Astonishing Obama Video: "I Will Slow Development of Future Combat Systems."

Center for Individual Freedom ^ | May 29, '08 | staff

[T.L.Sink]

In a strange video address intended to reassure American voters regarding his military bona fides, Senator Obama ends up doing just the opposite. Among other things, he promises to cut "tens of billions of dollars" from the military budget, at a time when our armed forces are already stretched and in need of new weapon technologies and armor; to "cut investments in unproven missile defense systems," which in reality have already proven remarkably effective; that he "will not weaponize space" even though other nations such as China do exactly that; to terminate the Iraq war just as the surge proves remarkably successful; and he rails against what he calls "unnecessary" military spending. He concludes by promising to remove our inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from what he calls a "hair-trigger alert," embarrassing himself via his ignorance regarding our deliberate targeting and launch protocol. Most alarmingly, Obama literally promises to "slow development of future combat systems." Think about the frightening implications of this pledge. Future combat systems are the cornerstone of American military modernization and superiority. Advanced combat systems provide us with better equipment, unmatched situational awareness and communication systems that result in American battlefield domination. Other nations such as China and Russia constantly seek to match our prowess, but we continue to outpace them.

[SE Mom]

Hah!

I did send it again to Special Report at FOX - maybe Bret Baier will see it and at least send it to someone who will use it.

[hellbender]

Obama's going to have a November to remember: hard Left political lemmings always cliff-dive in November.

Maybe; but let's give him a good hard push just to be sure.

[SE Mom]

Just in case you haven’t seen/heard this must-hear video being discussed on the thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

[Miss Didi]

Well, Rush put it on his website...the Drive-Bys must see it now!

RUSH: That's Barack Obama in 2007 with a taped video appeal to a group called the Caucus for Priorities, getting ready to gin up for the Iowa cauci, the Hawkeye Cauci in early January 2008. This is truly bizarre. This is the first step toward disarming the United States -- and of course it presumes that the world will follow our lead in everything we do. It is not just bizarre. It is ignorant, it is risky and at the same time it is arrogant -- and when I saw this, when it was first shown to me yesterday, I said, "This has gotta be... I need proof of this. I can't believe that this hasn't gotten out. I cannot believe that this has not been more widely disbursed and distributed." I said, "I need some proof on this." We went out and we researched it. We found it is true, a story here from March the 4th: "Senator Barack Obama is facing renewed criticism," and this is from the Cybercast News Service, "regarding his national security policies is he continues his campaign for the Democrat nomination. (cont.)



Obama Vows to Disarm America

[babyfreep]

How do you download those from YouTube, btw?

[So Cal Rocket]

Well... the Dems can’t win the Presidency in 2008... because the LA Lakers are in the NBA Finals... look at history:

1960 - Lakers NOT in NBA Finals - Dems win (JFK)
1964 - Lakers NOT in NBA Finals - Dems win (LBJ)
1968 - Lakers in NBA Finals - GOP wins (Nixon)
1972 - Lakers in NBA Finals - GOP wins (Nixon)
1976 - Lakers NOT in NBA Finals - Dems win (Carter)
1980 - Lakers in NBA Finals - GOP wins (Reagan)
1984 - Lakers in NBA Finals - GOP wins (Reagan)
1988 - Lakers in NBA Finals - GOP wins (GHWB)
1992 - Lakers NOT in NBA Finals - Dems win (BJ Clinton)
1996 - Lakers NOT in NBA Finals - Dems win (BJ Clinton)
2000 - Lakers in NBA Finals - GOP wins (GWB)
2004 - Lakers in NBA Finals - GOP wins (GWB)
2008 - Lakers in NBA Finals -

[Salamander]

There is freeware out there that will work somewhat but I use this:

http://www.save2pc.com/full/

Not very expensive and it’s packed with cool features.

[Unam Sanctam]

I never understood why liberals would object to missile defense — it’s NOT an offensive weapon but a defensive shield. I know their not promoting Mutually Assured Destruction (which likely won’t work with rogue states run by nutcases like Iran and North Korea), so I have to believe that they don’t want the US to defend itself against our enemies.

[T.L.Sink]

Great post! That made my day.

[T.L.Sink]

My guess is that - like Obama - they just want to cut the military budget as a knee-jerk liberal reaction regardless of the consequences. I think the reason for that is so they’ll have more money to piss away on domestic social welfare programs.

[T.L.Sink]

Amazing forecaster! Never saw that one before.

[T.L.Sink]

I missed Rush today.

[T.L.Sink]

That’s how I read it, too. Some attitude, especially in the midst of a war against rogue state terrorist nations!

[T.L.Sink]

I agree. Our greatest threat isn’t our external enemies but those who are undermining us from within and whose anti-American policies and attitudes will ruin our national defenses.

[T.L.Sink]

And Hillary like Winston Churchill!

[T.L.Sink]

Right - and let’s hope they show that sense in November!

[T.L.Sink]

Perhaps both!

[T.L.Sink]

Absolutely! They’re all members, in one form or another, of the hate/blame America International.

[T.L.Sink]

Obama and the Clintons not only play the race card but they deal it from the bottom of the deck!

[RightWhale]

I missed Rush today.

Not really. The best part of the show was this O'Bama piece.