Posted on 04/10/2008 9:49:23 AM PDT by Anti-Hillary
YouTube has an undated 52-second clip of Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barrack Obama outlining his plans for America’s national defense. Obama’s presentation demonstrates either total naivete about important national security programs or he is just pandering for votes among the extreme left.
Watch Obama’s message and consider some inconvenient facts about his national security promises. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs
“I’m the only major candidate to oppose this war from the beginning and as president I will end it.” No one likes war: especially those who have to do the fighting and dying. Yet, our military leaders make clear that the consequences of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq as Obama seeks would be disastrous not only for American interests in the region but for Iraq itself. It would provide a propaganda victory for al Qaeda and Iran because they will be able to claim they defeated America. Further, it could worsen the Iraqi civil war, create an unstable Mideast and further spike oil prices.
“Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.” Anyone who has worked with the military for any length of time knows there is waste, often in weapons systems. Recently, the Government Accountability Office found that 95 major weapons systems -- including the Joint Strike Fighter and the Littoral Combat Ship -- have exceeded their original budgets. These cost overruns could be the result of waste or mismanagement or, perhaps, the development and fielding of sophisticated new weapons with constantly changing requirements is difficult and inefficient.
The senator should understand there is a difference between waste and defense spending. But does he? There is no reason to think so in any of his speeches or position papers. Obama’s employer, the US Congress, indulges in pork barrel earmarks contributing to wasteful Pentagon spending. Earmarks circumvent merit-based systems to create jobs in favored congressional districts and saddle the military with unwanted -- wasteful -- programs.
“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.” Recently, both our sea-based and ground-based missile systems proved to be successful. On Feb 20, the USS Lake Erie armed with an SM-3 missile destroyed a wayward satellite traveling at more than 17,000 MPH more than 100 miles high. In September, 2007, our ground-based midcourse defense system killed a dummy missile over the Pacific using an interceptor stationed in Alaska. The US Bureau of Arms Control warns, “The ballistic missile danger to the US, its forces deployed abroad, and allies and friends is real and growing.”
“I will not weaponize space.” America’s current policy is not to weaponize space. However, it’s important for policy makers to recognize the US’s dependence on space. Our banking, communications and navigation systems almost entirely depend on satellites. Space lines of communication are as essential for commerce today as sea lines of communication were two centuries ago. Does Obama mean he wouldn’t provide defensive systems for our satellites? Apparently so.
Surrendering space to rogue nations and pirates places our economy and military at risk. Anti-satellite weaponry will proliferate and must be countered.
“I will slow our development of future combat systems.” Our combat systems are becoming ancient. Our air force is flying aircraft which are based on 1940s and 1950s technology and our army is driving 1960s and 1970s vintage vehicles. Older equipment is expensive, time consuming to maintain and potentially dangerous.
The Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) is the first full-spectrum modernization effort in nearly 40 years. It will replace Cold War-era relics with “full-spectrum” operations capable modular systems designed to operate in complex terrain. It can also be adapted to civil support, such as disaster relief.
Failing to develop future combat systems puts American warriors at risk and unnecessarily jeopardizes our security.
“… and I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.” Congress created the QDR as an every four-year analysis intended to balance defense strategy and programs with resources.
In 2007, the Government Accountability Office, an “independent defense priorities board” in its own right, published its analysis of the most recent QDR. It lauded the Bush administration for sustained involvement of senior officials, extensive collaboration with interagency partners and creating a database to track implementation of initiatives. The GAO faulted Congress for failing to clarify its expectations regarding what budget information the Pentagon should provide.
To make matters worse, Congress’ 2008 Defense Authorization Act created two new and redundant every four year analyses. One is an independent military assessment of roles and missions and the other identifies core mission areas, competenceis and capabilities.
Obama is right to criticize the QDR because it has become an exercise in fantasy but his Congressional colleagues keep piling on new requirements. The senator can help the Pentagon by scaling back on the analyses requirements. Just tell the military what the country can afford and then have the services explain what they will buy and how much risk we will have to accept.
“To seek that goal I will not develop new nuclear weapons.” That’s dangerous. Our present nuclear arsenal will atrophy if it isn’t modernized. According to the head of the military’s Strategic Command, Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, our warheads are aging and weren’t designed to last forever, making him nervous. “I liken it to approaching a cliff -- and I don’t know how far away from that cliff I am,” Chilton said.
Ambassador Linton F. Brooks, administrator of the US’s National Nuclear Security Administration, said we have a new program that will potentially reduce the number of warheads and make them safer. It’s called the Reliable Replacement Warhead program and “contemplates designing new components for previously tested nuclear packages.” The RRW would create, Brooks said, a "reduced chance we will ever need to resort to nuclear testing" again.
“I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material…” Nations capable of producing nuclear weapons produce fissile material for their atomic arsenals. Many of these same nations produce fissile material to fuel their nuclear power plants which light millions of homes and are a cheap, clean energy source in a world concerned about hydrocarbon pollution.
Efforts to control the production of fissile material date back to the 1946 Baruch Plan but that attempt was abandoned during the Cold War. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush announced that the US no longer produced fissile material for nuclear weapons and in 1993 President Bill Clinton called for Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty negotiations. While this is a worthy goal it is not achievable in an energy hungry world.
“… and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair trigger alert...”
The US nuclear forces are not on “hair trigger” alert. Only a portion of America’s deployed nuclear forces maintain a ready alert status.
Besides, our policy does not rely on a “launch on warning” strategy. Rather, our forces are postured to provide flexibility by raising the readiness status of the force and by putting weapons systems on alert when necessary.
“… and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.” Our nuclear arsenal is a deterrent against enemies with similar systems. Deep cuts without verifiable reciprocal cuts would be dangerous. However, we are making progress via the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty which proposes a reduction of the overall threathold of up to 1,500 warheads. Russia has approximately 4,162 and the US has 5,866 strategic warheads and both nations possess thousands of tactical weapons and reserve stocks as well.
Senator Obama’s national security views expressed in his 52-second video reflect that of a knee-jerk liberal academic who thinks that the US is the primary threat to world peace. His views are dangerously naive and his statements suggest a shallow understanding of national security issues and in some cases his facts are wrong.
Obamahammod is obviously too stupid to have become a US Senator on his own. Wonder who’s controlling him?
Here is the ORIGINAL youtube video. I've been posting it widely for over a month now. I can't believe human events would put up that poor quality copy.
Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs
February 29, 2008 :: News
A video has surfaced of Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama talking on his plans for strategic issues such as nuclear weapons and missile defense.
The full text from the video, as released, reads as follows:
Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you've been doing. As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington.
First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.[i.e. not win it]
Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.
I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.
I will not weaponize space.
I will slow our development of future combat systems.
And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.
Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.
You know where I stand. I've fought for open, ethical and accountable government my entire public life. I don't switch positions or make promises that can't be kept. I don't posture on defense policy and I don't take money from federal lobbyists for powerful defense contractors. As president, my sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people. Thanks so much.
Article: Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs:
http://missilethreat.com/archives/id.7086/detail.asp
**Original Video of Senator Obama discussing strategic issues, from YouTube/BarackObamaDotCom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE
Source of video: Barack Obama YouTube campaign ad.
NOTE: this is the ORIGINAL youtube Obama ad, not the poor quality copy that is circulating the internet. This one (the good one) is titled "Obama-Caucus4Priorities". Another making the rounds is titled "In 52 Seconds Why Obama Cannot Win the General Election". However, since it is a poor quality copy, the original from the Obama camp itself is clearly preferable.
You can also find the original at this site through a search for "Obama-Caucus4Priorities" (use the lower search feature):
http://www.youtube.com/user/BarackObamadotcom
No, HERE is the actual link (humanevents.com posted one that someone apparently copied off the boob tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE
Also see:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1999629/posts
April 10, 2009: President Obama returned from meetings in Tehran with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and as he got off of Air Force One waved a copy of the new non-aggression agreement with Iran and proudly proclaimed "peace in our time".
He is INCREDIBLY naive. The neopresidunce. A man completely unfit for the power of the White House office.
He wants to go toking with the joint chiefs.
“He is INCREDIBLY naive.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Either that or he knows EXACTLY what he is doing! It is hard to say one is worse than the other.
...
When my son enlisted in the USMC three years ago he told me that this was his generation’s war and he needed to be in it. He told me that he wasn’t sure that he would make the military a career, but that he wanted to have the option to get out rather than to have to salute Commander in Chief Hillary. I haven’t discussed his feelings on the matter with him lately, but I’m certain that he will be even less inclined to want to salute C in C Hussein. I’m also certain that many others who wear the uniform will feel the same way in that awful eventuality.
That will truly mean the effective destruction of our Armed Forces - and of national security for our nation. It will be total degeneracy.
It would mean the end of unit discipline: you can not have “soldiers” routinely holding hands, embracing, kissing, and whatever. The military is not a social laboratory.
It will make gays and lesbians a protected class by itself.
If someone complains about advances from someone in the same unit or foxhole, it will be hell to prove or disprove it. The person filing the complaint is likely to end up being also prosecuted.
Recruiting will effectively come to a halt and retention will be heading toward the zero mark.
There will be little wars breaking out within our military on this - which is exactly what the proponents of open gays and lesbians serving want: to destroy the U. S. military (the imperialistic power, if you haven't heard, who wants to control the world).
Many gays and lesbians now serve honorably and bravely in the highest degree under “Don't ask, don't tell.” They have no desire to be outed or to flaunt their sexuality.
Obama will indeed “change” our nation. He will destroy it, and all that generations have wrought.
The Clintons did just that and look what happened. Bill poked bin Laden with a stick, then scurried out the White House door, antiques under their arms, and dumped the blow back into Bush's lap.
Reducing the Military has been a communist goal for years.
article (was NY Times): http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.