The president even joked that were Geithner to tender his resignation, he would say, “Sorry, Buddy, you’ve still got the job.”

The One has chosen his scapegoat and he will be damned if the goat tries to ’scape!! MSM see this statement as evidence of strength in leadership when in actuality it shows weakness and an inability to realize when a charted course is wrong. It would save a lot of time and money if the One would realize this sooner rather than later. Could save a lot of time and money getting someone in there who is actually qualified. But that would require someone who isn’t going to be just a “yes” man.

On March 21st, 2009 at 10:36 am, ThunderHawkk said:

But… we only have TWO choices. Not three. Two. McCain or The Idiot. If you vote for a third, then The Idiot benefits…

And this line pretty well sums up the LOTE argument once and for all. I don’t think anyone could add anything more…

On March 21st, 2009 at 10:44 am, Pasadena Phil said:

WarEagle82: Nailed it. Anyone who puts party over principle should not bother voting. Had Obama been the GOP candidate running against the Dems’ McCain, ThunderHawkk would have voted for Obama as the “lesser of two evils”.

How exactly do you know that his DoD budget is 13 billion more?

Here you go. And actually, apparently my memory is faulty. It is much more that 13 billion (closer to $39 billion). We had a thread on this a few months ago, and that CQ number for FY2009 doesn’t sound quite right to me…but in any case, my point is served.

I cannot speak to any particular weapons program, or the wisdom of cutting it. I would not pretend to have any knowledge on something like that. However, surely you cannot believe that a cut in funding for any weapons program is necessarily bad thing, right? Each weapons program should be put up to scrutiny, right? Otherwise we’d still be producing these. But of course, a cut to a particular program is a “cut”. But that is not what the original poster said or was inferring.

chapoutier said:
No he’s not. He is eliminating certain weapons programs (and one can argue the wisdom of that), but his budget for the DoD is like 13 billion more than last year.

So that would include eliminating weapons systems such as the F-22, certain naval vessels that have ALREADY been ordered, a new tanker to replace the old Air Force tanker, etc.

How exactly do you know that his DoD budget is 13 billion more? Can you cite some evidence for this? This military spouse is suspicious.

I wonder if you really understand how many of the military services are hurting right now, such as the Air Force and the Navy? Secretary of Defense Gates has “claimed” that many of these weapons systems are Cold War era relics. This is a man not very friendly to the Air Force to begin with.

How is the Air Force to modernize its equipment without investment in planes such as the new tanker, the F-22, and the F-35?

What is your answer? There is waste and fraud in the DoD but that doesn’t mean that necessary programs like the F-22 need to go. What is your explanation for this? How do you define this as not a “cut?”

And if you can point to “covert” attempts, feel free to do so.

I can’t find an immediate link, but I believe in 2007 the Democrats wanted to cut President Bush’s military budget for Iraq and Afghanistan (~15 billion?) claiming the cuts would actually lead to an increase over a five year period, w/o acknowledging that the so-called increase was tentative at best and contingent on then projected troop reductions.

The pure fact is calling a 13 billion increase in military spending a “cut” is stupid, and/or disingenuous.

On 9/10 I would have agreed with you, but not now. So whether I’m being stupid or disingenuous pales in comparison to not speaking out against anything that has the potential to weaken this country’s military.

So only the last two years count? Convenient time frame! BTW, are you saying in those two years there were no covert attempts by Democrats to decrease military funding, or that they wouldn’t have outwardly done so if they had felt they could have gotten away w/ it in the `08 election?

That seems to be the most relevant. We are after all concerned with the players now, not the players during Clinton or Carter. And if you can point to “covert” attempts, feel free to do so. I see you didn’t mention any above. But in any case, what matters in the end is the final result, no?

The pure fact is calling a 13 billion increase in military spending a “cut” is stupid, and/or disingenuous. You can call my slavish insistence on actual logic and facts “pedantic”. I cal it “reality”.

Most Americans then should learn the proper meaning of words, apparently you too.

Oh I think most Americans, myself included, learned all we need to know on September 11. Thanks for the primer advice, though; it’s good to know someone is looking out for our pedantic growth in words and definitions.

“…you didn’t point out one military funding bill that the Dems cut in the past 2 years. Interesting omission.”

So only the last two years count? Convenient time frame! BTW, are you saying in those two years there were no covert attempts by Democrats to decrease military funding, or that they wouldn’t have outwardly done so if they had felt they could have gotten away w/ it in the `08 election?

BTW, after the events of September 11, most Americans correctly perceive any reduction that inhibits our military’s ability to fight and wage war as a spending cut to defense.

Most Americans then should learn the proper meaning of words, apparently you too.

I noticed, though, you didn’t point out one military funding bill that the Dems cut in the past 2 years. Interesting omission.