Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
How do you square the fact that Clinton significantly reduced the size of the military (i.e., number of soldiers), while still harping that we need more troops to do the job right?
|
I think that's called starving the beast. W's doing it right now with the Fed Govt. The fastest theoretical way to way to maximum productivity with minimal expenditures is to decrease resources while increasing productivity demands (yes, I know - "Duh").
These debates are great examples of why lawyers armed with statistics are incredibly annoying. Its like watching mini-versions of Farenheit over and over, but not 1/10 as entertaining. Its as though some people arguing think that their figures are unassailable. You could spin every figure in "9/11" in reverse and come out with a glowing picture of Bush. Its all context and the angle from which you read the numbers. If you muct cite numbers, its probably a good thing to do it in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, recognizing how quickly you'll be fileted with the very same information.
Don't get too sanctimonious - that blog article might seem to be proof in your pretty little mind, but its all clay.
* But if you want to see masterful manipulation of that clay, please check out "9/11". It is revietting and I'm pretty sure it will change a lot of red state votes. Call Moore what you will, but he makes one hell of an engaging film.
