The POW Card
Can McCain answer a question without referencing his time as a prisoner of war? I’m thinkin’… No. And it seems that some of the POW cards he’s playing aren’t even his own.
Other POW cards are just silly, but I’m sensing a pattern…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wwnrxWh3s8[/youtube]
Did McCain lift passages off Wikipedia? Who knows, but it sure looks that way. And justifying bad taste in music by playing the POW card is just sad. But the “Cross in the Dirt” story is beginning to smell.
Tags: 2008 Presidential, John McCain
“this one time in prison camp….”
Hmmm, seems to me that Presidential Candidates with extensive military service have always touted it and used it to their advantage. Nothing new here.
But… what if they aren’t telling the truth?
…also, it is being widely reported that McCain got the fundy questions ahead of time.
Pandora – That Jedreport website you linked to is truely an unbiased, credible source……
oops, I see that DV just reported this below….
Just like the sites you post, Mike.
Is the POW card like the BAM card or the KAPOW or BOFF or BONK cards?
Holy acronym, Batman!
dd,
tisk, tisk
And which sites would those be? News articles, links to Obama’s voting records, FBI UCR crime reports?
20 hours of flying and being caught by the enemy does not make someone qualified as commander-in-chief.
Neither does spouting “hope & change” from the rooftops.
Hope and Change are like Taxes and Gun Control, Evul.
No, but it’s purposely vague fluffy bunny rhetoric. It is not experience.
McCain uses his military service, mostly time as a POW, as his ‘Foreign Policy’ bona fides clincher.
In reality, his military career was silver-spooned and remarkably, unremarkable.
Andrew Sullivan is tracking the Solzhenitsyn story pretty closely (you may have to scroll down), wondering why the telling of this story seems to be so recent.
Mike, Obama’s given plenty of ideas and plans if and when he’s POTUS. You should really get off your lazy ass and go to his website to find out for yourself.
You’re serving no one when you keep spouting tripe such as “fluffy” and “messiah”. It makes you appear clueless.
Now if you want to equate “time in DC” as experience, then you’re right, Obama’s not as “experienced” as McCain. But don’t fool yourself in believing that BO has no experience with law, legislation, and the true reality of what it’s like to work for a living. Remember, Obama worked in college, got himself *through Merit* into Harvard Law, made Law Review, worked in Community Orgs in Chi-town, became a constitutional law professor, elected to the IL Senate, then US Senate….pretty self-made, huh?
McCain?
Got into the USNA, was able not to get expelled through family connections, finished almost last in his class, took some else’s spot in Fighter Pilot training (only the top students make it, how did John? Daddy and Grandpappy Admirals, maybe?), got shot down, held for 5 years (how did he increase his skill-set while captive?, it’s not like he was learning on the job.), came back to the US as a hero, dumped his crippled wife for a new one, bankroll that house and senate runs!), gets caught being a legislative lackey for Charles Keating, lucky enough not to be expelled, censured instead, remakes himself as the “maverick” so he could keep afloat politically, derided against lobbyists and pork – all the while employing lobbyists and supporting pork to his state and party benefactors.
So if you think that McCain’s experience and past deeds trumps Obama’s, so be it, but know the facts first.
VC, you are my new hero.
“Mike, Obama’s given plenty of ideas and plans if and when he’s POTUS. You should really get off your lazy ass and go to his website to find out for yourself.”
I’ve read his ideas (including his “blueprint for change” avaliable on his website) 95% of it is crap. Much of it is simply old ideas that have failed in the past with shiny new “Hope & Change” packaging. Much of it is naively idealistic beyond belief, and jesus…… talk about a bureacratic nightmare & increasing the size and scope of the Federal Government.
When you actually sit down and look at his policy initiatives you see just how radically far left he really is, despite his current attempt to move to the center.
And he may have been a Con Law Professor, but If I had him for Con Law I’d want arefund. The man doesn’t even grasp the “grant” vs. “codify” distinction regarding the very nature of rights. He speaks of rights as if they’re things that can be granted by the government. I’m glad my Con Law professors had a far better understanding of Constitutional Law than Obama does.
He’s a Con Law professor who subscribes to FDR’s concept of “rights.” That’s a concept that’s not only flat out wrong, it’s also patently stupid.
In case you didn’t know, this is FDR’s concept of “rights.” None of which have anything to do with rights as they were understood by our founders.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/econrights/fdr-econbill.html
Anything which must be produced by a non-consenting party cannot be claimed by another party as a “right.”
This one time at prison camp, a guy made a cross in the dirt. It wasn’t my prison camp, but I heard about it.
That’s your opinion, but I disagree with your assessment, Mike. You use the term ‘radically far-left’, but it’s neither.
Your criticism doesn’t add up. His energy initiative hasn’t been tried before, and it’s intertwined with re-developing our economy, job creation, science, and education. If you mean his idea of the application of the Constitution as being, tried and failed…then I’m assuming you’re talking about Rule of Law. Yeah, that’s soooo old and played out!
I’m not going any further with this, but have an open mind and decide in Nov which candidate offers better solutions to our problems.
LG – DV will be jealous when he finds out! 😉
Mike – almost all leaders of the free world agree with FDR’s Economic Bill of Rights. It’s where we got the GI Bill, Medicare, etc…
I understand that the main credo of conservatism is to maintain tradition, but to take it to the point where the benefits of citizenship must adhere to a 18th century way of life is, in fact, extreme and rather silly.
If we can do more for most, and at a cheaper cost and a larger benefit, then why not do it?
“Mike – almost all leaders of the free world agree with FDR’s Economic Bill of Rights. It’s where we got the GI Bill, Medicare, etc…
”
Yes, and most of the “free world” are Social Democracies where citizens do not have inherent, inalienable Constitutional Rights. By redefining the very nature of “rights” we’re slowly destroying the very things our founders sought to protect and the very principles that made us DIFFERENT from Europe.
A “right” granted by the government that necessitates a coerced obligation on another man is not a right. It is legally sanctioned plunder. Bastiat understood “legal plunder” over a century ago.
A government with the ability to “give” us all of these “economic rights” is one that can set conditions on those very rights, create dependency on the government, and revoke those so called “rights” when they see fit.
By redefining the very nature of “rights” we’re slowly destroying the very things our founders sought to protect and the very principles that made us DIFFERENT from Europe.
Yeah, like the ability to keep a flintlock.
Again, where in the Constitution does it say that we are a non-socialist country? A capitalist one?
All it states is a indirect, representative democracy.
vC
Re Obama’s blueprint; some considerations
1) A tax plan that the Tax Policy Center says would result in a 3.3 trillion dollar decrease in tax revenues over the next ten years, even if one accepts the unlikely following three items (a) Obama’s team will be correct in all their growth forecasts; (2) no increased spending for health care is figured into his spending projections; and (3) the benefit of cuts to things like corporate welfare are already figured in
2. Obama gets no financial bounce from withdrawing from Iraq, as he has promised his lobbyist endorsers from the defense industry that he will (a) increase the defense budget; (b) increase the size of the US military; (c) purchases tons more equipment from those same industries; and (d) support elevating the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to a seat on the Joint Chiefs (in exchange for a number of endorsements and contributions through members of the NGA).
3. Obama’s energy policy–at least as it pertains to biofuel–is at complete odds with virtually all expert talk in the field, including his insistence on unproven cellulosic ethanol and his refusal to commit to eliminating ethanol subsidies and/or import tariffs
4. Obama is campaigning on a vague and in fact disturbing plank of expanding Federal hate crimes jurisdiction and definitions, but nowhere has he committed to what that would be, nor how he would pay for the increased law enforcement, nor how it would be constitutional (but then, if you don’t say what you will make a crime, then your task there is easier)
I realize that you’re only used to debating people who use GOPer talking points, and I also realize that McCain’s platform is full of much the same crap, but….
Obama’s given plenty of ideas and plans if and when he’s POTUS. You should really get off your lazy ass and go to his website to find out for yourself.
The funny part is: I’ve been trying to get people on this site to discuss his tax plan and his obvious buy-out by defense lobbyists for months–no go.
The best answer I ever get is from Pandora, who essentially says, “Well, I know he’s a politician and he’s not perfect” [a paraphrase]
But even DTB didn’t want to deal with the tax question after he opened the thread, once I started actually quoting the source he was using…
Senator Obama may be the chosen vehicle of a Democratic return to dominance, but as far as substantive policy proposals he exhibits exactly the same “promise them cake” mentality that everybody else does….
Steve – my overwhelming question when I read through his “blueprint for change” was, “How in the hell are we going to pay for all of this?”
And yeah, McCain is no small government conservative either.
His hate crimes legislation is scary. Of course I’m opposed to the entire concept of “hate crimes.”
Did you see the forecasts of the tax policies/revenue after a few years of implementation?
If we eliminate the tax cut for the most wealthy, get Corps to actually pay its taxes, and get rid of the Capital Gains free-income loophole, we’d be pretty close to balancing this albatross. If an alternative energy breakthrough comes about, then the savings to our National Debt will be even greater, of course.
Simply stated – it’s gonna cost us to get us out of the mess we’re in, in the short term. McCain’s plan, evaluated by the same group you cite, will cause more debt and will offer ZERO relief, long term. It’s just more Bu$hCo Corp give-a-ways.
If we eliminate the tax cut for the most wealthy, get Corps to actually pay its taxes, and get rid of the Capital Gains free-income loophole, we’d be pretty close to balancing this albatross. If an alternative energy breakthrough comes about, then the savings to our National Debt will be even greater, of course.
I’d love to see the analysis to back this up, because it doesn’t match what TPC said
And anybody can say “oh, and then a miracle will occur” and we’ll have alternative energy to balance the budget….
Didn’t say I though McCain’s plan was any better.
One hell of a campaign slogan though: “My plan will run up less of an increased deficit than the other guy’s….”
I just find it interesting that the point of the post stands unchallenged.
McCain has a very hard time answering a question without referencing his time as a prisoner of war.
better than the alternative… 😉
It off the top of myhead, and I don’t get graded for these posts, so I could be off. But that’s what I remember reading from an array of sources.
Energy caveat is just that….an ‘if’.
Agreed, Jason. It’s all he has….that, and a brand.
Jason,
the point of the posts here usually do go that way
“But… what if they aren’t telling the truth?”
After Kerry’s debacle, it’s understanding that you would distrust any candidate’s account of their service to this country.
Hey, you guys made military service fair game. And this really isn’t about McCain’s service, it’s about his little “stories”.
The cross in the dirt story was from an old black and white movie not sure but may have been The last Days of Pompei.
truth teller! your right again. The ole man can’t keep his POW stories straight. Ever heard a bunch of WW2 vets talk….they pick up on each other stories and then begin telling the story as their own. McMad is doing the same thing. He has never supported vets issues. In fact, the biggest disenfranchised group of americans right now, are those vets “incarcerated” in veteran facilities, who are not permitted access to by vets groups trying to get them registered to vote. Professor Mark Miller at NYU is up on all that as is alternet.com.
It was McMad who was supporting of the “Stop Loss”, seen the movie? Thats what the republicans think of our vets, don’t give them the armour the need to go to war, don’t support them with guns, ammo while at war, when they are injured or nuts–send them back as soon as possible.
I know a young man who has been stop lossed 5 times. His wife is in Georgia and everytime he is told he is coming home, a few days before being shipped out, he is stop lossed.
Obama is being supported by soldiers 6 to 1, the only group they can keep from voting for Obama are those in vets hospitals. what a shame.
McCain has a very hard time answering a question without referencing his time as a prisoner of war.
And Barack Obama has a hard time answering questions.
BTW, Pandora, Democrats have been arguing about military service at least since Ronald Reagan. Both sides love military service when they have it and dismiss it when they don’t. And I think a POW trumps “my funny name didn’t alert Harvard to the fact I’m black.”
It was McMad who was supporting of the “Stop Loss”, seen the movie? Thats what the republicans think of our vets
I love it: now we’re grading presidential candidates via movie script….
TT I am no GOPer, but to say “that’s what the Republicans think of our vets” is a generalization on the order of “that’s how much negroes like watermelons and fried chicken”
I spend a lot of time both online and in real time with veterans’ support groups, both working in the hospitals and raising money. I can tell you this: you meet conservatives, moderates, liberals, and libertarians there; they don’t use that kind of language when talking about our vets; they talk about the people who actually support them and the people who don’t.
You were so quick to tell other people to go sign up and fight if they wanted to carry a gun; I spent 21 years carrying that gun; I’ve spent 7 years since working with and for our vets.
You want to talk shit, talk shit. But recognize that’s exactly what it is.
The funny part is: I’ve been trying to get people on this site to discuss his tax plan and his obvious buy-out by defense lobbyists for months–no go.
Speaking for myself, I’ve been reading some of this stuff from you and let it go — largely because I understand that you’ve your own need for narrative here, largely evidenced by insisting on creating a narrative about this buy-out of defense lobbyists. So here goes:
1) For McCain — A tax plan that the Tax Policy Center says would result in a 7 trillion dollar decrease in tax revenues over the next ten years, even if one accepts the unlikely following three items (a) McCain’s team will be correct in all their growth forecasts; (2) no increased spending for health care is figured into his spending projections; and (3) the benefit of cuts to things like corporate welfare are already figured in.
So yes, they both decrease tax revenues. Both of them do handwaving at paying for their plans (and Obama does say that the wealthiest amongst us will see a tax increase as the Bush tax cuts are not renewed for them). Remember also that Obama says that he will operate under PAYGO rules (which you can’t quantify under this analysis), and McCain will not. While it is extremely important to pay for these programs, it is important to me to have tax policy oriented to supporting middle class tax payers. Obama’s at least works at that goal, McCain’s specifically does not. And McCain’s plan potentially has the biggest tax increase Americans have seen in ages and that is the taxation on your employee-provided health insurance. Provided, of course, that your employer still will provide insurance for you.
2. Of course he gets a bounce. SecDef Gates asked for $10 billion per year for 5 years to ramp up this new personnel level, so using $12 billion per month currently spent in Iraq, you buy one year of expansion at the expense of a little less than one month of Iraq operations. So a) he certainly seems to want to continue the Gates plan of expansion, which if you are drawing down in Iraq plus starting up additional force strength still ends up with a net decrease in Iraq costs; b) supports the Gates increase that was announced last fall. He isn’t asking for more than the Gates increase – he and almost every other presidential candidate (I think Kucinich and Paul did not) supported the Gates increase of 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops – and by the time Obama should take the oath of office we should be in the second fiscal year that implements this policy and about ready to debate the third year. So yes, there will be an increase in troop strength, but no more than the current Gates policy; c) see previous Gates’ estimates of 10 billion / year startup costs. Gates number could be wrong here. But the only way that this usurps the Iraq business is of Gates is wrong by very many orders of magnitude. There are of course, long term O&M costs for this new strength, but unlikely to be as much as 12 billion per month; d) Congress has been trying to get this done since shortly after BRAC05. Compromise legislation that was signed into law this year elevated the Chief of the National Guard to a 4 star, but he does not have a seat on the Joint Chiefs. I can’t imagine why this could be an issue.
3. Celluosics are but one part of the Obama plan. While cellulosics still have a lot of technological and economic and logistic problems to overcome, the plan talks about developing and incentivizing new technologies research and demonstration projects. He will not disavow ethanol subsidies which I would like for him to change his mind on and would like him to change his mind on the misnamed “clean coal” technology.
4. The Matthew Shepard Act isn’t exactly vague and this is the expansion of the 1969 law that he want to enact. This was passed by the House and Senate last year, but was dropped because BushCo and his Christian conservative enablers wanted a veto.
This is likely more of the usual “Demopublican” policies, which is just fine as long as we’re honestly representing the Demo part of that.
A tax plan that the Tax Policy Center says would result in a 7 trillion dollar decrease in tax revenues over the next ten years
Actually, not. Two different comparisons and you cherry-picked; the straight-up comparison said Obama 3.3 Trillion and McCain 4.3 Trillion in lost revenues, and said neither was realistic in projections or implied increases in spending.
But this is a subtle bait and switch anyway. I never said McCain had anything but a horrible plan. So to defend Obama by saying his plan is less crappy is not really a strong defense, now is it? In point of fact, Obama’s plan is just as irresponsible in revenue terms as anything Bush did. Different people profit or don’t, but the plain fact is he has offered a plan that cuts taxes, increases spending, and leads to larger deficits. Where are the tough choices? Where is the change we can believe in?
As for the military issue, Obama certainly stands behind the Gates’ plan–it was a prerequisite for scoring the endorsement of about a dozen retired military officers who are now defense lobbyists. Before we get to the money aspect, let’s just note that now you are defending Obama on supporting this plan in terms of saying the same thing that everybody else did (except Kucinich and Paul), not in terms of leadership towards a different objective. Since when is Change We Can Believe In defended by saying, “I want exactly the same Republican military expansion plan everybody else does.”
That aside, you use a completely unwarranted set of assumptions about numbers:
Of course he gets a bounce. SecDef Gates asked for $10 billion per year for 5 years to ramp up this new personnel level, so using $12 billion per month currently spent in Iraq, you buy one year of expansion at the expense of a little less than one month of Iraq operations.
The Iraqi operations cost of $144 Billion per year (12 x 12 months) is largely offset (as you fail to mention) by (a) not taking into account the cost of unspecified forces and bases Obama has always said he will leave behind in Iraq; (b) the cost of reaction forces he intends to maintain in the Persian Gulf area; (c) the forces and costs of an Afghanistan surge he’s advocated; (d) the continuing costs of supporting, training, and arming Iraqi forces that he has said he will maintain; and (e) the fact that the average cost-overrun factor (which all legislators know about but steadfastly refuse to take into account publicly) makes the cost of each year of the Gates’ expansion closer in real-dollar terms to $18 billion than $10.
Moreover, there’s an interesting question that Obama (in his books) and his military supporters have always failed to answer: if we are not intending to pursue a military interventionist strategy in the future, why do we need to expand and not merely rebuild our military? In point of fact, in The Audacity of Hope, Obama has argued for US unilateral military intervention being a necessity of any number of occasions….
I appreciate your candor on the ethanol subsidies. I am always concerned when any politician places great faith in a technological breakthrough helping him to balance the budget.
I also have trouble with what government investment in research actually means (but that’s not specific to Obama, so never mind).
As for the Matthew Shepard Act, while I don’t agree with a lot of it, the interesting fact is that passing the Matthew Shepard Act isn’t what his website calls for.
So, in the end we’re left with a true Demopublican defense policy (since you admit he agrees with the GOP on supporting the expansionist Gates plan)….
And a tax plan whose main two advantages are that it’s progressive and gives us less of a deficit than his opponents while still engaging in massive new spending. Given that tax cuts plus continued high spending is now common to Dems and GOPers according to Obama’s plan, I’m comfortable with labeling that Demopublican….
But I do appreciate the time and effort you put into it, because you’re the first person to take my challenge seriously.
As for insisting on creating a narrative about this buy-out of defense lobbyists I would note that you’ve only asserted that I’m wrong, and have never dealt with the specific associations of Obama’s endorsers, their contributions, and their lobbyist positions, which are virtually the mirror image of the oil companies’ role in making McCain their puppet….
“You were so quick to tell other people to go sign up and fight if they wanted to carry a gun; I spent 21 years carrying that gun; I’ve spent 7 years since working with and for our vets.”
Thank you for your service Steve, both your past service. and the work you’re currently doing with vets. Both of my grandpa’s are vets, so it disgusts me to see the disrespect that’s sometimes shown to them and to active military personnel.
yet we bash John Kerry…beat it fuckstick, you are pathetic
I bash Kerry not for his service in Vietnam, but for his reprehensible actions and contempt for our troops upon returning home.
whatever…you are a hypocrite…go kiss another commenters ass to make a new friend
hmmmm
And Phantom – John Kerry a war hero……
mike
Don’t make this that simplistic, please.
When dv posted a controversial photo on Veteran’s Day last year I disagreed with his tactics, not his point.
What part of there are liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and progressives all working for vets, and . . . despite the propaganda to the contrary, all of those groups are represented in the US Military, don’t you get?
Sorry, but I don’t get into that “thank you for your service” bit–but while you’re at it, since dv’s a veteran as well, I guess you should thank him.
I never said that vets were being disrespected by only one group. I said “it disgusts me to see the disrespect sometimes shown to them” That applies to folks of all political ideologies, which is why I didn’t make some blanket statement about liberals hating the troops.
And since you said it, I’ll thank DV for his service as well. Didn’t know he was a vet.
I bash Kerry not for his service in Vietnam, but for his reprehensible actions and contempt for our troops upon returning home.
He was expressing contempt for the civilian leadership. That is allowed under our system.
…for now. Where’s my gun at? Gotta keep it close.
To everyone else,
I don’t think Mike believes half of the nonsense he comes up with. I think he is just trying to be provocative.
“…for now. Where’s my gun at? Gotta keep it close.”
About 6 feet from me. Where’s yours?
Keep protecting.
I should add “locked in my safe” to the above. In fact that’s where they stay 99% of the time.
That’s the ticket.
yawn
I just HAVE to point out that no one has challenged the content of this post! You know… McCain’s love of fairy tales!
(BTW Steve, the vet comment you referenced above was Liz, not TT.)
pan,
aka
ad hominem 😛
BTW Steve, the vet comment you referenced above was Liz, not TT
Ooops. Sorry TT. Long day.
Pandora, I took issue with the content of the post at my place.
Sorry, had company all day and am behind on my blogging. I answered over at your site. I do love when I’m the main attraction at DE Libertarian!
But my point stands… this post was NOT about McCain’s service. It was about his unexplainable need to sex it up. The fact he keeps getting caught is cause for concern.
So let me ask you, Steve… if the story about the “cross in the dirt” turns out not to be true… what does that say about McCain – McCain the candidate, NOT his war record.
Pandora,
I don’t think it says much of anything about McCain except for the same thing I said in my post: the modern trend is for politicians to re-invent themselves constantly, and in the current you-Tube world they get caught at it constantly.
I think it’s a comment on the relative cheapening of our political discourse when we get down to parsing McCain’s song preferences, or the fact that some speech-writer undoubtedly plagiarized Wiki on a bad day, or even that his stories about his captivity have changed over time. So have Joe Biden’s stories about his wife’s death, but I haven’t seen that mentioned here as a disclaimer against his viability as VP.
As for the cross story, I’m sure it didn’t happen exactly that way. But I’m equally sure that some guard at some point showed John McCain a piece of shared humanity, and that when he read the Solz (I can’t spell it tonight) anecdote he thought to himself, “That’s what happened to me.” And if the details get muddled and “sexed up” I write that off to people who remember the emotional gist of the situation and get the details all wrong. Happens all the time.
I’ve watched people change their stories of what happened in the “big game” over the years. It’s a human phenomenon that doesn’t quite frankly have any particular bearing on fitness for office except as an indication that (gee whiz) candidates consciously spend their entire week portraying themselves in as favorable a light as possible.
Some time go back and look at what Stephen Douglass charged Abraham Lincoln with during the famous 1858 debates. Lincoln kept changing his position and his backstory up and down Illinois, and it drove Douglass crazy. Obviously, that meant that Lincoln was not qualified to be president.
Too much of this petty crap is cause for concern, all right: cause for concern that people think it’s somehow equally as important as the policies and advisors that each of these men will bring into the White House with him.
That’s what the hell we ought to be talking about.
Steve – I see your point. However, this is how the game is played. I’m thinking back to the few minor embellishments that Gore made on the campaign trail, and it makes me throw up a little in the back of my throat. So if there is ever a moratorium put on this activity on both sides, sign my up. Otherwise, it seems like fair game to me.
Have been trying to find time to post this all day…
Which version of this Tax Analysis are you looking at, Steve? The comparison of plans as described by campaigns (August 15 version) is McCain $4.2 trillion vs. Obama $2.9 trillion revenue loss. The comparison of the plans based on stump speech analysis is McCain $7 trillion vs. Obama $2.6 trillion revenue losses.
But here’s the real bait and switch – while I acknowledge that paying for ourselves is certainly the best deal, I also acknowledge that a tax plan is not just its balance sheets. It is reflective of a set of tax policies, which I sometimes endorse. And overall, a set of tax policy that starts with PAYGO (which is a big start for tough choices) for current budget spending and has a long-term orientation towards ensuring that the middle class are not made to pay the bulk of the tax burden. And in that starts some of the change we can believe in. But if I was interested in a political stance that would throw the good under the bus to wait for the perfect, I would have joined a third party a long time ago.
So if you think that both plans are just as bad, why are you consistently throwing gauntlets just at Obama supporters about how bad his tax plan really is? Or whatever today’s issue about Obama is? What is it that you think that people here haven’t thought about or need to account to you about? But that’s another conversation, onward —
That aside, you use a completely unwarranted set of assumptions about numbers:
And now you are handwaving here – your original giddy charge (repeated often) was that Obama was planning (and promising to his supporters) completely new forces with completely new spending, expecting your readers not to know that this is a current work in progress (meaning that at least $20M has been obligated to it already.) So you were quite wrong on this. You failed to mention all of these other spending items in your original assertion there is no Iraq bounce, which just flies in the face of facts. If there are currently 36,000 American forces in Iraq, approx 7000 (plus or minus 1000) of those may go to Afghanistan. Advisors, air support groups and quick reaction forces are not combat brigades and are unlikely to number more than a brigade, but let’s say they are two. You are still bringing home 22K soldiers and their private sector overhead. That still means there is plenty of money not being borrowed and spent once those resources come home. What gets left in the Gulf is largely what’s been there since about the first Gulf War (which was absorbed into the budget along time ago) and probably adds a reduced group of Centcom folks in Qatar doing what they do now but on a reduced scale. Adding the Qatar folks doesn’t cost that 22k of soldiers and overhead costs, either. And Gates’ expansion costs are 10 billion for 5 years for startup costs – whatever the price for long term ops will certainly be less. Even the DoD won’t rebuild facilities and buy major equipment for these new forces every 5 years. And you will need to do more than just claim an 80% increase in startup costs.
Moreover, there’s an interesting question that Obama (in his books) and his military supporters have always failed to answer: if we are not intending to pursue a military interventionist strategy in the future, why do we need to expand and not merely rebuild our military? In point of fact, in The Audacity of Hope, Obama has argued for US unilateral military intervention being a necessity of any number of occasions….
This question is best answered by someone who is claiming that we are not intending an interventionist strategy. Who here do you think that is?
I appreciate your candor on the ethanol subsidies. I am always concerned when any politician places great faith in a technological breakthrough helping him to balance the budget.
I’ve been a vocal opponent to corn ethanol subsidies for a long time. A proven and established technology doesn’t really find its place in the marketplace unless it turns loose its subsidies. The cellulosic (which is different than corn) stuff may be worth some research and demonstration plants to test its long-term economic viability. But in the long run, I have serious doubt that we can grow enough of anything to replace oil and other – not burning – technologies will be needed. And I don’t think that either candidate is looking for alternate energies to balance the budget.
As for the Matthew Shepard Act, while I don’t agree with a lot of it, the interesting fact is that passing the Matthew Shepard Act isn’t what his website calls for.
Hmmm.
So, in the end we’re left with a true Demopublican defense policy (since you admit he agrees with the GOP on supporting the expansionist Gates plan)….
My entire project here is largely to redirect the narrative to some real information – not the hyped stuff from the first post(s) crafted to make Obama (and it wouldn’t matter who the Dem candidate was for this purpose) look especially dangerous or clueless. He may be both of those things – but that is largely in relationship to your world view of Demopublicans. But it is going to be really hard for folks here to response to these kinds of challenges when they start with bad information.
As for insisting on creating a narrative about this buy-out of defense lobbyists I would note that you’ve only asserted that I’m wrong, and have never dealt with the specific associations of Obama’s endorsers, their contributions, and their lobbyist positions, which are virtually the mirror image of the oil companies’ role in making McCain their puppet….
As of two months ago defense contributions were about equal which looks like an industry hedging their bets. And while we’re all comfortable here looking for backup, you haven’t exactly provided the smoking gun that Obama provided promises to his endorsers to increase the military and its budget and whatever else you are claiming he is telling folks.
Cassandra – just one of the many reasons that I love having you around…