Sub-sections under Defense:
• Military Personnel
• Missile Defense
• Other issues under Defense

Largest increase in defense $ in two decades: never too high

It costs a lot to fight this war. We have spent more than a billion dollars a month-over $30 million a day-and we must be prepared for future operations. Afghanistan proved that expensive precision weapons defeat the enemy and spare innocent lives, and we need more of them. We need to replace aging aircraft and make our military more agile to put our troops anywhere in the world quickly and safely.

Our men and women in uniform deserve the best weapons, the best equipment and the best training and they also deserve another pay raise. My budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in two decades, because while the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too high. Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay.

Listens to Europeans on SDI, but “intent on the right thing”

But at the same time, Bush seemed to be serving notice that he planned to do what he wanted to do, and that his intention in talking to European allies was largely to bring them around to his point of view, not to alter his own. “I’m intent upon doing what I think is the right thing in order to make the world more peaceful,” he said.

Focus on mobility and swiftness, not size of military

The best way to keep the peace is to redefine war on our terms. We have begun a comprehensive review of the US military, the state of our strategy, the structure of our forces, the priorities of our budget. I have given a broad mandate to challenge the status quo as we design a new architecture for the defense of America. We will modernize some existing weapons and equipment, a task we have neglected for too long, but we will do this judiciously and selectively. Our goal is to move beyond marginal improvements to harness new technologies that will support a new strategy.

Comprehensive review of military: then new spending

We do not know yet the exact shape of our future military, but we know the direction we must begin to travel. On land, our heavy forces will be lighter. Our light forces will be more lethal. All will be easier to deploy and to sustain. In the air, we’ll be able to strike across the world with pinpoint accuracy. On the oceans, we’ll connect information & weapons in new ways, maximizing our ability to project power over land. In space, we’ll protect our network of satellites.

All of this will require great effort and new spending. My first budget makes only a start. Before we make our full investment, we must know our exact priorities, and we will not know our priorities until the defense review is finished. That report will mark the beginning of a new defense agenda and a new strategic vision and will be the basis for allocating our defense resources

Bush’s stated military service record is incorrect

In fact, Bush only flew from June 1970 until April 1972. That month he ceased flying altogether, two years before his military commitment ended, an unusual step that has left some veteran fighter pilots puzzled.

A group of Vietnam veterans recently offered a $3,500 reward for anyone who can verify Bush’s claim that he performed service at a Montgomery air guard unit in 1972, when Bush was temporarily in Alabama working on a political campaign. So far, no one has come forward.

A Bush campaign spokesman acknowledged last week that he knows of no witnesses who can attest to Bush’s attendance at drills after he returned to Houston in late 1972 and before his early release from the Guard in September 1973.

AWOL in Air Guard? Maybe not, but didn’t meet obligations

The Bush campaign’s initial explanation for the lapse “incomplete records,” it now admits, was wrong. An Air Reserve official said last week that they now believe that Bush met minimum drill requirements before his discharge.

The result is that Bush’s discharge was “honorable.” Other current and retired Air Force officers said Bush’s military records are much like those of countless other Guardsmen at the time: guardsmen who lost interest in their units, and commanders who found it easier to muster them out than hold them to a commitment many made to avoid Vietnam.

Military mission has become fuzzy

Opposed Somalia intervention when it became nation-building

Be world’s peacemaker instead of world’s policeman

Rebuild military so it can fulfill mission to prevent war

Redefine how war is fought and won

Bush says military not ready; Pentagon disagrees

Post-Vietnam: just cause; clear goal; overwhelming victory

I will work to reduce nuclear weapons and nuclear tension in the world -- to turn these years of influence into decades of peace. And my administration will deploy missile defenses to guard against attack and blackmail. Now is the time, not to defend outdated treaties, but to defend the American people.

Lowest possible number of nukes consistent with security

Post-Cold War: remove weapons & high-alert; build SDI

Bush accused Clinton and Gore of being “locked in a Cold War mentality.” Bush said, “The premises of Cold War nuclear targeting should no longer dictate the size of our arsenal.” He also said the US should “remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status.”

Bush was hesitant to use the politically-charged word “unilateral” when calling for reductions, saying instead that the US should “lead by example,” and that he would “work closely with the Russians to convince them to do the same.”

Deter terrorists by counterstrikes & counterintelligence

• Would deter terrorist attacks by ensuring that every group or nation understands that if they sponsor such attacks, the U.S. response will be devastating
• Would strengthen our intelligence community’s ability to detect terrorist threats, and develop long-range strike capabilities to eliminate such threats before they arise

Use arms to defend Europe, Far East, Mideast, & Panama

Top-down review to decide which programs to cancel

BUSH: What’s needed to happen is the top down review of the military so that there’s a strategic plan to make sure that we spend properly. I’ll give you an example of the Crusader Howitzer program, looks like it’s too heavy. It’s not lethal enough. There’s going to be a lot of programs that aren’t going to fit into the strategic plan for a long-term change of our military.

US military is key to preserving world peace

Spend money on soldiers before sending them to hot spots

GORE: The US has to be strong in order to promote peace and stability. We need to make sure that our personnel are adequately paid and that their pay is comparable to the competition from the private sector. I have supported the largest pay raise in many a year. I support another one now. I also support modernization of our tactical weaponry. I think one of the ways we’ve been able to be so successful in Kosovo and other places is by having the technological edge. Now, readiness. I propose $100 billion for this purpose.

BUSH: We have an opportunity to use the great technology of the United States to make our military lighter, harder to find, more lethal. We have an opportunity to keep the peace. I’m going to ask the secretary of defense to develop a plan so we’re making sure we’re not spending our money on political projects, but on projects to make sure our soldiers are well-paid, well-housed and have the best equipment in the world.

Gays in military OK; “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” OK

A: I support the current ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy crafted by General Colin Powell regarding homosexuals in the military. We are blessed and fortunate to have had so many men and women fight so valiantly for our liberties in America. I respect and admire anyone who has served in any branch of our military and put his or her life on the line for our freedom.

Increase military pay to increase morale

Better equipment, better training, and better pay

$1B more for salary; $20B more for R&D for new weapons

To improve America’s military, Governor Bush will:
• Improve troop morale [via] better pay, better treatment and better training. [Bush would add] a billion dollars in salary increases, and renovate military housing that is sub-standard.
• Invest in research and development by at least $20 billion over the next five years, 20% [of which] must be spent for purchasing next generation weapons. Source: Press Release, “Improving Troop Morale” May 31, 2000

  ---

  George W. Bush on Missile Defense

  The defenses we build must protect us all: include allies

  We must prepare our nations against the dangers of a new era. The grave threat from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons has not gone away with the cold war, it has evolved into many separate threats, some of them harder to see and harder to answer, and the adversaries seeking these tools of terror are less predictable, more diverse.

  With advanced technology, we must confront the threats that come on a missile. With shared intelligence and enforcement, we must confront the threats that come in a shipping container or in a suitcase. We have no higher priority than the defense of our people against terrorist attack. To succeed, America knows we must work with our allies. We did not prevail together in the cold war only to go our separate ways, pursuing separate plans with separate technologies. The dangers ahead confront us all. The defenses we build must protect us all.

  Source: Speech at Joint Forces Command headquarters, Norfolk, VA Feb 14, 2001

  SDI: think beyond Cold War, but convince Europe & Russia

  Q: With the failure of the missile-defense test, are you still convinced we should move quickly to build a defensive shield?

  A: Yes, we need to move ahead. I hope I can convince Mr. Putin and the Europeans. I talked to [Russian Foreign Minister Igor] Ivanov about it, and I talked to him point-blank. I said here we are still trying to get out of a cold war mind-set. Please tell Mr. Putin I am willing to think differently. [Ivanov] talked about the new threats of outlaw nations, those are his words.

  Source: Interview with Time Magazine, CNN.com/Time.com Aug 1, 2000

  SDI plan like Bush Sr.’s $63B GPALS & “Brilliant Pebbles”

  Bush proposed missile defense system appears to be nearly identical to the missile shield proposed by his father in his 1991 State of the Union address. The elder Bush’s proposal was for a system to defend against an accidental Russian launch or a small volley of missiles fired by some other country. It became known at the Pentagon as GPALS, for “global protection against limited strikes.”

  GPALS envisioned 750 ground-based interceptors deployed at six areas in the US, plus 1,000 space-based interceptors using “brilliant pebbles” technology, which would fire thousands of pieces of metal at an incoming warhead, like buckshot in space.

  By contrast, the Clinton administration’s proposal is for a system of 100 to 250 ground-based interceptors with silos to be built in just one or two sites--Alaska and possibly North Dakota--at a cost estimated at $12.6 billion to $60 billion.A January 1992 General Accounting Office study of GPALS put its price tag in 1992 dollars at $63 billion.

  Source: Walter Pincus, Washington Post, Page A1 Jun 4, 2000

  Russia: jointly reduce missiles; but no joint SDI

  Bush offered as a precedent [for “leading by example” in nuclear diarmament] his father’s 1991 decision to unilaterally pull back all US short-range nuclear weapons from Europe and Asia, a move that was quickly matched and raised by then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.

  Notably, Bush shied away from another of his father’s 1991 proposals: that Russia join the US and its allies in building missile defenses, a move intended to overcome Moscow’s fierce objections to the program. Bush said yesterday that his willingness to share technology would “depend on how Russia behaves.”

  Bush’s proposal is still a significant break with many in his own party’s leadership, who argue that the US can have missile defenses and maintain large numbers of nuclear weapons. It was a clear attempt to rebut recent charges by Clinton & Gore that Bush is trapped in Cold War thinking.

  Source: Carla Anne Robbins, Wall Street Journal, p. A4 May 24, 2000

  SDI needed for defense against rogue states & terrorists

  There’s broad agreement that our nation needs a new approach to nuclear security that matches a new era. When it comes to nuclear weapons, the world has changed faster than US policy. The emerging security threats to the United States, to its friends and allies, and even to Russia, now come from rogue states, terrorist groups and other adversaries seeking weapons of mass destruction. It is time to leave the Cold War behind. America must build effective missile defenses based on the best available options at the earliest possible date. It is possible to build a missile defense and diffuse confrontation with Russia. America should do both. I will never reduce the levels of the nuclear stockpile of the US to a position where we jeopardize our safety and security. And no, I don’t support the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Source: National Press Club, part of “Renewing America’s Purpose” May 23, 2000

  Develop SDI, even if we must breach ABM treaty

  Bush said it was important enough for the US to deploy anti-ballistic missiles that he would back out of a 1972 treaty with the Russians if they did not agree to amend its provisions so that the US could pursue this course. Source: NY Times, p. A18, on “Renewing America’s Purpose” Sep 24, 1999

  Click here for 15 older quotations from George W. Bush on Defense. Click here for definitions & background information on Defense. Click here for policy papers on Defense. Click here for a profile of George W. Bush. Click here for VoteMatch responses by George W. Bush. Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Defense or about George W. Bush in The Forum.
  Other candidates on Defense:	George W. Bush on other issues:
  Pat Buchanan George W. Bush Al Gore Ralph Nader Political Leaders: John Ashcroft Hillary Clinton Elizabeth Dole John McCain Robert Reich Janet Reno Jesse Ventura Opinion Leaders: Noam Chomsky Bill Clinton Jesse Jackson Rush Limbaugh Ross Perot Ronald Reagan Party Platforms: Democratic Platform Green Platform Libertarian Platform Republican Platform	Abortion Budget/Economy China Civil Rights Crime Defense Drugs Education Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Immigration Labor Principles School Choice Social Security Tax Reform Technology War & Peace Welfare