Hillary Clinton Aims to Increase Army Size


Recommended Posts

Dems aim to increase army size 

A team of Senate and House Democrats today are planning to introduce legislation today aimed at significantly increasing size of  the U.S. Army.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services (SASC) airland subcommittee, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), a SASC member, and Reps. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), both members of the House Armed Services committee, are pressing for the passage of the United States Army Relief Act.

The legislation seeks to  raise the cap of the Army?s end strength, said an aide to Tauscher.

The Army already is working on increasing its troop levels by 30,000. Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, has said on numerous occasions that it costs about $1.2 billion a year for every 10,000 people added to the Army. 

Both the House and the Senate have called for an increase in troop levels in their 2006 defense authorization bill and it is likely that troop levels will be increased when the conferees meet.

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheH...305/brief3.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What benefits are they expecting the United States to gain with a larger military? I would have thought increasing tech research budget would have been a better move :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a feeble effort to appeal to the right for her upcoming presidential run... :rolleyes:

586210319[/snapback]

Like there is anything that she could possibly do to appeal to the right wing....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, it's not just Hillary.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services (SASC) airland subcommittee, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), a SASC member, and Reps. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), both members of the House Armed Services committee, are pressing for the passage of the United States Army Relief Act.

I fail to see how this could be regarded as her trying to apppeal to the right. I mean we are at war, and anybody with half a brain can see that we need more troops over in Iraq and Afganistan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just necessarilly more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but less rotations for those units that do go. It's kinda crazy to think that right now if you join the Army and get in the right units that you could spend 2 years or more of your 4 year enlistment at war, and that's just the Army I really feel for the Marines who are probably serving about 3/4's of thier enlistment there.

And increased rotations hurt retention so if you could lenghten the amount of time a soldier can spend at home before going overseas you have a higher chance of that soldier reenlisting, so the higher troop numbers should also help to keep reenlistment and morale higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say what you want, Hillary has been actively moving towards the center to avoid the "Kerry" syndrome, hoping to wrangle moderate republicans during the next election. Think about it, since WHEN have Democrats given two sh*ts about the military, or making things easy for those serving their country?? Be honest, there are OBVIOUSLY alterior motives here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say what you want, Hillary has been actively moving towards the center to avoid the "Kerry" syndrome, hoping to wrangle moderate republicans during the next election. Think about it, since WHEN have Democrats given two sh*ts about the military, or making things easy for those serving their country?? Be honest, there are OBVIOUSLY alterior motives here.

586211118[/snapback]

Of course one could say the same thing about Bush this round, lowering everything for veterans, and going against Shinseki's plea for more troops before Iraq. Of course he did do a pay raise for the active guys and raise the death benefit. The Republican way is to make it look like you support the military to get thier votes just like the Dems.

Argh, if only the Democrats and Republicans could merge thier priorities, that would be sweet.

Of the two, Bush and Hillary, I'd say she's putting on more of a show than Bush, I really dislike Hillary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course one could say the same thing about Bush this round, lowering everything for veterans, and going against Shinseki's plea for more troops before Iraq.  Of course he did do a pay raise for the active guys and raise the death benefit.  The Republican way is to make it look like you support the military to get thier votes just like the Dems.

Argh, if only the Democrats and Republicans could merge thier priorities, that would be sweet.

Of the two, Bush and Hillary, I'd say she's putting on more of a show than Bush, I really dislike Hillary.

586211174[/snapback]

That's not really an accurate statement. Bush is just following through with an established Republican platform. Hillary is going WAY outside the "norm" for the left and trying to show the public (dishonestly) just how much of a "moderate" she is. You know, "I believe it what you believe, as long as you vote for me."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also dislike hilary, but really.. Does it suprise anyone here that she is a militant woman? Think on it! lol. It is like Liberman he is all about that kinda **** too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also dislike hilary, but really.. Does it suprise anyone here that she is a militant woman? Think on it! lol. It is like Liberman he is all about that kinda **** too.

586211366[/snapback]

this shocked the hell out of me too. maybe she is trying to show that she can think like a man. i guess she really is a dyke. :p jk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd concede this is pandering to the moderates by Clinton, and Lieberman, well he doesn't even belong in the Democratic Party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd concede this is pandering to the moderates by Clinton, and Lieberman, well he doesn't even belong in the Democratic Party.

586212249[/snapback]

I agree. Lieberman blows.

Oh well...Hilary will never be president...she's just insane is all. Soon enough, by late 2007, she'll get her mind back and drop out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd concede this is pandering to the moderates by Clinton, and Lieberman, well he doesn't even belong in the Democratic Party.

586212249[/snapback]

whatever it takes to win, huh?

i hate pandering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whatever it takes to win, huh?

i hate pandering.

586212685[/snapback]

What are you just running around the forum to agree with me today? HAH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say what you want, Hillary has been actively moving towards the center to avoid the "Kerry" syndrome, hoping to wrangle moderate republicans during the next election. Think about it, since WHEN have Democrats given two sh*ts about the military, or making things easy for those serving their country?? Be honest, there are OBVIOUSLY alterior motives here.

586211118[/snapback]

When our country has been at war. See WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and the Balkans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you just running around the forum to agree with me today? HAH

586212741[/snapback]

lol. btw us army increase is only to be expected.

... like they have to better use of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.