Barack Obama: CHANGE U.S. Defense Back to Clinton and Carter Days

"This video -- presumably made for a very, very, very liberal audience -- is evidence that Barack Obama is ill-prepared, at best, to serve as America's Commander-in-Chief."

--Doug Ross

Obama's "change" sounds like the "same old, same old" from Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Doug Ross has performed a much-needed public service.

Must watch video: Barack Obama Promises to Disarm America



Doug posted the above video and information on what "hope" looks like--through the eyes of Democrat presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

The above video and Doug's list of how Obama has voted in his short time in the Senate on important issues is must-read for anyone thinking that they might vote for the junior senator from Illinois.

Highlights from the video ...I will cut investments in unproven [sic] missile defense systems... ...I will not weaponize space... ...I will slow development of Future Combat Systems... ...and I will institute a "Defense Priorities Board" to [prevent] unnecessary spending... ...I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons... ...and to seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons... ...I will seek a global ban on the development of fissile material... ...and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert... ...and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals... Barack Obama's plans for America in a dangerous world.

Should Obama make it to the White house, it would seem that after his above "changes", America's best defense would consist of: hope.

Hope that Iran doesn't nuke us.

Or Russia.

Barack Obama is for "change". But his rhetoric sounds like the same old Democrat line whenever it comes to defending American interests.

After Jimmy Carter, the American military had to re-tool. After Bill Clinton's "peace dividend", the same was true.

When you take military and defense options away from yourself, you leave little room to maneuver in an emergency.

Neither president had much of a will for a strong defense.

Carter's response to the invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the Olympics. His military response to the Iranian hostage crisis was--do you really have the time?

Clinton's response was always to bomb and fire rockets--sometimes at empty buildings.

Re-watch the video and read the Doug Ross story.

And think about Obama's "change" in America's national defense.

Does the U.S. military have time in this dangerous world to recover from an Obama presidency?

by Mondoreb
image: michael ramirez at ibd
Source:
* Must watch video: Barack Obama Promises to Disarm America



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

U.S. Military Budget Suffering Secret Cuts?

Have cuts in Military Budgets gone too far?



We received these disturbing photos in the email this morning.

We confess, we didn't know that Congress was cutting military budgets, but we challenge you to make any other conclusion.

Are they proof that military budget cuts have gone too far?



Replacement parts available at Cabala's.




Have complaints that the U.S. military has gone too high-tech caught up with the armed forces?




It appears from the pictures that the secret cuts have been across the board, affecting all services equally.

At least, it seems, they still have training funds available.

by Mondoreb
hat tip: faultlines
images: faultlines



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Dissing the Veterans

I’m old enough to remember when universities and employers had veterans preferences, with the idea that those serving their country should have preference for jobs that they are qualified for.

This was mostly a way to say thanks, but was also partly the acknowledgement that a man (or woman) who had been willing to serve their country might have other qualifications (e.g. maturity) that might not show up on a simple application.

But now, too many of the talking class are busy dissing the veterans. Why? Because they disdain the military, because they train their children to disdain military careers, and therefore few of them actually know anyone in the military.

Peter Gudmundsson wrote in the Christian Science Monitor:

A quick glance at the troops I met immediately revealed a broad representation of America’s ethnic groups – a diversity that’s typical throughout America’s armed forces. Statistics reveal high standards of educational attainment and the near nonexistence of illegal drug use or criminal backgrounds. Many come from families in which military service is a common experience. Yet I can’t help concluding that the upper and upper-middle or “elite” social classes seem to be conspicuously absent…

America was (once) full of veterans who could place “news from the front” in context for friends and neighbors….

A society with veterans represented at all levels of the community is better equipped to interpret accounts of inadvertent civilian casualties, interrogation interpreted as torture, or prisoner abuse. With the abdication of the upper classes from military service, most elites in the media, private sector, and government service don’t have the intimate human context for the realities of war.

One result of this is prejudice: making false generalizations about the military and military veterans that would be taboo if similar statements were made of, say, illegal immigrants, or Episcopalians.
Today’s CNN had a woman discussing the election and essentially said the military was full of people who had no other opportunities.

Never mind that the standards to be accepted into the military are high, or that other jobs are available, and never mind that many in the military get advanced training for one’s job (and often have the ability to attend classes or to get degrees while working).

Let’s continue to paint the military, especially the minority members, as helpless and ignorant pawns of the evil bushy, not as men and women who could get jobs in industry but prefer the discipline and the training offered by the armed services.

Another example is the NYTimes long article about returning veterans involved in homicides.

Ralph Peters of the NYPost rightly points out that 20% of these homicides were essentially car wrecks after drinking (DUI), not murders, and the

Bill Owens at Pajamasmedia has the background on some of the other crimes, including child abuse that occured before deployment, a police officer accused of shooting during a no knock raid, a man who shot the rapist of his child, and a couple drug dealers/gang members who went back to their previous violent profession after their enlistment.

Why is it that one doubts that such a story would have been published the way that it was (without statistics for example, that would have shown that veterans had a lower homicide rate than civilians) if there had been veterans in the newsroom to vent the story?

As Gudmundsson points out: One of the problems is that when those doing the reporting lack military experience, they will filter the news through the eyes of partisanship and ignorance rather than through the eyes of experience.

Peters is even more blunt, seeing it as a political move to paint the war in Iraq as wrong by demonizing the veterans:

Again, the Times’ smear certainly wasn’t an accident. The paper’s staff is highly paid and highly experienced. Its editors know that a serious news story has to put numbers into context. But their sole attempt at context was to note that offenses by former soldiers have ticked up since we went to war….what’s the image that the left, whether the Times or the silly people in Hollywood, presents to us? Vets are nuts. Violently nuts. They kill their neighbors. They kill their own kind. And they’re just waiting for the right moment of madness to kill you.

One result of this demonization is that one keeps hearing about attacks on our military, from vandalizing Veterans memorials to vandalizing their car just for the heck of it.

After all, when the newspaper of record decides that not only is the war evil but that all those who serve in the war are evil, it sends a message to all sorts of nutcases and paranoid types that aggression is justified.

by Boinky
[image: degette]
crossposted Bloggernewsnet.

Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Ecuador Wants Miami Military Base: Many Issues Here

[image of Miss Ecuador 2004 by ecuador.usa]
by Mondoreb

Gloria Estaban CDs?
Another War on Drugs Outpost?

Ecuador wants a swap: the U.S. base at Manta for a base in Miami. Ecuador wants a military base in Miami? If you're an anti-drug warrior, the news is encouraging. Is the base necessary for U.S. defense? Or is it another outpost in the U.S.'s 2nd-longest running war--The War on Drugs? Is Ecuador making a military or political point?

More from Reuters:

Ecuador's leftist President Rafael Correa said Washington must let him open a military base in Miami if the United States wants to keep using an air base on Ecuador's Pacific coast.

Correa has refused to renew Washington's lease on the Manta air base, set to expire in 2009. U.S. officials say it is vital for counter-narcotics surveillance operations on Pacific drug-running routes.


"We'll renew the base on one condition: that they let us put a base in Miami -- an Ecuadorean base," Correa said in an interview during a trip to Italy.

"If there's no problem having foreign soldiers on a country's soil, surely they'll let us have an Ecuadorean base in the United States."

The U.S. embassy to Ecuador says on its Web site that anti-narcotics flights from Manta gathered information behind more than 60 percent of illegal drug seizures on the high seas of the Eastern Pacific last year.

The failure to renew the lease at Manta would be a blow to U.S. drug interdiction efforts. That should be enough to make anti-drug warriors happy.

Of course, the Ecuadorians are making a political point. And of course, one has to wonder what the base in Miami would add to Ecuadorian security--other than help prevent the import of illegal Gloria Estaban CDs. It's not like Ecuador--not the richest of countries--couldn't use the money from the base rent.

Might Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez be taking up the slack on that point?



DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Military Mobilizes to Help Fight Fires

[photo:getty]
by Mondoreb

In wartime, you call out the Army. And that's what's happening out west: the military is actively combating the raging fires burning in Southern California. The help includes military members from all branches, National Guard and active-duty alike.

More from CNN:

Dozens of Defense Department personnel are actively engaged in fighting the wildfires raging in Southern California, Pentagon officials said Tuesday, and thousands more National Guard and active-duty military personnel are available to help.

Paul McHale, assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense, said that 12 Defense Department firefighting teams, with 12 engines, are already working the blazes and more than 17,000 National Guardsmen are potentially available if needed.

In addition, he said, 550 Marines from Camp Pendleton are preparing to deploy to the fire area.

"All of the aid that we provide is the result of a request ... from the state," McHale said. "However, we have been very proactive in independently preparing those capabilities for the possibility of such requests, and we have reached out early to state officials."

Military bases are also being set up to handle evacuees. Sailors at some bases are being moved offshore to make room.

As the number of the displaced exceeds 500,000, the military is mobilizing and treating this as a war on fire.



Back to Front Page.

Goldfarb, Weekly Standard Take A Look : The Myth of 'Whom the Troops Support'

by Mondoreb

The fantasy of the analysis of the Houston Chronicle's story about military campaign contributions and any connection to reality took another hit when Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard entered the fray. DBKP took a hard look at the research and analysis of this piece yesterday. We're now not alone.

From the Weekly Standard:

Does Andrew Sullivan read stories before he comments on them? In this case, I suspect he didn't, otherwise he's engaging in pure military-related fantasy. In response to this article from the Houston Chronicle reporting that Ron Paul and Barack Obama lead all candidates in fund raising among "donors identified as affiliated with the military," Sullivan headlines a post "Whom the Troops Support," with this stunningly self-indulgent conclusion (actually this is the whole post):

Sullivan is an excellent example of the uncritical reader. We now take a break for Andrew Sullivan's erroneous conclusion. From the Atlantic.com:

Just one indicator, of course: campaign donations from active service military members. And guess who's first? Ron Paul. Second? Barack Obama. Those tasked to actually fighting this war get it, don't they?

Back to Goldfarb:

Except this isn't about campaign donations from "active service military members," whatever they might be, but "donors affiliated with the military," which Sullivan might have noticed had he slogged through the whole first sentence of the story. In fact, the first "active service military member" and Ron Paul supporter interviewed for the piece is 72-year-old Lindell Anderson, a retired Army chaplain from Fort Worth. Further, the Chron notes that the average size of Paul's donations from this subset was $500. How many active duty soldiers are giving $500 to fringe candidates a year out from the election? Not many, I suspect. In fact, among all the candidates, the total number of contributors surveyed here numbered less than 1,000--out of an Armed Forces of 2.2 million. And, remember, most of these contributors aren't even active duty.

No one is saying there aren't any troops supporting Ron Paul or Barack Obama or Cindy Sheehan or whoever. But once again, another story about the story. This story isn't about how U.S. troops are rushing to empty their pockets into the Paul (and Obama) campaign coffers. It's about how a few people can chop data to their liking and how others in the media leap without looking first looking both ways onto the conclusion bandwagon.

It won't be the last time this happens. It won't be the last time DBKP point's it out. But it's always good to have company.
Back to Front Page.

The Military & Campaign Contributions: Paul, Obama & McCain Leaders?

by Mondoreb & Little Baby Ginn
The story is dressed up to show that anti-war critcs/candidates Ron Paul and Barack Obama lead in campaign contributions from military givers. But is that the story? or is this story from the Houston Chronicle the story?

From the Houston Chronicle:

According to a Houston Chronicle analysis of campaign records from January through September, Paul received $63,440 in donations from current military employees and several retired military personnel.

Democrat Barack Obama, another war critic, was second in military giving. The Illinois senator got $53,968 during the nine months.

He was followed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, a decorated Navy pilot and former Vietnam prisoner of war, who received $48,208 in military-related giving. McCain has been one of the most vigorous defenders of President Bush's decision this year to increase U.S. troops in Iraq.

The story might just be the Chronicle's methodology in determining it's results. Which is sad, because it throws cold water on what might have been an interesting look at the rates of giving among the military instead of an analysis of Houston Chronicle story contruction. Paul, Obama and McCain supporters have a right to be disappointed when doubts are raised about this story's validity.

No information about the rates of military campaign contributions. No look back at how the military actually votes in presidential election. Not a word of the "Chronicle's analysis" and its methodology. No information on the analytical tools used by the Chronicle.

But the "analysis" was able to determine the dollar amounts of the various candidates was calculated down to the very dollar. Impressive.

No info, just breathless headlines. Must be the Houston Chronicle way.