Sweet: Palin hits Obama on missile-defense cuts
posted at 8:31 pm on April 6, 2009 by Allahpundit
In one fell swoop, a well-placed criticism of Obama and a juicy cut of red meat for the base. Nicely played.
“I am deeply concerned with North Korea’s development and testing program which has clear potential of impacting Alaska, a sovereign state of the United States, with a potentially nuclear armed warhead,” Governor Palin said. “I can’t emphasize enough how important it is that we continue to develop and perfect the global missile defense network. Alaska’s strategic location and the system in place here have proven invaluable in defending the nation.”
Governor Palin stressed the importance of Fort Greely and the need for continued funding for the Missile Defense Agency. The governor is firmly against U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ proposed $1.4 billion reduction of the Missile Defense Agency. Greely’s isolated location in Alaska as well as its strategic location in the Pacific allows for maximum security and development of the country’s only ground-based missile defense complex.
“Our early opposition to reduced funding for the Missile Defense Agency is proving to be well-founded during this turbulent time,” Governor Palin said. “I continue to support the development and implementation of a defensive missile shield based in Alaska. We are strategically placed to defend the critical assets of the United States and our allies in the Pacific Theater.”
Missile defense isn’t even the worst cut, in my very poorly informed opinion. Scaling back the F-22 — a key to total air superiority — is. See Danger Room for details on that; the Pentagon wanted almost 200 fighters more but Gates decided that our new emphasis on wars of counterinsurgency means that 180+ are enough. He also decided to scale down Future Combat Systems, which is bad news for the warporn addict within but acceptable to bean counters. It sounded like a boondoggle.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Poptech would do well to consider one important lesson from WWII: the Luftwaffe had certain aircraft and missles that were far more advanced than anything the Allies could muster (e.g., the ME-22 Schwalbe; also the Komet, V-1, V-2, etc.). Ditto for the Wehrmact with the Panzer tank.
However, the Allies overcame German weapons systems superiority with overwhelming numerical superiority. That war became a war of attrition on many fronts, including manpower and war materiel.
That reason (numerical superiority) is one of the major contributing factors to the Allied victory on VE Day.
One F-22 can dominate several other aircraft. Nate Hale at FormerSpook had a humorous account of an F-16 driver complaining after a Red Flag exercise one year that the sole F-22 in the exercise “killed” (IIRC) over 400 aircraft without any of the “killed” pilots ever having established radar contact.
But that is still only one aircraft. All it took to lose one aircraft in Vietnam (admittedly a massive stroke of blind luck on the part of the VC who did it) was to shoot an arrow at a Chinook. The arrowhead hit the main fuel line, and the ship went down. (BTW I know of this story from a former colleague who worked in CH-46 flight test throughout most of the 1960′s.)
When you only have a few aircraft, the loss of one single unit is a big loss. You simply cannot get around the numbers. The loss of the B-2 in Guam last year is a good example of this fact. Unlike back in WWII (where you had continually running production lines), once the production line for a weapons system is closed, you can’t just go buy another one. If the tooling required to build the aircraft is ordered destroyed once the production line closes – as was the case with the SR-71 – you cannot build another aircraft to replace a loss. You can cannibalize, yes, but not build anew.
And keep in mind that even Gulliver got tied down in Lilliput, regardless of how much larger he was than the Lilliputians.
Numbers matter.
Wanderlust on April 7, 2009 at 2:28 AM
Sounded like Butthead to me.
Wanderlust on April 7, 2009 at 2:29 AM
Poptech, I’ll use little words so you’ll understand.
Countries like France, the UK, Russia, China, and America sell stuff that goes boom and makes boo-boos. Sometimes bad people buy that stuff. If the bad people try to give us boo-boos with their stuff that goes boom, we have to have better boo-boo-makers to stop them.
You want us to to stop building our better boo-boo-makers because we already make “enough” old stuff that goes boom, even though the bad people will soon be able to break our old stuff. That makes you a stupid doodie head.
Do you understand now, dumbass?
OhioCoastie on April 7, 2009 at 2:30 AM
+10 President Cool & The Gang! LOL!
sarahpalinfan99 on April 7, 2009 at 2:40 AM
Yes, I can hear it now.
10, 9, 8, 7 . . . . . . .
Aide: Mr President, Early Warning Radar has detected and confirmed incoming missiles headed for Seattle, Portland, San Fransisco, Los Angles and San Diego. What are your orders, Sir?
President Obama: Well fire our damn interceptors naturally!
Aide: But Sir, you cut back on missile defense and gave the savings to ACORN.
President Obama: Well then get me the hell on Air Force One and headed for my brothers house in Kenya until we can figure out a way to blame Bush for this!
MB4 on April 7, 2009 at 3:11 AM
Random [and brilliant!] Thoughts
By Thomas Sowell
MB4 on April 7, 2009 at 3:24 AM
Strategery.
hillbillyjim on April 7, 2009 at 3:26 AM
There is a bright side to the defense cuts:
.
The fact that the Obama team would be so determined to cut the only portion of the government spending that actually employees Americans for the benefit of Americans, tells me that this economic “crisis” is not as bad as we’ve been told. If it were, there is no way anyone of any intelligence would think it was a good idea to cut an industry that employees some 900,000 Americans. And these jobs are truly difficult to outsource (unlike “green” jobs!) Further, the jobs are higher paying, non-financial jobs that employee educated/skilled labor force. These jobs are way beyond “shovel ready.”
.
JeffVader on April 7, 2009 at 4:00 AM
She is sounding more and more like a wonk…
…and I like it.
That said, I am still thinking she needs to take a back seat for now.
I still love her, though.
Mommypundit on April 7, 2009 at 6:09 AM
The donks are back to their “too much money is spent on the military” after their “Bush won’t buy even the basic body armor” horse sh@t.
Full circle.
The Eastasians have always been our allies.
hawkdriver on April 7, 2009 at 6:17 AM
Just to be clear, the CH-47 is the Chinook. A CH-46 is a Sea Knight.
hawkdriver on April 7, 2009 at 6:22 AM
I am sure this has been pointed out in this thread already but what is it with Democrats who cut spending on defense, a job which they are Constitutionally bound to perform, thereby cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs, to increase spending on global warming and community activism? This is so stupid and it would seem that a child could see it.
Cindy Munford on April 7, 2009 at 6:24 AM
They’re killing me. Good morning. I’m going to get ready for work but didn’t want to miss the chance to say “Hey”!
Cindy Munford on April 7, 2009 at 6:26 AM
I was talking to my husband about this last night, actually. It’s so true. The fed gov’s actual RESPONSIBILITY is to protect us…not engineer society in their making. It’s a fundamental worldview difference. They believe the constitution is dynamic, we believe it’s static. They believe that society is evolving; we believe (generally) in human nature and fixed laws. They believe in basic goodness of mankind and a benevolent state; we are under no illusion that government is made of the same human nature which makes us all, plus power=dangerous. But, unfortunately for leftist (or us, whichever way you look at it) our constitution is a settled matter, something which makes them furious, so they MUST rewrite it or outright violate it…
…I’ve just never seen such willful disregard for our framers intent in my life. I hope we can fix it.
Mommypundit on April 7, 2009 at 6:31 AM
You know, cutting defense spending while spending 3 trillion dollars on social pet programs disguised as stimulus is just stupid. It would be like having your electricity service cut off to free up money for more Sham-wows. Stupid.
jimmy2shoes on April 7, 2009 at 6:31 AM
Let me fix this:
and
Mommypundit on April 7, 2009 at 6:34 AM
OBAMA-dumbass of the year…
NRA Lifer on April 7, 2009 at 6:56 AM
Wanderlust, I’m going to hit into this for a second. No offense.
First, it was the ME-262. Secondly “Panzer” means “tank”. Every tanks is referred to as “Panzer” in German. The term “Tank” also still exists in the German language, referring to… yes, a tank. However, Panzer is more popular and more widely used. Old movies dealing with WW1 usually bring the term “Tank”. Now, tanks like the Tiger and the Panther (and their respective superior versions as in Jagdpanther and Königstiger) were beasts, surely. But they were huge and slow, which proved their big disadvantage. Sure, a Tiger with a good crew could cause massive problems for the Allies. But if everything failed the Allies had one thing: unchallenged air superiority. Tigers, Panthers, etc, were actually called “Panzerkampfwagen” (and then the different types, I, II, III, etc), which can be translated as “armored fighting vehicle”.
And then Adolf wanted to build land monsters like the Rat and the Mouse.
The ME-262 was a good fighter. But pilots reported a lot of problems. For example, shooting down a B-17 with a ME-262 was hard work and a lot of luck. Simply because the ME-262 was too damn fast. You had only a few seconds to maneuver your plane into a decent position to open fire on the bomber. Not to mention that jet engine only lasted for ~24 flight hours.
The V1 had numerous flaws. In the beginning RAF pilots shot them down, so only a few actually hit British land. Then, with late-war Spitfire and Mustang models pilots simply flew next to the rocket and gave it a nudge with their own wings, thus altering the course of the rocket simply destabilizing it.
The V2 had a certain impact, but it took the Germans ages to get them fly properly. By the time they flew the way they were supposed to, the Allies simply bombed the snot out of launch pads. Not to mention that the resources needed for the V2 were also scarce. The V2 never had a real impact. Remember, by the time the V2 finally flew properly Germany was already surrounded. It was too little, too late (luckily).
From an engineering standpoint, those weapons were amazing. But on the battlefield all those were not enough. A group of Shermans was faster than a group of Tigers. They could outflank them and take them from behind. The Soviets simply built their Stalin tanks, etc, and could take out Tigers with them. The Soviets also came with the Il-2, which was a nightmare for German tank units, as the plane could crack tanks. Not to mention “Stalin’s Organ”, the katyusha launchers. Katyusha barrage was scary and devastating. The Soviets simply pounded the German defenses into the ground and then zerged them with infantry and tanks while having air superiority.
And well, a late-war P-51 could take on an ME-262. Especially when considering that the American pilots were better trained and had more experience, while the Luftwaffe had been running out of aces for a while. Same in the Pacific, by the way. Sakai Saburo wrote into his biography that the pilots he received as replacement were getting worse and worse. The Axis couldn’t replace the aces it lost. The Allies rotated their pilots. Aces were sent back home to train new pilots. Axis didn’t do that. Sakai was only sent home when he was almost shot to bits. Once he entered a furball with 15 Hellcats over Iwo Jima, accidentally, because he identified them wrongly. He was all alone during it and got out. Why? Because the 15 Americans were all green. Everyone of them wanted to nail the lone Zero and thus they completely forgot their training. All were going after him. In an even fight the 15 Zeros, even if Sakai’s “Squadron of Aces” would have been full with all the aces (by that time most were dead already), they wouldn’t have stood a chance against 15 Hellcats who work as team. Superior aircraft and superior training.
Penguin on April 7, 2009 at 7:04 AM
Is it…
Could it be…
Capitulus is Deb Frisch?
hawkdriver on April 7, 2009 at 6:39 AM
hawkdriver on April 7, 2009 at 7:08 AM
So good, it deserves a little HA saturation. Thanks, MB4 for linking Sowell’s column. The man is brilliant. He has that exceptional gift of writing a books worth of insight into a single sentence.
At first, I thought his “I remember when music was musical” seemed out of place, until I realized that it ties all his random thoughts into one succinct, and terrifying, summary.
I thought I’d throw in a quote just for your personal pleasure…
Saltysam on April 7, 2009 at 8:44 AM
>>was to shoot an arrow at a Chinook.
I recall that story from Jungle Survival School at Clark AB. A bit more on the story. It was actually a crossbow pointed at the clearing, with the trigger tied to a small tree. When the rotor wash blew the tree around, it fired.
TREGONSEE on April 7, 2009 at 8:46 AM
Y’all know very well that Sarah’s posts can be cut in half with all the nonsense and naivete that ppl post here. THAT is what I see from my house!
Sarah Palin governs a state, whether people here like it or not. She has done a superb job at it, finances are great compared to many other states. When it comes to defense, she is in a location which is strategically vulnerable. Odumbo does not care, and does not support enhanced or continued defense methods.
Every single state has to be treated with the same care and protection as the rest of them. Hey but what do I know, I am just a peasant, don’t look or resemble a teleprompter and I am not an expert on military strategy either.
May God help us all this Holy Week. xoxo PPF
ProudPalinFan on April 7, 2009 at 8:49 AM
There is a striking sobriety to Palin.
I get the feeling she feels that you can take her, or leave her, she will stand on what she believes to be true.
There are hints of her as Churchill to Obama’s Chamberlain.
Saltysam on April 7, 2009 at 8:58 AM
Whether she’s the next Prez or not she’s better than Obama. Now all the potential candidates have a wonderful opportunity to learn what NOT to do. Unfortunately if they simply try to undo Obama’s mistakes it may take the whole of their presidency.
America is now on the way to crippling debt and disarming ourselves. It usually takes a prez years to screw us this bad. Obama’s just awesome like that.
Newagegop on April 7, 2009 at 9:07 AM
Someone been playing Starcraft or does the term predate that awesome game?
TASS71 on April 7, 2009 at 9:12 AM
Thank goodness we have someone who can “put the cookies on the bottom shelf” for those simpletons who need it.
Great post. :-)
ladyingray on April 7, 2009 at 9:16 AM
Actually I agree with Gates on canceling the F-22 so they can focus and accelerate the F-35 program. The F-22 was an Air Force only plane to replace the F-15, compared to F-35 which was designed to replace the F-16, A-10, F/A-18 and AV-8B that will be used by both the Air Force and Navy.
So how long do we have to wait for the F-35 with this change? It is actually in production now and the first planes are scheduled for delivery next year. They are looking at producing over 2,400 F-35 planes verse the 400 total of the F-22, which means they will save a lot of money overall with parts and maintenance during the life of the plane.
JeffinSac on April 7, 2009 at 9:22 AM
Why is it that Palin is the only Republican with an opinion, where are all the scared rabbits?
workingforpigs on April 7, 2009 at 9:31 AM
workingforpigs: yeah, i wonder the same thing. where are the Republicans on any topic? we have John Bolton & Newt Gingrich railing against bambi’s anti-Americanism & fantasy foreign policy, but where is a currently elected Republican?
kelley in virginia on April 7, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Highly informative. Thanks.
BadgerHawk on April 7, 2009 at 10:12 AM
All three of him (or her)…….(or it).
Sapwolf on April 7, 2009 at 10:18 AM
You are assuming that he won’t be cutting all programs…and a plane without proper inventory or maintenance is of no worth.
You may be too young to remember Carter’s feeble attempt at rescuing our hostages…we had the helicopters, we had the men, we had the plan (although ill conceived)…but the copters never made it across the desert, they were not maintained to a high enough standard to make a “routine” excursion. They blame a “sandstorm”, one of the captured helicopters is still in service for the Iranian military.
How did we get our men after 444 days? Reagan stated that he would not waste time, that Iran would be a bowl of glass, that our military men may have to sacrifice there life in order for us to defend our right for freedom…Reagan made no mistake, he was going to attack and destroy Iran (a “Ruthless Cowboy”). The day he was elected, was the day the prisoners were released.
The planes don’t make the military, the overall commitment to excellence and freedom is what countries fear.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Again so we have our existing 660 F-15s (Air Force: 292 F15A-D, 223 F-15E Air Guard: 145 F-15A-D) that will be in service past 2025 and are adding 180 F-22s for “Air Supremacy”.
Exactly accelerating the JSF makes much more sense as we have a ridiculous amount of Air Superiority fighters that don’t do much of anything but waste fuel. The only thing I see the F-35 having a hard time replacing is the A-10 but thankfully they are planning on keeping it around past 2028.
I think more people need to actually look at our inventory vs. the “enemy” and stop getting hysterical.
Poptech on April 7, 2009 at 10:25 AM
As I said on another thread here, Palin could have made her national security bones quickly during the campaign by trumpeting missile defense and Alaska’s vital role. But she blew it — Big Time.
Instead, she got permanently tarred by Fey’s “I can see Russia from my house!” crap.
Maybe it’s not too late…
Cuffy Meigs on April 7, 2009 at 10:28 AM
ROFLMAO!!!
Poptech on April 7, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Sorry AP.
You want the wonderful Sarah, you get the rest of us ‘family’ in the bargain.
Get used to it.
Sapwolf on April 7, 2009 at 10:33 AM
What “Commander Palin” got owned? Say it ain’t so. I mean with all her military cred and Deciderer abilities how could this happen?
Poptech on April 7, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Oh, and IM Sarah while you’re at it.
Sapwolf on April 7, 2009 at 10:37 AM
So how did that work for the Chinese in the Korean War? Number matter, yes. But they are far from everything. For a little homework try looking at recent wars between Israel and the Arab countries and both U.S. conflicts in Iraq. Pay special attention to the numbers please.
While your point is not entirely wrong, you overemphasize it. The key to winning is to have sufficient resources to win. Having better technology can significantly reduce the quantity of the resources that you need to succeed.
Examples like the Chinook taken down by an arrow are exceptions. Yes, they hap[pen. But helicopters have always been a high mortality method of air delivery. If we want to fix that, we would need to amend the Key West agreement and allow the Army to build its own close support fixed wing aircraft.
The Key West agreement made fixed wing aircraft the sole realm of the Air Force and Navy. The Navy is limited to carrier based fixed wing craft. The Marines get around this with the Harrier because it can be flown from a carrier.
But the Air Force is into big bombs and fast movers. The close support role they are obligated to is not “sexy” enough for them. They try to pigeonhole the F-16 into this role, but it is too fast to be effective.
The A-10 did very well in both Iraq conflicts, but the production line has been closed. It was too slow and unsightly to be a sexy plane and the Air Force hated it. Yet in the first Gulf War, A-10s accounted for nearly half of all the approx. 1700 kills of Iraqi armor from the air in that conflict. There were only 174 A-10s in the theater compared to thousands of other attack aircraft. In addition, the titanium lined cockpit of the A-10 allowed it to take a tremendous amount of damage and remain operational.
The issue here is not necessarily high tech, but effectiveness. Maybe the A-10 is the project that should be revived.
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 10:39 AM
At $12 Million a piece (A10s) compared to the redundant $138 Million F-22 I would call them a steal.
Poptech on April 7, 2009 at 10:47 AM
I disagree with one point in that. The F-35 will not be an effective close support aircraft for ground troops. It is too fast. History has repeatedly shown us that close air support requires a slower aircraft that can loiter over the battlefield. The entire reason that the Army has elected to create so many helicopters for close-air support is because the Air Force doesn’t get it.
The Air Force hated the A-10 and tried to get it out of their inventory as fast as possible. Yet that aircraft has proven in three wars that it is far and away the best close air support aircraft in the American inventory. It is slow enough to be effective. It is survivable. It is deadly. But the Air Farce hates it because it is not sexy.
Instead of using the F-35 for cover a role for which it is not suited, maybe the lame arses in the Air Force should get an improved version of the A-10 on the books. We have already lost too many Americans that did not need to die because of these prima donnas.
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Sarah Palin – sense.
Barry Ogabe – nonsense.
This message was not approved by Katie Couric.
SKYFOX on April 7, 2009 at 10:54 AM
AP: Answer me now! Is it a country or a continent?
Meghan (with tears): Why are you doing this? Don’t you love me?
AP: I’m gonna ask you just one more time. If you don’t answer, we’re finished. Is Africa a country or a continent?
Meghan (tears gushing now): It’s a country! Yes a f**kin country. There, you happy? I can’t believe you are doing this. Do I mean anything to you anymore? (she moves closer to AP)
AP: It was you. And to think I dumped Sarah for you.
Meghan: Please, I…I….need you Allah.
AP: We’re through. Don’t twitter me anymore. That’s it.
Sapwolf on April 7, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Sarah Palin: It’s 3:00 AM here in Juneau, and I can see those missiles out my window. I got a few interceptors left over from George Dubya Bush. Tell ya what, I’ll shoot down those Korean birds if you let me and Bobby Jindal address a joint session of Congress. Deal?
Steve Z on April 7, 2009 at 10:58 AM
It’s not stupid if you believe the following things:
1. You are one of the most charismatic and persuasive people who have ever lived, and can negotiate or charm your way out of any foreign crisis.
2. There are no naturally hostile foreign countries. Their aggressive or criminal actions are always a response to something America, or the West in general, has done. The only nations which are completely responsible for their own behavior are the United States, Canada, Australia, and the nations of western Europe.
3. American military action on foreign soil is never justified, except in response to a direct attack of overwhelming magnitude that can be absolutely traced to a foreign government.
4. There will never be a direct attack of overwhelming magnitude on the United States. Liberals expressly believe that 9/11/2001 was NOT such an event – it was either a natural disaster, a criminal act perpetrated by a tiny handful of now-deceased miscreants, an evil plot by George Bush and Dick Cheney, or it didn’t happen at all. Contrary to the occasional noises of support for the operation in Afghanistan during the Bush presidency, no Democrat president would have authorized the invasion that toppled the Taliban, with the possible exception of Joe Lieberman.
Given this mindset, spending big money on advanced weapon systems is a waste of funds that could go to socialist programs. America will never need super-advanced armor or aircraft – the ones we already have are good enough for the rest of history. Purchasing such equipment merely puts dangerous power in the hands of a potential future Republican president who might actually use it. Also, money spent on military hardware produces no additional government power over the private sector, and produces little political benefit – Democrats know the military tends to vote against them anyway, which is why they spend considerable effort disqualifying military ballots in every election.
Cutting military funding is politically efficient for Democrats, and conforms to their ideology, but they don’t think it’s “stupid”… at least not until something blows up, and they start shrieking for Republicans to save them, as they did after September 11th. Remember all those op-eds from stunned, breathless liberals thanking God that George Bush was the president instead of Al Gore? All those high-profile feminist writers who suddenly decided manly soldiers, cops, and firefighters were sexy and admirable? All the nincompoops who stood there in slack-jawed silence as the U.S. military rendered their just-published warnings about the mighty Pashtun warriors and brutal Afghan winter obsolete? I have a terrible feeling you’ll be seeing all of that again.
Doctor Zero on April 7, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Glad Allahpundit seems to be coming on board with us Palin fans!
joe_doufu on April 7, 2009 at 11:08 AM
What we need is an enlarged Predator-type drone capable of carrying the 30mm Avenger cannon the A-10 is built around. We could build HUNDREDS of the things. Keep ‘em in storage until they are needed, have the Operators do sims every day to keep proficient. This would be incredibly cost-efficient.
pseudonominus on April 7, 2009 at 11:18 AM
“A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages.” – Ronald Reagan, March 4 1987.
Now imagine if the Obama administration armed your enemies just like the Reagan administration did…
bileduct on April 7, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Let me explain, yet again, little girl. Palin was running for VP and, as such, does not make campaign strategy — that would be in the purview of the candidate for POTUS. To refresh your impaired memory, that was John McCain. Now you can go back to your Wii and let the grownups worry about the apocalypse.
littleguy on April 7, 2009 at 11:21 AM
bileduct on April 7, 2009 at 11:18 AM
You do know that that was a different (later) hostage situation than the 1980 event, right?
And the Tower report indicated Reagan wasn’t fully aware of all the details of what transpired?
cs89 on April 7, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Is poptard a chick, too? Wow. SnarkVader, capitulus, strangelet and poptard are a regular PMS sewing circle.
chunderroad on April 7, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Palin is the only one in the GOP with the balls (funnily enough) to take on Obama.
Jindal: Starts every sentence with “Obama is a historic president” (Lame)
Romney: “We need to admit when Obama is right” (Pathetic)
Sanford: “Anyone who wants Obama to fail is an idiot” (Even more pathetic)
Norwegian on April 7, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Carter made himself a lot of enemies in high places when he emptied the CIA and let the Shah die. Those two events made it all too apparent that he was weak and certifiably insane.
chunderroad on April 7, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Absolutely.
We all know that Reagan the Great had absolutely no idea whatsoever of what his own administration was up to.
Oliver North and the paper shredder made sure of that.
bileduct on April 7, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Why don’t you try and be honest…you are confusing two different historical events, typical for someone who wants to deceive.
Read my post again, it pertains to Carter who gutted our military and was noted as being a weak leader.
The side note, which is correct, had nothing to do with Iran-Contra.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 11:47 AM
It’s ironic that the libs have a conspiracy theory about how Reagan “stole” the election by thwarting Carter and Bzrezinski’s October surprise and negotiating with Iran, but they have no problem with Carter admittedly arming and training the mujahideen and giving nukes to Pakistan.
chunderroad on April 7, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Well Punko, those proven missiles keep you safe to make snide comments here. What is your Safety worth? I’d be willing to compromise your safety but not mine. You can post your tripe here but it does not mean that it makes you special or that anyone with more common sense than a crowbar will agree with you.
old trooper2 on April 7, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Give ‘em hell, Sarah. We support you 100%!
BetseyRoss on April 7, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Exactly
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Actually, I should, and do, apologize to any little girls out there who may have been offended by my having associated them with poppy. Since it claims to have a wife, I was simply referring to its mentality. However, its membership in the troll-town sewing circle is, no doubt, secure.
littleguy on April 7, 2009 at 12:03 PM
And to add to that…what are we spending it on? American products, manufactured products…unlike the throwing money at a problem, without putting anyone to work.
Give me a military plane, that sits on the runway and never takes off, over a gov. giveaway money program to banks.
If you are going to throw money out the window, aim for the American worker.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 12:05 PM
I’m not confused at all, but perhaps the point made was far too subtle for you to properly digest.
The rosy scenario you paint of the fearful Reagan the Great scaring the Iranians into submission by threatening to turn the Middle East into a glassy crater must have lost it’s shine if several years later the Reagan administration resorts to arming hostage-taking terrorists in order to achieve the same goals.
bileduct on April 7, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Kind of strange how this clueless old man reversed the Carter stagnation, rebuilt our military, and put our economy on the path to one of the longest periods of prosperity our nation has ever seen, ain’t it?
Wonder how he did that?
cs89 on April 7, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Woah. Nicely done sir.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 7, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Obama’s top-line approval number is 66% to 24%.
Nuff said.
getalife on April 7, 2009 at 12:40 PM
So you’re saying that Teflon Ron the exerted amazing personal influence over Governmental policy, to the point he could claim responsbility for these successes, but the National Security Council were out there on their own, knowingly violating foreign policy of the time by arming hostage-taking terrorists?
Seems fairly typical of political leadership at any level, however. Take credit for the successes, blame someone else for the failures and deny all knowledge of arming hostage-taking terrorists.
bileduct on April 7, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Obama’s top-line approval number is 66% to 24%.
Nuff said.
getalife on April 7, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Poll done by CBS/NYT with sample heavily slanted Democratic.
Get real. Check out Ed’s thread for the truth.
kingsjester on April 7, 2009 at 12:44 PM
So, you’re done now and you’re going back to the playground, right?
littleguy on April 7, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Well now that we know who Benny Shaker is…. it is only a matter of time before the other Trolls are shown to be who they are.
Hey Allah, since you like dealing with trolls. How about Telling everyone in here how you enjoy dealing with Trolls who are outted?
upinak on April 7, 2009 at 12:50 PM
bileduct on April 7, 2009 at 12:42 PM
I’m saying Reagan undoubtedly made mistakes in his 8 years, but had many more successes.
I’m saying Iran-Contra was probably a mistake, and he probably didn’t know all the details.
I’m also saying you either didn’t know the difference between Iran-Contra and the Carter hostage situation, or purposely conflated 2 separate events to make your point.
cs89 on April 7, 2009 at 12:51 PM
????
My observation is that Allah’s way of dealing with trolls is to throw out a warning or two, then abandon the thread for them to say what they want for several hours… or until the thread drops off the front page.
Cash the ad checks.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
cs89 on April 7, 2009 at 12:55 PM
I don’t know how it could be subtle, here are the opening two paragraphs.
I don’t see how this is “subtle”, except it doesn’t fit into your understanding of history.
Here it is in words you won’t find subtle:
The captives were held for 444 days because Carter was seen as weak, inept, and afraid…meanwhile he was dismantling our military. Both in new projects and in maintaining existing inventory.
Got it wise guy?
Your point wasn’t subtle, you mixed two different separate historical events to try and prove something…sorry I don’t buy into you trying to deceive with that tactic.
An honest man would have stated you made an error and correct it…you didn’t.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 12:56 PM
when sarah talks – that’s heartfelt truth you hear. When jerk nitwit Obama talks…….that’s total BS. Big diff.
Cinday Blackburn on April 7, 2009 at 12:57 PM
You mean the poll with this sample?
From Slublogs ASHQ post;
If you guys have to shave the numbers this bad, the truth must scare the hell out of you.
ChrisM on April 7, 2009 at 1:01 PM
It amazes me, please tell us, I have asked you several times…how do you post and still be able to cram all those Krispy Kremes in your mouth…do you type one handed? And is your chair “special”, or do like living on the “edge”.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 1:02 PM
“Dear Sir,
It is with much sadness and deep regret that I inform you that your son was tragically killed today at the hands of hostage-taking terrorists wielding American funded weaponry supplied by my administration.
But look on the bright side… the trains are running on time!
Yours truly,
Uncle Ron.”
bileduct on April 7, 2009 at 1:05 PM
So Poptech is a woman (or at least what passes for a woman)? That explains EVERYTHING about the 24/7 hatred of Sarah Palin.
I’m sure Sarah is the woman Poptech can never be. She represents the woman people listened to and sought after while they ignored Poptech.
Let’s see. Sarah Palin is governor of a state, happily married, has an army of tens of thousands that are ready to fight for her if she decides to run.
Poptech’s social schedule, on the other hand, affords her the time to stalk Sarah Palin 24 hours a day on the Internet.
Sorry Poptech. Life isn’t fair.
bw222 on April 7, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Dear madam/sir:
I deeply regret the lost of your son and 8 others. The attempt to rescue the 444 captives was ill conceived, wrongly executed, and the equipment was not properly maintained, “equipment failure in the rescue helicopters made it necessary to end the mission”. …yet I sent them off to do an impossible job, to die, so I can save face. Thank you for your son’s sacrifice.
I learned this from JFK and his “Bay of Pigs”, it didn’t harm him, I figured it wouldn’t harm me…anyway sorry he had to die in vain. I thought the helicopters were okay, and I didn’t know they had to refuel so many times.
Oh well, God Bless your son and his sacrifice for me, it was worth it.
At least I instituted a national energy policy that will make us independent of Middle East oil….you can fell proud about that.
Signed, President Jimmy Carter
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 1:28 PM
You should probably be named not2bright, but I’ll have another crack…
Did one of the two historical events involve Uncle Ronny’s administration selling arms to hostage-taking terrorists?
Yes or no?
But I thought all it took was Teflon Ron’s towering presence to keep the Iranians in line!
bileduct on April 7, 2009 at 1:28 PM
bileduct on April 7, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Any idea how many letters went out to the families of “friendly fire” victims in any given conflict?
Your example is ridiculous.
And you still haven’t indicated if you were ignorant of the difference between Iran-Contra and the Carter hostage situation, or just hoped nobody would catch you combining the events.
cs89 on April 7, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Pooptech is a mental basketcase. Take a trip over to the Newsbusters site and see the loony work done by “Poptech” there. He/she has been banned there, but signed back on under a different email account. Soon to be banned again.
Noone takes Pooptech seriously.
Norwegian on April 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM
“PS. At least we tried to rescue our people by honourable means. My crystal ball tells me the Reagan administration will supply hostage-taking terrorists (our enemies, in case that was not clear) with arms in order to secure the release of hostages.”
bileduct on April 7, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Utterly irrelevant. We are talking about the Reagan administration knowingly supplying hostage-taking terrorists with arms.
I know you’d like to talk about something else…
How about neither? I’ve already explained myself twice.
bileduct on April 7, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Look, you are calling me names…and one that has been used dozens of times in the past couple of years…a sure sign that you have lost.
I wasn’t talking about Iran-Contra, we know the facts, the senate hearing were quite clear.
What I was posting about, and you seem not to understand this simple posting…was concerning the Carter Iranian hostage event. Your event, that you keep bringing up, has no relation to this blog.
You don’t understand that?
I was relating it to Carter cutting and decimating the military budget, you didn’t get that out of the first two paragraphs?
Go all the way to the top of the page, and see what the blog is about…it is about cutting military spending.
Sheeesshh!
Try to follow the topic, concentrate, keep your eye on the ball, think, read, comprehend.
This thread is about cutting a military budget, which Carter did, and it led to a disaster when he tried to save face with an ill conceived plan, relying on poorly managed resources and a cut maintenance budget for military equipment.
Got it now? Can I make it any clearer?
Puh-lease I know you are a liberal, but at least this once try to understand and c-o-n-c-e-n-t-r-a-t-e.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 1:40 PM
See, now you have to resort to a lie…once again, and you are being stupid on purpose because no one is this stupid.
The Iranian hostage with Carter, was seperate then the Iran-Contra…And sending men into certain death, as Carter did, is not honorable. He knew that he had cut the maintenance budget to an unacceptable level, but he took a gamble that helicopters could make it.
For him to try to save face, he sacrificed 8 great men.
And you think that is “honorable”…fine that make you a liberal.
And the thread is not about Reagan and Iran…it is about cutting military spending…concentrate.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Can’t answer that one, eh bileduct?
lol troll
pseudonominus on April 7, 2009 at 1:45 PM
I really don’t care what you wrote in the first two paragraphs. I’m more interested in your characterisation of Ronald the Fearful, who somehow lost not only the ability to make Iranians shake in their boots, but any sense of control of his National Security Council that resulted in his own administration knowingly and deliberately arming hostage-taking terrorists.
And no, you don’t know my political orientation.
bileduct on April 7, 2009 at 1:50 PM
bileduct on April 7, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Let me be as clear as possible (I’ve already mentioned this, too).
Iran-Contra was a mistake on the part of the Reagan administration. He/they should not have done this.
There is significant doubt as to how much of the details Reagan explicitly knew. Nevertheless, he is responsible for this action by his administration. Can I be any clearer than this?
However, the Reagan administration overall was a glowing success. Even most Democrats praise Ronnie today.
The topic of the thread is military cuts. Some have mentioned the Carter cuts as a corollary, and included a reference to the hostage situation that overshadowed the end of his prsidency. The opinion that Reagan expressed strength, and this was related to the speedy release of the hostages as Reagon took office, was expressed.
You are of course welcome to disagree with this opinion, and buttress this with whatever arguments you wish. A separate incident a few years later is probably not your strongest argument, however.
cs89 on April 7, 2009 at 1:50 PM
I never heard this story but I can tell you the VC/NVA brought thousands of our choppers down with small arms fire, RPG rounds, shoulder fired missles.
The only time I heard of arrows bringing down choppers was in a book about Rambo where they used explosive tipped arrows. I quote “Rambo disdained high-tech gadgetry (“I’ve always believed that the mind is the best weapon”), although he did seem to get a lot of use from M-60s and his special explosive-tipped arrows, which could down a helicopter with a single shot.” That’s the reference and it is fiction.
In real life a few choppers did return with arrows in the skin but that may have been anti-helicopter punji stakes I’m not sure.
kanda on April 7, 2009 at 1:53 PM
What possible justification could there be for defunding missile defense?
You don’t like wars of choice? Fine. But why in the blue hell would you do anything at all to reduce our ability to defend our citizens or our allies from nuclear holocaust?
I swear, it’s like progressives think the US deserves to be nuked – I mean, we nuked Japan so we’ve got it coming right? AGH.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 7, 2009 at 1:59 PM
The best observation between Carter and Reagan…is exactly what is happening between Obama and Palin.
One does not have the experience, nor the forethought to understand that a strong military is mandatory to be safe…and Palin understands how important a strong military, and strong defense is to our security.
This is not a new fight, is has been played out several times and each time, our country has paid a horrible price for “appearing weak”, you don’t have to be “weak” just the appearance is enough for some dictator to cause havoc.
When Kadafi started flexing his muscle, Reagan shut him down (ignoring France), and we haven’t heard from him again…until just recently.
Where he said “that crazy Reagan” and then praising that wonderful man Obama, his muslim brother…
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Concentrate…these postings are about military cuts.
You didn’t read that at the top? You don’t understand this?
Here I will type real slow for you…
This is about military cuts and their effect.
Got it now? I hope so.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 2:04 PM
That is what confuses me also…this is purely defensive, it keeps anyone from attacking and killing us.
I have never found an answer to this, except that the “father” of the defense system has been lain at Reagan’s feet. And anything Reagan does, by a liberals mindset, is evil…just notice some of the posts and the tangents that guy took to weave in “I hate Reagan”.
But no liberal will ever answer the question that you posed, “Why are you against a defensive system?”.
It only threatens someone who wants to attack.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Gates sounds sensible to me, and so does Sarah’s point.
It will be interesting to watch this story unfold.
AnninCA on April 7, 2009 at 2:09 PM
So, the point you are making is that increasing the military budget gives you more arms to sell to hostage-taking terrorists like the Reagan administration did?
bileduct on April 7, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Interesting. I want you to prove what you just said. How did Reagan “hostage” take… if I remember right wasn’t a man who was civilian held by the Iranians for YEARS!
And as for selling…. you do realize that anything military is subject to be auctioned off via the Stock. Anyone can buy it… so how exactly are we “selling arms”?
upinak on April 7, 2009 at 2:14 PM
If you can organise your thoughts into coherent sentences I will have a crack at answering your question.
bileduct on April 7, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »