I have had a go around with several people who claim that Resident Obama is actually increasing Defense spending. It is true that Obama has increased the budget 4% but he took the war funding, which was not part of the Defense budget (it was funded fr…

The current situation reminds me of Britain in the 1930’s when they wrongly assumed that if they disarmed, the NAZIS would do the same.

Has the F-22 actually ever even been used in conflict? I mean we have 2 wars going on in Iraq and Afganistan, and it hasn’t seen any action there. If it was so important to “troop protection”, why no action?

It’s my fault for assuming that people understood Dems have been opposed to missile defense. At F.A. we’ve posted the video of Obama saying he would cut missile defense on more than one occasion.

I have also written about it numerous times:

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/03/03/obamas-goal-is-to-rollback-reagan-revolution-in-economics-and-national-security/#more-17774

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/03/02/obama-to-give-russia-a-veto-over-us-missile-defense/#more-17733

http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/08/20/us-and-poland-sign-extended-defense-agreement/#more-6952

http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/08/14/consequences-grow-as-russias-invasion-of-georgia-continues/

http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/07/09/iran-missile-tests-highlight-differences-between-mccain-and-obama/

I thought everyone understood that and I should have been more aware that a number of folks may not be up to speed on the issue for a variety of reasons.

My goal was to write a short post that did not resemble the World Book Encyclopedia and I suspect that even if I had answered that point more fully in the post it would have caused some of our commenters to just nit pick on another point instead.

SPOT ON!!! I’m surprised this point didn’t come up much sooner in this thread. Democrats couldn’t allow ABL to progress to in-flight testing with real missles because that might just validate Reagan’s SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative, popularly referred to as the Star Wars defense initiative.) Everyone who joked about SDI would have to eat quite a bit of crow.

Not to worry, though. Since the world leaders will be getting rid of those nasty nuclear weapons, there’s not going to be a critical need for missle defense.

The Democratic Party really out to be the one represented by an elephant; these people don’t seem to forget anything (except the broken promises their leaders make.)

Jeff V

You can go ahead and cite where Dems have increased some defense programs all day long. But frankly, considering the average 80% increase in many departments under Obama’s spending spree a 4% increase in band-aids at DOD hardly suffices.

The central point here Ron remains that Democrats are undercutting our defenses at the worst possible time.

And frankly, you should have realized by now that I am both right and accurate and my opinions are based on education and experience.

Remind me again Ron, WHO did you vote for in 2008?

So you presented one side without the other so as to propose that the Democrats are simply cutting all these programs and making us less safe. That is misleading, sorry but it just is. They are cutting funding for things like missile systems but increasing in other areas Mike. The facts don’t lie.

If in your opinion you feel that endangers us then fine. But present the whole story and not just your cherry picked version.

To simplify it: Democrats cut spending on certain programs and increase spending in other programs.

That is more accurate Mike. I can present the entire list of areas of INCREASE again for you if you like.

You seem more interested in being right than accurate.

Ron

It’s no surprise at all that Gates would undertake to implement the Obama plan for Defense and National Security. Gates accepted the job knowing full well who and what he was dealing with.

Throughout his career Gates has been more a bureaucrat than a policy maker.

Now, you did get my “attention through 34 posts” but you still failed to disprove my central thesis.

You also accused me of thinly sourcing my post. Are you also unaware of the longterm Democrat opposition to missile defense since Reagan first proposed it?

I’ll be happy to expand on that theme in future if you think I have assumed our readers were better informed.

Good point. I do agree with that assessment although I personally think Larry misspoke and meant to say that the programs being cut were more Gates idea than Obama’s rather than the concept of who wants the cuts.

And I say that because Gates wrote a piece in Foreign Affairs Magazine back in the January/February issue outlining that the pentagon and military need to update it’s priorities as well as rethink modern warfare. He stressed a new emphasis on the type of warfare we are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan and as such I do think Obama probably relied heavily on Gates to decide what should and shouldn’t be cut. After all the guy’s resume is mighty impressive. Plus Obama doesn’t know squat about the military so why not rely on a veteran like Gates. Obama may be inexperienced but I just don’t buy that he is a complete moron. He did manage to get himself elected after all.

But anyway yes I’m really good at admitting when I’m being a dick or an ass or other such expletives because sometimes that’s the only way to get someone’s attention is to be a giant dick!

Gimme a little credit, I did keep your attention through 34 posts didn’t I?

Anyways I did enjoy the back and forth with you and look forward to a little sparring with you in the future.

Have a good one.

The “Dick” Ron

I’ll tell you this: I have absolute certainty that if McCain had been elected or Bush still in office there would be NO CUTS in missile defense.

I find the whole scheme, started by Larry above, to push this off onto Gates laughable.

Democrats run the Dept. of Defense. Democrats run the White House. Democrats run the Congress. Logic clearly indicates that these are DEMOCRAT CUTS.

It’s just like the “Bush lied Mantra” that used to get tossed out by the libs when no WMDs were found. He didn’t lie because he didn’t know. But it was a sensational statement that stuck.

I found your Headline and lack of other info in your post to be a bit sensational. It also felt cherry picked, but as Wordsmith mentioned on another post, this is a conservative political commentary website so I wouldn’t expect you to post anything favorable about Obama or Democrats. But sometimes there is more to a story than what is initially presented.

That was the crux of my argument…but between trying to do my regular job (here where I am now) and posting on here I get side tracked.

And then you had to go and call me naive without considering that isn’t really the case, but rather your defense mechanisms kicking in. Since I get a lot of my info from this website…then by default you all must be naive right? Of course not but I couldn’t resist making the point.

And Mike I would think you would appreciate it when someone challenges what they read as opposed to someone who just soaks up any and everything you say and treats it as gospel. That’s just drinking the kool aid isn’t it?

I was taught to question everything and except nothing at face value…..does that sound naive to you?

I wasn’t being snarky I was being a dick….huge difference!

Any way yeah I’m ready to move on so thanks for the response Mike.

Ron

Absolutely right. And from the comments here it seems to be an effective strategy to deflect attention from the Democrats.

2) Gates is the scapegoat just as I said he would be. That’s one reason why he was asked to stay on.

That’s worth repeating:

not to mention air superiority.

As for the increases in other programs, I guess it depends on your point of view. We will be increasing conventional weapons spending at the cost of future weapons. The ABL (laser) has already been tested, albeit on the ground. The actual platform testing was going to be conducted this year. Now, even if it works, it’ll be scrapped.

We can probably get by without the F-22, but it’s going to cost some jobs, not to mention air superiority.