Panetta announces plan for defense cuts that would shrink ground forces, retire some planes

[Lasher]

23. It is inaccurate to describe that as the "Clinton drawdown."

Measured in what economists call "constant dollars," adjusted for inflation, defense spending declined by nearly 15 percent between Reagan's last budget (for fiscal year 1989) and George H. W. Bush's last budget four years later. The decline was just under 13 percent between Bush's last budget and Clinton's final fiscal year (2001). In other words, the buying power of the dollars spent for defense declined more during Bush 41's four years than during Clinton's eight.

Bush 41’s secretary of defense explained that “overall, since I've been secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend.… And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend.” That defense secretary, of course, was Dick Cheney.



http://www.factcheck.org/more_mitt_missteps.html

But these facts are often lost in the haze of neoconservative lies, accusing Clinton of uniquely reducing military expenditures while presuming without qualification that such frugality is inherently evil.