Sayhey
Apr 26, 2004, 11:37 AM
The Center for American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=6228) post this on Cheney's hypocritical stance on funding for Defense programs.
DEFENSE
No Defense for Cheney
Vice President Dick Cheney is scheduled to deliver a speech in Missouri today attacking his political opponents for supposedly trying to cut defense spending in the 1980s and early 1990s. Yet, a look back at the record shows it was Cheney who repeatedly tried to cut defense spending at this time, even publicly attacking a president of his own party. During the height of Cold War tensions, it was Cheney who told the Washington Post on 12/16/84 that if President Reagan, "doesn't really cut defense, he becomes the No. 1 special pleader in town." Cheney said "the president has to reach out and take a whack at everything to be credible" and said that absent a raid of Social Security or a tax increase, "you've got to hit defense." Six years later, on 2/1/90, it was Cheney who proudly told Congress "since I became Secretary, we've been through a fairly major process of reducing the defense budget."* He bragged that during the first year of his tenure, he "cut almost $65 billion out of the five-year defense program" and that subsequent proposals would "take another $167 billion out." He trumpeted the fact that "we're recommending base closures," "we're talking about force structure cuts" and "we've got a military construction freeze."* And as the 8/4/91 NY Times noted, Cheney tried "to reduce active-duty troop strength" from 2.2 million to 1.6 million while making "deep cuts in the Reserves and National Guard" – a move that is now, in part, forcing the military to extend tours of duty and increase the combat burden on reservists. See an analysis of defense spending by American Progress's Larry Korb.
CHENEY ATTACKS WEAPONS CUTS AFTER CUTTING WEAPONS: In a similar speech attacking opponents earlier this year, Cheney claimed his opponents have "repeatedly voted against weapons systems for the military," including "voting against the Apache helicopter." Yet in 1990 Cheney bragged to Congress about weapons "programs that I have recommended for termination," including fighter jets, the Phoenix missile and "the Apache helicopter." Cheney also this year criticized opponents for voting "against even the Bradley Fighting Vehicle." But according to the Chicago Tribune, it is the Bush administration who is "dramatically reducing the number of Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles in Iraq," even as the fighting intensifies. That means more troops are forced to "ride in lightly protected Humvees, trucks and troop carriers" which are much more vulnerable to attack.* As former Gen. Barry McCaffrey said, "This is high-intensity combat. If you have got a chance to fight this with Bradley Fighting Vehicles or fight this without them, you would be crazy to be fighting without them."
CHENEY ATTACKS TROOP PAY CUT AFTER TRYING TO CUT TROOP PAY: Earlier this year, Cheney criticized opponents for supposedly being a "reliable vote against military pay increases." Yet, as the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out, it was the Bush Administration last year which tried "to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who already are contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120-degree-plus heat." As the Army Times noted, the White House "announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones." Additionally, the White House "proposed capping pay raises" for various soldiers as a cost-cutting measure. Only when the effort became "a political embarrassment" did "the White House quickly backpedal" from the proposal.
DEFENSE CONTRACTS GEARED TOWARDS INDUSTRY NOT TROOPS: Even as Cheney claims the Bush administration is most committed to a strong defense, its defense spending decisions appear more focused on showering largesse on defense contractor cronies rather than on pressing national security needs. For instance, at the same time the White House is ignoring military commander's desperate calls for funding to fill shortfalls in "bolt-on vehicle armor, combat helmets, night sights and body armor," it is pressing ahead with a $9 billion missile defense plan, even as the government reports that the plan is untested and not ready for deployment. Similarly, the president "personally asked his aides to work out a deal" to circumvent traditional procurement rules and give Boeing a leasing deal that will "cost hundreds of millions to several billions of dollars more than it should." And it was the White House who, under pressure from defense contractors, revived its plan to build the Crusader weapons system, which it previously claimed was outdated. Meanwhile, the administration has refused to adequately monitor the funds being spent in Iraq, fueling billions in "corruption and inflated cost to taxpayers" – much of it going to Cheney's old firm Halliburton.
BATHING CAMPAIGN DONORS IN CASH WHILE STIFFING TROOPS: A look at who finances the president's political campaigns offers insight into the Bush administration's decisions to underfund basic troop equipment while pouring cash into untested, overpriced, outdated, or unregulated defense contracts. For instance, the missile defense program includes massive defense contracts for two of Bush's major campaign and party contributors, Northrop Grumman (more than $900,000 to Bush/allies) and Lockheed Martin (more than $1.2 million to Bush/allies). Lockheed, in particular, has a special connection to Bush: the company's Vice President, Bruce Jackson, "served as financial chair and fundraiser for Bush's presidential campaign" and, at a 1999 conference, bragged that he would personally "write the Republican platform" on defense if the Texas governor made it to the Oval Office. Similarly, Boeing received the sweetheart lease deal after sending more than $800,000 to Bush and his allies. Even the* administration's abandonment of plans to cut the Crusader can be traced to financial connections: the company that reaps the most from the continuation of the weapon is the Carlyle Group – the firm that employs, among others, the president's father and former Secretary of State James Baker.
DEFENSE
No Defense for Cheney
Vice President Dick Cheney is scheduled to deliver a speech in Missouri today attacking his political opponents for supposedly trying to cut defense spending in the 1980s and early 1990s. Yet, a look back at the record shows it was Cheney who repeatedly tried to cut defense spending at this time, even publicly attacking a president of his own party. During the height of Cold War tensions, it was Cheney who told the Washington Post on 12/16/84 that if President Reagan, "doesn't really cut defense, he becomes the No. 1 special pleader in town." Cheney said "the president has to reach out and take a whack at everything to be credible" and said that absent a raid of Social Security or a tax increase, "you've got to hit defense." Six years later, on 2/1/90, it was Cheney who proudly told Congress "since I became Secretary, we've been through a fairly major process of reducing the defense budget."* He bragged that during the first year of his tenure, he "cut almost $65 billion out of the five-year defense program" and that subsequent proposals would "take another $167 billion out." He trumpeted the fact that "we're recommending base closures," "we're talking about force structure cuts" and "we've got a military construction freeze."* And as the 8/4/91 NY Times noted, Cheney tried "to reduce active-duty troop strength" from 2.2 million to 1.6 million while making "deep cuts in the Reserves and National Guard" – a move that is now, in part, forcing the military to extend tours of duty and increase the combat burden on reservists. See an analysis of defense spending by American Progress's Larry Korb.
CHENEY ATTACKS WEAPONS CUTS AFTER CUTTING WEAPONS: In a similar speech attacking opponents earlier this year, Cheney claimed his opponents have "repeatedly voted against weapons systems for the military," including "voting against the Apache helicopter." Yet in 1990 Cheney bragged to Congress about weapons "programs that I have recommended for termination," including fighter jets, the Phoenix missile and "the Apache helicopter." Cheney also this year criticized opponents for voting "against even the Bradley Fighting Vehicle." But according to the Chicago Tribune, it is the Bush administration who is "dramatically reducing the number of Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles in Iraq," even as the fighting intensifies. That means more troops are forced to "ride in lightly protected Humvees, trucks and troop carriers" which are much more vulnerable to attack.* As former Gen. Barry McCaffrey said, "This is high-intensity combat. If you have got a chance to fight this with Bradley Fighting Vehicles or fight this without them, you would be crazy to be fighting without them."
CHENEY ATTACKS TROOP PAY CUT AFTER TRYING TO CUT TROOP PAY: Earlier this year, Cheney criticized opponents for supposedly being a "reliable vote against military pay increases." Yet, as the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out, it was the Bush Administration last year which tried "to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who already are contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120-degree-plus heat." As the Army Times noted, the White House "announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones." Additionally, the White House "proposed capping pay raises" for various soldiers as a cost-cutting measure. Only when the effort became "a political embarrassment" did "the White House quickly backpedal" from the proposal.
DEFENSE CONTRACTS GEARED TOWARDS INDUSTRY NOT TROOPS: Even as Cheney claims the Bush administration is most committed to a strong defense, its defense spending decisions appear more focused on showering largesse on defense contractor cronies rather than on pressing national security needs. For instance, at the same time the White House is ignoring military commander's desperate calls for funding to fill shortfalls in "bolt-on vehicle armor, combat helmets, night sights and body armor," it is pressing ahead with a $9 billion missile defense plan, even as the government reports that the plan is untested and not ready for deployment. Similarly, the president "personally asked his aides to work out a deal" to circumvent traditional procurement rules and give Boeing a leasing deal that will "cost hundreds of millions to several billions of dollars more than it should." And it was the White House who, under pressure from defense contractors, revived its plan to build the Crusader weapons system, which it previously claimed was outdated. Meanwhile, the administration has refused to adequately monitor the funds being spent in Iraq, fueling billions in "corruption and inflated cost to taxpayers" – much of it going to Cheney's old firm Halliburton.
BATHING CAMPAIGN DONORS IN CASH WHILE STIFFING TROOPS: A look at who finances the president's political campaigns offers insight into the Bush administration's decisions to underfund basic troop equipment while pouring cash into untested, overpriced, outdated, or unregulated defense contracts. For instance, the missile defense program includes massive defense contracts for two of Bush's major campaign and party contributors, Northrop Grumman (more than $900,000 to Bush/allies) and Lockheed Martin (more than $1.2 million to Bush/allies). Lockheed, in particular, has a special connection to Bush: the company's Vice President, Bruce Jackson, "served as financial chair and fundraiser for Bush's presidential campaign" and, at a 1999 conference, bragged that he would personally "write the Republican platform" on defense if the Texas governor made it to the Oval Office. Similarly, Boeing received the sweetheart lease deal after sending more than $800,000 to Bush and his allies. Even the* administration's abandonment of plans to cut the Crusader can be traced to financial connections: the company that reaps the most from the continuation of the weapon is the Carlyle Group – the firm that employs, among others, the president's father and former Secretary of State James Baker.
