Fact or fiction? Help me out.

[stanwyck]

The Comcast cable guy told us something fishy when he came to fix our cable. He saw the Marine emblem on my husband's car and said he was a former Marine. Asked who was a Marine in our family (our son is-active duty, returning to Iraq this month). He got to talking about how he wanted to stay in the Marines but he couldn't because Clinton was president and you couldn't re-enlist without going through a formal request for re-enlistment and since Clinton was dismantling the armed forces, he wasn't allowed to re-enlist. He said Clinton didn't want more military personnel. This sounds crazy. Any truth?

[Walt Starr]

1. No truth whatsoever

in fact, if I had been told that cock and bull story in a job interview, I would have immediate red flags go up about the validity of his claimed military experience.

[BOHICA06]

2. Maybe he couldn't re-enlist ....

... you can be barred from re-enlistment for behavior/conduct infractions or over-weight condition or failing your PT test. Easier to blame the Big Dog than to admit it might be his own damn fault.

[oneighty]

3. Sounds like

he is a warrior wanna be or a 'Not recommended for reenlistment' person. There used to be quite a lot of them not recommended. There is a space for that on the DD214.

180

[tx_dem41]

4. I don't know if this particular story is true, but having worked with ..

the U.S. Navy and Navy personnel throughout the 90s, this story was very prevalent and true. Remember, at the time, we were reducing the size of the military and attrition was one method of doing it. Remember the "peace dividend"? Its nothing to be ashamed of.

[frankly_fedup2]

8. THAT is something to be embarrassed about . . .

How can anyone even compare what has happened to the World since Bush took office and declared he was the "War President". I have never felt so isolated in the World because of this so-called Christian. We went there for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then we were told that Saddam and Bin Laden were working together on 9/11. Listen below. What are we to believe?

<http://forums.airamericaradio.com/randirhodes/messageboards/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=246>

If our troops ever do get to come home for leave before going back, the military flies them to Hawaii. The family has to pay the rest of the way. Now THAT is ridiculous.

Our soldiers that are wounded and hospitalized find out that when they come home, (that is, if their wound was bad enough. If they lose a leg, they train them on a prosthesis, then send them back out), they find the Veterans Administration cannot help them. THAT is unjust.

When we first invaded Iraq, and our soldiers were wounded, they were having to pay $8 a day for their own meals in the hospital in Germany. The media got the story out (somehow), and some senators brought it up and I believe even paid for their meals until it was taken care of by the Pentagon. THAT is disgraceful.

The Reserves are trying to recruit with a $15,000.00 sign-on bonus because if a young man or woman joins the Reserves, their pay is lower, they get no benefits there or on return, they get absolutely no extra "Hazardous" pay, although, they are in the same danger as the military enlisted personnel. Now THAT is sickening.

Clinton was far from perfect; however, this administration thinks it's part of prophecy and will bring the rapture on the continued course. Don't believe me . . . listen to Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell (who stated one morning on his "Old Time Gospel Hour" that if he passed a Liberal on the street dying of thirst, he would not give them a teaspoon of water. When his congregation started mumbling, he continued . . . I mean it. These are the baby killers, the Christian haters, they disrespect our President).

I hope these are the end times and the Rapture and the return of Christ is imminent. I have never felt this way my whole adult life until Bush took over this Country. I look forward to the end of all of his madness, and this looks like the only way to end his regime.

God help us all.

[tx_dem41]

9. Ummmm...where did I mention anything about Bush in my post...

or say anything bad about Clinton? Not sure why I got this overwrought and misdirected canned response. Can you help me out as to why?

[frankly_fedup2]

11. I misread it the first time. I thought you had stated that it was . . .

"something to be ashamed of" However, after I went off on my rant, I saw where you had placed "something not to be ashamed about."

I just read the post to fast and apologize for any offense to you.

However, my post was not overwrought or canned. Misdirected, yes. But every word I posted was the truth.

[tx_dem41]

14. Okay.....sorry about the...

overwrought and canned references. I shouldn't have shot that back. You had me confused and I knee-jerked back.

[frankly_fedup2]

16. Thank you for being the adult here. . .

I tend to get hot headed. Also, my knee jerks a bit here and there sometimes :7

[Rick Myers]

5. I know several Marines from Desert Storm

who were not allowed to 're-up,' usually because of job specialty...

[MADem]

6. He was FORCE-SHAPED

...as a result of the CHENEY designed drawdown. Everyone blames Clinton, but the bottom line is that BRAC happened, and force structure had to be trimmed to match BRAC (no bases, no bodies--force MUST match structure). There was NO TURNING BACK on the drawdown, well before Clinton ever got to the White House.

The guy is a bullshit artist, if he said that he had to go through a "formal request" for reenlistment as though that is somehow NEW. You ALWAYS have to formally request reenlistment, it's just that in the old days, when Reagan was building up the military willynilly, it was more of an automatic process in that most people were not denied.

If he didn't make the cut, he was either too fat, too physically unready (couldn't run or do the pull ups/push ups, etc.), he was a discipline problem or he was in an overmanned MOS. He wasn't singled out because of Clinton, he was singled out because the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps decided that he did not have the attributes or skillset that they wanted to keep in the Corps as a result of the Congressionally-mandated force levels.

[chefgirl]

7. From my experience

My ex was in the Navy for 22 years.

First of all, people have ALWAYS had to file a 'formal request', of a sort, to reenlist. Their commanding officer has to approve someone for reenlistment, but its basically just a formality unless someone is really a piece of shit and shouldn't be permitted to reenlist for some valid reason.

Also, during the Clinton administration, the military did tighten up their enforcement of the rules for those considered 'undesirable' for retention. Whereas they might overlook a bad conduct mark or someone being overweight etc.. in the past, these regulations were being a bit more strictly enforced during the nineties.
If I had to guess, I would bet that your cable guy was probably considered 'undesirable for retention' for some other reason than Clinton dismantling the military. :eyes:

One of the reasons why my ex supported Bush in 2000, other than being a Republican to begin with, was the raise that he had promised to the military. Needless to say, it didn't happen. They still got their yearly raises, but they were nothing approaching the level that Bush had promised.
Ironically, after the idiot took office, those regulations that were tightened up under Clinton, were tightened even further. I know many good sailors who were pushed out, after multiple enlistments, in favor of younger, less qualified, LESS EXPENSIVE new recruits.

Luckily, my ex was able to finish out his 22 years and still recieve his pension, but its my deep belief that those pensions are going to become distant memory for the people enlisting now. I have a feeling the govt. will either do away with them, or simply not allow anyone to make a 20+ yr. career in the military anymore.

-chef-

[frankly_fedup2]

10. Is he going to come back???

Ask him where he heard "Clinton was dismantling the Armed Forces?" Does he realize how "stupid" that sounds? The recruiting offices were not closing down from what I remember. Plus, Bush seemed to think he had enough military to do the dirty work he wanted done.

Since he was recently in the military, ask him if he is concerned about being "recalled"? I'm sure he will get his wish and re-enlist. They are taking anybody nowadays . . . even the obviously crappy ones from years ago.

Also, my prayers are with your son and all our young people over there doing what they have promised under oath that they would do, and that is follow the Commander and Chief's orders. I support them 100% because they have kept their word with the oath they took. However, they have a Commander and Chief that not only lies to them, he lies to this Country, and he has lied to the World, and he lied to the face of God.

[stanwyck]

12. He wasn't exactly

an endorsement for a Marine background. I work with two former Marines. Two VERY former Marines. Viet Nam vet and Gulf War vet. And they both still look like Marines. But this guy didn't look like he'd ever done a pushup in his life. So, maybe he wasn't really a Marine or maybe the physical training didn't really become a lifestyle commitment.
Thanks so much for your thoughts on behalf of my son and all the other men and women of our armed forces. They are relying on us.

[MNBiker]

13. The facts are ....There was a reduction of manpower in the 90's...

You can agree or disagree with the policy if you want. But it happened. It doesn't seem fishy to me. Throughout the history of the U.S., we have had high and low manpower numbers.

Epilogue. This is the problem. Someone tells you something that you think makes Clinton look bad, you dismiss it as false. So you (in general not you personally) argue until you are proved wrong. If you knew the facts, all you would have had to say was. "Force reduction has been a common occurrence in the last 100 years."

[bobbyboucher]

15. Please educate us with a couple of links.

Show us that this k-drag couldn't stay in the military because of Clinton's, not congress', but Clinton's actions.

Thanks in advance.

[MNBiker]

19. Read , Think , Argue...In that order

My young Jedi, you have fallen into a trap. No my trap, but a trap. You request links because you doubt me and you think this policy makes Clinton look bad. You will now attack my links and argue into the night.

I know about this force reduction for a fact because I was alive back in the 90's and my brother was pushed out, as well as many others. That doesn't make the policy bad. It doesn't make Clinton look bad. What some call blame I call the facts.

I went to google and entered "force reduction" military 1995

1st result

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/em558.cfm


"Currently, each Army heavy division, when committed to combat, consists of more than 18,000 soldiers. Under General Hartzog's plan, each division would retain about 15,300 soldiers, for a personnel reduction of roughly 15 percent. In addition, each division would reduce the number of combat vehicles from 232 Abrams tanks and 290 Bradley Fighting Vehicles to 180 tanks and 225 Bradley Fighting Vehicles: a 22 percent reduction" from 1998


2nd result

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1772&sequence=2

Check table 3

6th result

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1991/BWE.htm

From 1991 (HW Bush)


Here is the trap. You could have found this. (Why didn't you?) There is no blaming of Clinton or HW Bush. These things happen and Presidents are in charge when they do, they are not always bad policy.

[stanwyck]

18. If I knew the facts

OK. Give us the facts. As in, reliable links. Show that Marines couldn't re-enlist during the Clinton years.

[MNBiker]

20. post 19 is your reply

[stanwyck]

21. Bad info

The Heritage Foundation. Need we say more? Plus the other link concerns officers and the last link is speculative, not actual. This is spurious and unworthy of scholarship. Surely if you "researched" the question, you found more factual data? And just didn't bother to provide it...
Provide real proof that the Marines didn't accept the re-enlistment of qualified staff. Real. Not junk.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stanwyck]

23. Asking for real information

not what you provided, which is speculation from dubious sources concerning possible scenarios. Show us the real numbers from government links.
Your response to me is an insult.
I'm not sure you're ready for the level of discourse here.

[MNBiker]

25. I could care less about this topic. I was just commenting about force...

reduction. I knew when I saw the first link was Heratige, you would dismiss it. I don't even know what you are argueing about. But let me try.

You want proof ( a link of your approval) that President Clinton wouldn't let Marine Officers re-enlist during some years of his admin.

Do I have it?

[stanwyck]

26. Was this guy telling me the truth

that he, as a Marine in good standing, wasn't allowed to re-enlist because of Clinton? That's the question. Were soldiers without displinary problems or medical problems not allowed to re-enlist...because of Clinton?
By the way, the Heritage Foundation is a rightwing think tank. You might find their information a bit skewed. Besides, again, that link is speculation about possible troop reduction.
We're wondering, is this more rightwing trash talk, or are there facts which back up this man's assertion.

[MNBiker]

27. This will be my last word on the topic.....

You won't find a link to support this exactly. (And I not going to look)

The inner workings of large organizations are the same. When times are good they keep everybody happy. When cuts come, the old wood is cast off for the new. Why keep a man with 4 years left and dump a man with 12. Does the President of the company really care about the lower to mid level management (individually)? No. Someone said we need (example) 500 people in 2005 the best way to do this is to not let some people re-up + normal attrition and a few less promotions...You can meet your goal.....


The President doesn't set this kind of policy. But he stands by the results.

It's a changing world.

You seem to doudt we had a force reduction.

[stanwyck]

24. Oh, and if you're going

to insult someone, you might want to use spell check. You kinda blew it on the fool thing.

[Sparkle]

17. He's got the ABCs....

Always blame Clinton.

[Mountainman]

28. That's right, these folks will go to their graves blaming Clinton for

something that they should have taken personal responcibility for.