Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Republican Senator Lindsy Grahm is up to his usual war mongering.
Quote:
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who sits on the Armed Services Committee and the Homeland Security Committee, said Saturday the U.S. should consider sinking the Iranian navy, destroying its air force and delivering a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard. He says they should neuter the regime, destroy its ability to fight back and hope Iranians will take a chance to take back their government.
It should be noted that the Obama administration has said "anything is on the table". Print Story: Senator: consider taking out Iran's military - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101106/ap_on_re_ca/cn_canada_iran_us_senator/print - broken link)
Lindsey Graham, the man who dishonors soldiers by claiming to be a Desert Storm veteran, when he never left South Carolina, only that he served during the Desert Storm "era" as a lawyer for the air force. While he could be proud of this, he instead conflates his role diminishing the service of those who did serve in Desert Storm, what a pig.
Now the no nothing Senator who has obviously been staring that the risk board or playing World of Warcraft too long thinks its time to go to war again.
So Republicans once again come out in favor of MASSIVE spending.
Then we have Buck McKeon a Republican from California and who serves as chairman on the House Armed Services committee who had the following to say.
Quote:
The presumptive new Republican chairman of the House Armed Services committee, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), has announced that he will push for an increase in defense spending. In a rambling reply to a Reuters correspondent, McKeon explains how he’s going to defend America from the future
You should recall Buck McKeon as one of the supporters of the F-35 fighter's second engine. The Pentagon said it was a waste of money, Robert Gates said it was a waste of money, the President said it was a waste of money, Buck McKeon believes in spending for redundant and unnecessary equipment. Not a very conservative thing to do, but hey, its only 382 BILLION dollars, just a drop in the hat.
One should also note that Buck McKeon is another one of those who embellished his service record, in fact according to one source at the Pentagon, they cannot find any service record for McKeon at all and claim its a complete fabrication.
Seems the issue of foreign policy and defense spending is creeping into the Tea Party as well.
Sarah Palin still advocates a Neoconservative foreign policy as she has since the day she joined with John McCain (that guy under the bus) and is at odds with the more Libertarian types in the Tea Party such as the Paul camp.
As Ron Paul recently pointed out in Foreignpolicy.com
Quote:
“without looking at the costs of maintaining an American empire of more than 700 military bases in more than 120 foreign countries.” Tea partiers cannot pat themselves on the back “for cutting a few thousand dollars from a nature preserve or an inner-city swimming pool at home while turning a blind eye to a Pentagon budget that nearly equals those of the rest of the world combined, ” he stressed."
The focus of many of these and other Tea Party candidates that were elected (or not) to Congress has been almost entirely on the economy. They are either uninterested in–or not knowledgeable enough about–Afghanistan, Iraq and the other U.S. military interventions that are consuming such a huge part of the federal budget.
So how many more Republicans that have pontificated about spending will join the War Party? Please let the rationalizations begin and lets hear from some of those good old fashioned "fiscal conservatives" on how a strike against Iran is either fiscally responsible or conservative?
Wow, I think the irony meter has been busted every day in the last week.
I wonder what the hell the justification is to rant about dropping federal spending as a platform, and whip up a war that spends even more then anything dreamed up by anyone else. Especially when they want to drop spending on our own country/citizens like education, infrastructure, research/development (like alternative fuel sources to keep us from being dependent on countries like these, helps us more and hurts them more to hit their pocket book), and Medicare/Social Security that keeps the old folks off the street and alive.
Simply awe inspiring, it's amazing.
It is a rather bizarre definition of patriotism that one must go out and constantly wage war on other countries. While letting your own country and economy fall into ruin because of neglect and idiocy.
Especially funny when the same group of people refrenced an Iranian TV source as a reason to impeach Obama.
Here is where we will see if the Tea Party is something substantial or just a tempest in a tea cup, no pun intended.
I suspect the Tea Party, more libertarian types will get bowled over eventually and the Neoconservative pro-war types will then begin to assert their desires for the expansion of our wars and spending soon after.
Now something to watch is Obama, since he already stated that concerning Iran, "Everything is on the table". So as the right begins to push the "Obama is weak" on war, a theme that Obama stole from McCain in the last election, will Obama come out and try and prove his strength by doing something stupid?
As I've pounded Democrats over their funding of our wars, despite the mandate to end them back in 2006 by the people during the mid terms, I now have a new pet project, pointing out the massive spending by Republicans who claim their mandate is to reduce spending.
If people are serious about America spending too much and our poor economy, then war spending must be included as part of the conversation. If Democrats wish to put up any kind of resistance, then they have the perfect issue as economy and war are as symbiotic issues, and if Republicans are serious, they will do the same. I suspect I'll continue pounding both sides of this aisle however.
This is alarming, but so predictable. The Repulicans ('fiscal conservatives' HA!) are the same bums, just like to spend our money they extract from us on other things (that make us hated also).
The cockroaches just rode the popular vote (Tea Party etc...) into the House and they don't give a damn about the Message.
I hope Tea Party is as hard on these thieving Rs as it as on the Ds, otherwise it'd be labeled as R's stooge that just exploited popular indignation.
Obama didn't help either by also being hawkish on Afghanistan, etc... and I still remember that Hollywood clown Reagan (R) as the president that pushed through amnesty for the illegals all the while saying "that will be our last amnesty" to pad his vote base and raised taxes on middle class and blew tax money on military junk and illicit wars in south america.
Republican Senator Lindsy Grahm is up to his usual war mongering.
It should be noted that the Obama administration has said "anything is on the table". Print Story: Senator: consider taking out Iran's military - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101106/ap_on_re_ca/cn_canada_iran_us_senator/print - broken link)
Lindsey Graham, the man who dishonors soldiers by claiming to be a Desert Storm veteran, when he never left South Carolina, only that he served during the Desert Storm "era" as a lawyer for the air force. While he could be proud of this, he instead conflates his role diminishing the service of those who did serve in Desert Storm, what a pig.
Now the no nothing Senator who has obviously been staring that the risk board or playing World of Warcraft too long thinks its time to go to war again.
So Republicans once again come out in favor of MASSIVE spending.
Then we have Buck McKeon a Republican from California and who serves as chairman on the House Armed Services committee who had the following to say.
You should recall Buck McKeon as one of the supporters of the F-35 fighter's second engine. The Pentagon said it was a waste of money, Robert Gates said it was a waste of money, the President said it was a waste of money, Buck McKeon believes in spending for redundant and unnecessary equipment. Not a very conservative thing to do, but hey, its only 382 BILLION dollars, just a drop in the hat.
One should also note that Buck McKeon is another one of those who embellished his service record, in fact according to one source at the Pentagon, they cannot find any service record for McKeon at all and claim its a complete fabrication.
Seems the issue of foreign policy and defense spending is creeping into the Tea Party as well.
Sarah Palin still advocates a Neoconservative foreign policy as she has since the day she joined with John McCain (that guy under the bus) and is at odds with the more Libertarian types in the Tea Party such as the Paul camp.
As Ron Paul recently pointed out in Foreignpolicy.com
So how many more Republicans that have pontificated about spending will join the War Party? Please let the rationalizations begin and lets hear from some of those good old fashioned "fiscal conservatives" on how a strike against Iran is either fiscally responsible or conservative?
SUCKERS!!!!!!!!
I read the same article. The neo cons never left the building. They just used the useful idiots known as the TEA party again. The neo cons "rebranded" themselves as TEA partiers--that is all. The TP's are like enablers with addicts: they will get taken and abused, but they'll happily make a myriad of excuses for the abuser's behavior.
More deflection, everyone look at what Republicans said, don't dare look at what Democrats have been doing..
just for the record I agree that spending needs cut from the defense budgets, but I find the "look over there" by Democrats pretty humorous. Tell me when do you start to look at WHO HAS BEEN INCREASING SPENDING?
It seems like they are just supporting the Democratic spending which has been taking place..
More deflection, everyone look at what Republicans said, don't dare look at what Democrats have been doing..
If I remember correctly, 8 out of those 10 years were lead by a Republican President. No congress is going to tell the President no on defense spending, once troops are engaged.
Nice deflection by you from reality.
Look at the spending from 2003 on. See how it jumped.
One word
IRAQ
If we'd have never gone in there, we'd have been out of Afghanistan by now, and our economy would be considerably better.
btw, federal spending on the wars is down as a % of the budget..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/27/U.S._Defense_Spending_-_%25_to_Outlays.png/800px-U.S._Defense_Spending_-_%25_to_Outlays.png (broken link)
That doesnt mean that spending is low and should be raised, it means that everything else is too high..
btw, federal spending on the wars is down as a % of the budget..
That doesnt mean that spending is low and should be raised, it means that everything else is too high..
AGAIN, look at your own chart.
The only time defense spending increased after the cold war, was during the Bush administration.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
