give a little on the Reagan dime thing if this could be done (I would also keep the FDR dime in circulation, however). It's time to put the myth to rest about Bill Clinton "decimating" the US military. During the Clinton Administration the US had the largest, most powerful, well-funded military in the world. Military casualties as a result of hostile actions were very low (zero in Kosovo, only 1 in Bosnia, single digits in Haiti and less than 50 in Somalia), lower than the entire first year of this Administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
onebigbadwulf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. Someone needs to make a website
that clearly points out what clinton did and didn't do for the military in comparison to Bush and Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
david_vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. That's what I thought, bsg
but just a couple of days ago some former officer was a guest on a local radio program (pushing his new book, natch) and said that he didn't care for Bill Clinton much because of the way he slashed the Pentagon's budget. He even said this had degraded our military preparedness. I was under the impression that Clinton forked piles of money over to the Pentagon. Why are these people still spreading this myth about him? or is it a myth after all? And why does this guy get to be on a powerful (for this area) station, while differing opinions are relegated to a tiny station up in the hills, whose signal doesn't carry far?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. This is what's so frustrating - half the story is told
I thought Reagan started to reduce the military budget and then Bush and Clinton continued the plan set in place. So, this is just another slanted view that the former officer is pushing. And what's that bull about degrading preparedness? The shrub got to brag about how well the troops performed in Afghanistan and Iraq and continues to do so. Well, "he" did it with Clinton's army. What a bunch of jerks, huh?

Thanks for the ranting space. /rant off
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldSoldier Donating Member (982 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
24. Reagan didn't exactly reduce the military budget
It's more like he spent so much money he ran out.

Check this out: in 1987 I think, Reagan screwed up so bad that the government was so broke on September 27, they couldn't make payroll. Read that again for the full impact.

Fortunately, the fiscal year ends on September 30, so all they needed to do was to roll forward payday from the last day of the month to the first day--we got our checks on October 1.

One of the ways they tried to sugarcoat this was by telling us that we'd pay less taxes in 1987 because we'd only be getting 11 checks. You know, the 12th one was really going to be given to us on January 1. Dumbasses somehow forgot that when payday is a federal holiday, you get paid the day before.

Reagan is the one whose spending caused armor troops to practice taking hills in tanks by walking over the ground going clank, clank (think of King Arthur in Monty Python and the Holy Grail prancing around with a manservant knocking two halves of cocoanut together for the full effect) because they couldn't afford to buy diesel. Every service has a similar tale to tell.

Add to that the fact that Reagan signed the largest tax increase in history (by disallowing the deductibility of non-mortgage interest) and you see what a phony Reagan really was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Reagan spent a lot on useless junk like Star Wars
I was in the infantry under Reagan. We didn't get any significant upgrades to our equipment. When Clinton was Prez, we got new commo systems, new vehicles, and a better rifle, the M16A2.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beanball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
21. A boat for the big dawg
if the repugs remain in power long enough they will name every courthouse,ship,bridge,and airport for one of their unworthy repug presidents or supreme court clowns,I can see it now MLK drive will be renamed the Clarence Thomas driveby,O'Hare airport Fitzgerald Field,then maybe they will name a garbage scow for Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
3. If there ever is...
...some stupid ass Freeper will blow it up and blame it on "terraists"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BringEmOn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
4. The Love Boat?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ksec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. Who the Fk is in charge of these things and why can a mass murderer
get his name all over everything? Reagans presidency was outrageously corrupt. Clinton is ignored because of a personal blow job.

My God , someone stole the common sense in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
6. A submarine, so sailors can down on
Bill Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracyindanger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Pure genius. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I don't think he cares about that sort of thing........naming ships I mean
gin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fitzovich Donating Member (179 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
10. USS Bill Clinton?
Well, let's see we have just christened the Aircraft Carrier USS "Old Guy who Spent the Soviets into the Ground before we went bankrupt" and we have just named the USS "Pandering To The Boss". I would hope that we get away from naming ships after individuals all together and return to the classic names such as Constellation, Intrepid, Saratoga, Ticonderoga, names which carry some heritage as opposed to the present foolishness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoPasaran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Here Here!
Although to be fair I think the first aircraft carrier to be named after an individual, not an historic ship or battle was USS Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
11. We should put Clinton on the 50 cent piece!!!
that'll get the Freepers into a tizzy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
12. Yes Yes Yes! With Monica icon on the bow, just to piss off the freepers..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
haele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
14. I'm never comfortable with naming Naval ships
after living persons - the custom is that a Navy ship named after someone is supposed to carry the "spirit" of the person being so honored - which is why only those who have shown exceptional leadership or courage are supposed to be picked.

I'm especially uncomfortable with naming Naval ships after supposed leaders whom I personally consider souless politicos who spent most of their lives playing dressup and raking in money when it came to practicing real leadership and courage when they were supposedly serving as President. I might give GHWB a bit of a reluctant nod for actually serving, but considering the military downsizing and casual sacrificing of troops he and Reagan caused with their policies, he's certainly not to the level of service of Kennedy or Eisenhower, if that's a criteria.
I survived through that era in the military. I, and many hundreds of thousands of others saw and experianced what shit they pulled. Unfortunatly, too many of us just allowed Cheney, Poindexter, Carlucci and company wrap the patriot's flag around our eyes as a hoodwink to blind us to the costs of what we were paying for the bottom-line for profit mentality of a bunch of greedy chickenhawks.
Winning a "war" because you outspent a paranoid opponent who's country was already crumbling economically is no great feat of diplomacy or tactics. Shifting the majority of a defense budget to a few contractors playing money games with inpractical, unsustainable projects instead of on actual research, operations and troop readiness is no sign of "military leadership".

Haele


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. Great post, very well spoken!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arewethereyet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
15. I don't see this as very likely
the military were not fond of him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Says who?
You've been listening to right wing nutsacks too much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arewethereyet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. no I was listening to actual military people of all stripes
and they don't think much of Clark either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. The few people you talked to in the military doesn't represent
everyone in the military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arewethereyet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. no, it doesn't but it is indicative of the ones with a say
but more important, Washington, who really chooses, don't do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
18. No, a National Park!
Edited on Fri Dec-05-03 08:52 PM by SpikeTrees
Late in his presidency, Bill Clinton did many good things for the environment. I just went slot-canyon hiking in one of the national monuments he designated using the antiquities act, Grand Staircase/Canyons of the Escalante National Monument. How about this for a name:

William Jefferson "Slickrock Willie" Clinton National Park.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
funkyflathead Donating Member (723 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
22. Doubt it
Clinton never served in the military.

Of course neither did Bush really so he won't get a ship either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CalebHayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-03 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
26. Better BE!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 11th 2014, 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC