<DIV>If (and I mean 'if') leaner meant less money to the military, would that be bad..... Carl Remick <carlremick@hotmail.com> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">[Good ol' Bill -- he doesn't just get blow jobs, he gives 'em. From a Washington Post interview with Clinton:] "In all probability, we won't be the premier political and economic power we are now" in a few decades, he [Bill Clinton] said, pointing to the growth of China's economy and the growing economic strength of the European Union. ... But he said he did not want to be misunderstood. "I never advocated that we not have the strongest military in the world. . . . I don't think a single soul has thought I was advocating scaling back our military." During the phone call [interview], the former president praised Rumsfeld for instituting reforms at the Pentagon designed to produce a leaner, more flexible military force. "I hope that when the smoke clears from the Iraq thing, some more attention would be given to Rumsfeld's ideas," he said. ... <HTTP: A62253-2003Apr30.html articles wp-dyn www.washingtonpost.com> Carl _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><hr SIZE=1> Do you Yahoo!? <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com">The New Yahoo! Search</a> - Faster. Easier. Bingo.