The lefts revisionist history of Clinton.

As you can tell from the sparse posting I have done here, I'm not really the blogger I had hoped to be. Mostly I just don't have time...as witnessed by the fact that I had to stay up entirely too late to post this. But I do spend a lot of time perusing other blogs as well, not to mention the myriad sites I troll frequently for parts for my poor car (see my other blog 94TALONNA) One of the sites I frequent is Rob Schumachers site While I was looking for ways to further antagonize poor, uber-liberal Rob, I saw this post.

This was just too asenine, so I replied as follows:
Oh, you've GOT to be shitting me!!!! This is by far the most assenine grouping of bullshit revisionist history I've ever seen. I was in charge of ordering parts for M-div on my sub in the "salad days" of the Clinton years, and we couldn't get shit. We were perpetually undermanned, as well. And, yeah, we finally got raises around the last few years I was in...somewhere around 3%, which almost covered inflation. And, as you're so fond of pointing out, when your trying to write something negative, for the last 4 years he had a republican congress overseeing the funding. I'm sure that had nothing to do with what little we did see.

As far as Clinton building the force able to win so successfully, one of the talking points of the idiot liberals who insist the war is a mistake is that are troops are stretched too thin and we didn't have enough troops in Iraq. Then there is this bullshit:

"Despite frequent Republican criticism during the 2000 presidential campaign of Clinton-era military deterioration, the force that was so successful in Afghanistan and Iraq -- while continuing to perform a myriad of tasks around the world on a daily basis -- was clearly quite capable. Republican assertions that the military was underfunded and overstretched and that readiness was poor were contradicted by those performances in Afghanistan and Iraq."

So we don't have enough "boots on the ground" in Iraq to win the war...which by all liberal accounts, we've already lost...but the reasons we had such a stunning military victory is because Clinton built the military into such a capable force? Doesn't quite jive. And how the hell can we have had a stunning military victory?!?! Bush is too stupid to plan a war, which is why we lost it, apparently. Oh, and the military was supposedly hopelessly under armored to fight this war. With all the magic Clinton was performing for the services, how did that get overlooked? God, you people are way too accustomed to speaking out of both sides of your asses. Yes, asses, because that's where your heads are perpetually stuck.

Yeah, Bush wanted to end the more pointless overseas deployments, mostly those associated with nation building, which he also detested. I know, now we're actively building two nations and we've had extended deployments overseas as a result. Hmm, what could have happened between his inauguration and Sep.12, when he vowed to send troops overseas. Damn, it's not like 3000 people died when a group of fanatical murderers declared WAR on us or anything. And, honestly, if I hear the Iraq is not part of the GWOT, I'm going to fucking scream. Thats your OPINION. The nation was asked what it thought of that opinion and 63 million people told you you were WRONG. PLEASE shut up about it now, it 's over, you lost. AARRGGGHH! By the way, with us missing all of our recruiting deadlines, because everyone knows Bush screwed up the war, how did we manage to add 27,000 troops? Anyone?

A few more points on why this article is so stupid: Explain the ways the last two wars were so exceptional, from the perspective of the first Gulf War. We had better communications and some improvements to GPS, but the methods were fairly similar: slam the country with tomahawks and planes, then send in a very quick strike of mechanized units. We won a decisive and stunningly quick victory in that first war as well. And why was the actual "war" part of this war, where it was professional soldier vs. professional soldier, over so quickly? Many people were complaining about the tens of thousands of casualties the brave Iraqi thugs would inflict upon our maurauding, barbaric forces, only it didn't happen. We hit barely any resistance. It's almost like Sadam was hiding his actual military preparedness from the rest of the world. Naw, Bush must have been lying about his analysts reports just to increse the anguish of the families of our soldiers. Aparently he's evil like that. One final note: It mentions that Clinton spent more money on defense then the Bush I administration. This is fuzzily written, as it fails to mention that CLinton was president for twice as long. I would think he would spend more in 8 years than H.W. spent in four. Not really an impressive stat, as it is.

Now, I was a little angry, cause not only do I not agree with Robs views on the Iraq war, but I really can't stomach someone who routinely bashes the war as a lost cause so promenently touting an artice clearly tring to make it look like the only reason we've been successful in Iraq is because of Clinton. I may need to edit this tomorrow, but for now, I'll just leave it as is.