Nice Try, HiG
Originally posted by HiG4s
If the point was the Democrats don't support the military you need to research further.
No, we just need to correct people who intentionally try to make statistics mislead.
Your reference to that web page was very helpful. Because I KNEW you were wrong about who builds, and who cuts, the military. Of COURSE the Dems cut it and the Reps build it. You pointed out that conveniently left out who BUILT the dang Navy. The page shows -- it was Reagan. (I must have missed it, where was he in your supposedly informative post?) And the deepest longest cuts came under Clinton. How did I know this? I was at the tailhook convention (before the sex scandal - and btw that convention is filled with thousands of carrier aviation folks -- not just pilots -- all there to learn about carriers and the latest technology) when Reagan appointee Secretary of the Navy John Lehman reiterated his goal of a 600 ship navy -- something that under Carter was thought impossible.
Tragic to see what's come of the Navy since then.
btw -- as to cuts under Bush -- that was the first post-Soviet administration. Of course some cuts were warranted. As to cutting battleships, which I guess you think is important, I loved those big guys. But the bring-em-back-out-of-mothballs experiment was over. The Aegis classes rendered their utility marginal in the current state.
(This from a guy who cares DEEPLY about the US Navy, my friend)
Lastly, I think I can (probably already have) gut your argument about who really supports the Navy. Since the Navy hand was the one you chose to play, after statistics were floated about how Clinton cut the Air Force and Army as well, I'll assume that your hands on those fronts were even weaker.
In sum -- *please* . :silly: