I think that makes very, very clear the point of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), which was that the President had put nothing for peacekeeping in this defense bill. So the logical deduction was that any peacekeeping, absent a supplemental, had to come out of ammunition, had to come out of readiness; and that is something that would have disserved the country. I appreciate the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for explaining the President's recent statement.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of the President's budget on peacekeeping efforts during a defense bill debate.
Share
More from Andrew P. Hunter
I started off by talking about that letter that the Armed Services Committee, Democrats and Republicans, sent to Israel in 1987 telling them that at some point in the future they would be attacked by ballistic missiles coming from a…
Taking back my time, I don't think we are going to be appropriating any melting shirts, or authorizing any melting shirts. We do serious stuff. And when you have a defense bill which is over $500 billion and it has thousands and thousands…
I put my initiatives, and I don't call them earmarks because I don't think they are illegitimate, I put them on the Internet. As I learned in my ill-fated national campaign, people aren't paying a lot of attention to my Internet site. But…
If you take the gentleman's argument to its ultimate conclusion, that means the portable jammers, the ones that only weigh a couple of pounds that we gave to our marines to save their lives so they can carry them, because you can't carry…





