http://www.rightturns.com/columnists/harper/shcurrent.htm
How much of the $87 billion for Iraq Should Be Charged to the Clinton
Administration?
Sam Harper
September 15, 2003
One of the more difficult claims either Democrats or Republicans can ever
make is that the current problem under discussions was really begun by the
previous administration (of the other party, of course).
Looking back, some of those claims can be measured and proved or disproved.
For example, the economic recovery during the early years of Clinton's
administration can now be traced, using standards long ago accepted, back to
a beginning during George H.W. Bush's final year in office. Politically, we
can discuss whether or not Bush's (and/or Reagan's) actions precipitated the
recovery and/or if they did, should Bush have acted earlier than he did.
The hard fact is that Clinton came into office and rode an economic recovery
that had already begun a year before his arrival.
On the whole, I say that presidential actions (and probably Congressional
actions as well) seldom have much immediate effect, but nearly always have
long term effect.
While listening to the President's address to the country of September 7
when he told us that another $87 billion was needed in the War on Terrorism,
I wondered if any of that money was money that should have been spent 1993
(the year of Somalia and the 1st WTC bombing) - 2001 (Clinton's final
budget).
The $87 billion request is broken into two major parts: $66 billion for
ongoing military expenses in the region: Iraq and Afghanistan; $21 billion
to help both countries get electricity, schools, hospitals, water, sewers,
and local governments on line.
Let's look at the $21 billion first. (Note that the latter does not state
back on line. Neither of these countries had much electricity, schools,
hospitals, water, sewers, or local governance BEFORE we arrived.) If Clinton
had ever shown any guts and taken care of the Taliban and Saddam early on,
he, too, would have needed these monies. What Clinton did do was spend $30
billion just containing Saddam, an expense we no longer have. So Bush's
request for $21 billion actually stops a larger expense of $30 billion that,
due to Clinton's pacifism, was only growing year in and year out.
Now, let us look at the $61 billion for the military. Here the lack of
Clinton policy is more evident. $430 million is for armored HUMVEES and body
armor. I believe that if the Clinton Administration had applied lessons
learned in Somalia, our troops would have already had armored HUMVEES and
appropriate body armor. In addition, our casualties in Iraq would be lower.
Anyone who has ready Blackhawk Down knows the effectiveness of Rocket
Propelled Grenades (RPGs) when fired at unarmored HUMVEES.
Other monies are to transport ally troops to the theater and to give
in-country troops some R&R. This brings us to the Al Gore campaign to make
the federal government more efficient by reducing the number of federal
employees. Again, a sober analysis of his efforts reveals that most of those
reductions were in military personnel. Now, we are stretched beyond limits
and have to demand U.N./ally help beyond that of our dependable friends: the
British, Australians, and New Zealanders. In addition, to all of you who
have National Guard/Reserve friends and relatives disappointed in the recent
extension of their active duty, call Al and let him know how unhappy you
are.
Another $11 billion goes to our forces in Afghanistan to help them track the
enemy and stabilize that country. I am not sure I would lay this one on
Clinton. September 11 precipitated our invasion of Afghanistan and
destruction of the Taliban. Short of another September 11, Clinton would
have had no overwhelming cause for such actions.
Can we conservatives go on blaming Clinton for everything that needs
"fixin'"? No. But his avoidance in facing threats to our country can now
more clearly be linked to our current War on Terrorism. Of the $87 billion
Bush asked for last week, most of it is either money Clinton would have
needed if he had done the right thing during his tenure or money that would
not now be needed if he had prepared for the future instead of satisfying
his pathological need to live for the moment.
--
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
.
|
