listening to rush today i heard mark davis (from dallas, filling in for rush) talking about a video where obama comes right and says he's going to disarm our military. i had actually seen this video before when a link to it was sent to me at the end of february - i guess i wasn't paying real good attention at that point in time.
watching the video again, and apparently being awake for it this time, really got me thinking about everything obama says in the video. the video is actually nearly eight months old, but it's still something we shouldn't let slide by. here is the video i am speaking of:
he starts by promising to "...end misguided defense policies" and "...fight[ing] special interests in washington". what misguided defense policies? what special interests in washington? hmm, not really clear on the specifics, but he does give us the list of things he's going to do:
- stop spending $9b per month in iraq; [as the only major candidate who opposed the war from the beginning] end the war.
- cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending
- cut investments in "unproven" missile defense systems; not weaponize space
- slow the development of future combat systems
- establish "independent board" to oversee defense spending so unnecessary money isn't spent on defense
- u.s. will develop no new nuclear weapons
- seek a global ban on production of fissile material
- negotiate with russia to remove icbms from "hair trigger alert" and achieve "deep cuts" in our nuclear arsenals
- fought for open, ethical and accountable government his "entire life"
- doesn't switch positions
- doesn't make promises that cannot be kept
- doesn't posture on defense policy
- doesn't take money from federal lobbyists for "powerful defense contractors"
now don't you feel better?
let's examine his statements, shall we?
obama keeps claiming to be the only major candidate who opposed the war from the beginning, but so what? unless i'm mistaken, he wasn't a u.s. senator on 22 october 2002 when the vote pertaining to the use of force was rendered in the senate. you can verify this information here if you doubt me. additionally, according to sourcewatch, while obama was running for the u.s. senate in 2004 (although he gave a public speech against the war a few days after the vote in 2002) he told the new york times that he "was not sure whether he would have voted against the resolution had he been in the [u.s.] senate." how convenient that he forgets that waffling now.
obama is going to cut the wasteful spending of defense. he's going to cut back on unproven missile defense spending, but advocate the spending of tax payers' dollars on unproven embryonic stem cell research. apparently he hasn't considered that if we abandon our defense systems - whether yet proven or not - we are not going to be able to defend ourselves. this includes obama's naivety (stupidness?) in deciding to slow our development of future combat systems and ties right into his goals about nuclear weapons.
has anyone pointed out to this chuckle head that just because we abandon defense mechanisms or slow our defense developments that the rest of the world is NOT going to follow suit? despots and dictators are not going to say "hey, the new guy at the u.s. is stepping back from being able to defend his country, so we probably ought to abandon our pursuit of weapons advanced enough to attack them."
can't you just picture ahmadinajad and kim jung il and others saying "oh, obama is reducing his nuclear arsenal and doesn't want us to have fissile materials, so we'll stop now." and can you picture putin from saying "yeah sure, barry, we'll dump some (most?) of our weapons and get rid of our hair trigger - we trust you to do the same, thanks for trusting us!"?
and his "independent" review board to ensure there is no unnecessary defense spending? just how the heck is he going to pull that one off? the only way to make it truly independent is to make certain that there are equal numbers of conservatives (not rinos) and liberals on it and to put it purely in an advisory position. but you and i both know that if the recommendation doesn't match his beliefs he won't act on it. and if his support of welfare, global health care and other items (including stem cell and abortion funding) he simply cannot be trusted with my tax dollars.
btw, i recall the common defense of the country being a constitutional item, but not medical research.
as for his final grouping, first and foremost, he has taken money from defense contractors in campaign donations - sure it's about 40% of the amount that mccain received, but nearly equal to what hillary received from the same group. big whoop. how about all the money he takes in pork for his constituents versus what mccain has taken?
in the 2008 FY obama grabbed $97.4m in pork spending for 53 projects. projects like $1.6m for the shedd aquarium in chicago. of course clinton was ranked much higher than obama's number 70 ranking, but mccain has zero projects and zero dollars in pork allocations for his constituents.
i'm also trying to figure out when, prior to running for the state senate in illinois, did obama have anything whatsoever to do with government. let alone the continuous fighting for open, ethical and accountable government he speaks of in his advertisement. we all know his infractions in judgment as to who are appropriate "friends" or "mentors". given the duplicitnous of the individuals he has surrounded himself with his entire life is there anyone out there who believes he's for open, ethical or accountable ANYTHING??
long story short, i don't want his promises - we can't afford them from a financial standpoint. from a defensive standpoint or from a moral standpoint. we can't afford anything about obama.