Replies

Gates just gave a presentation last week advocating updates to our nuclear arsenal. This is the Bush policy

No it isn't. The policy of the last 8 years is the "Bush" Policy.

He never deployed anything.

He dismantled a heck of a lot. Hoping the Russki's would follow suit, but his stupid Treaty of Moscow in 2001 where he tied our hands, allowed them to blow off any disarmaments until 2017. Which not coincidentally, they have indeed done, and are now on the verge of revoking outright.

The apologists for W's extremely lame, anti-defense deployments policy are nothing but Liberal Kool-Aid Drinkers.

You are aware that he PROMISED both Russia and China that he wouldn't deploy a Global Missile Defense. And he has kept his promise. He puts up a token system wih a dozen interceptors. He keeps Aegis limited to a token number of ships.

He kills the space-based revival of Brilliant Pebbles, and he squats on the revival of the X-Ray Laser technology, which now makes EXCALIBUR a fully feasible global missile defense approach. We now know how to make durable X-Ray laser mirrors...not just for the soft x-ray frequencies, but the hard x-ray's in the 10's of angstrom wavelength range. THIS was The key stumbling block before. Now solved.

But where is Bush? Playing tit-for-tat kinetic-intercept ASAT games with the Chicoms. And lying about it, keeping the vast majority of our people in the dark of how precarious our nuclear and space security situation is vis-a-vis the unrepentantly Communist world.

Boy, that really makes me feel safe.

Not.

Perhaps you have heard of some of our other branches of government— such as the legislative branch. It is presently controlled by Democrats— the party opposed to President Bush.

Opposed how, precisely?

With his New Tone? His Bipartisanship? His and his minions attacks on people who had the guts to question the national loyalty of the domestic opposition party? [Note how he used the RNC to revoke any monies to be spent on Michelle Bachmann's campaign the last two weeks after her Chris Matthews 'gotcha' segment]

Thank God we conservatives here in Minnesota were able to save her....despite being outspent two or three to one.

But even she followed orders from the Bush/McCain camp to "play" like she was mis-represented. Even though they weren't giving her another dime...since she didn't fit the "New Tone" or "Bipartisan" mold they wanted to impose.

She went along still out of perhaps misguided loyalty. Instead of just boldly quoting the very enemies we know them to be. Destroying their phoney outrage intended for the lamest of the lame unpoliticals in the electorate.

But to that end, to get those unpoliticals...The Best Defense is a good Offense.

You have failed to refute my points about Bush attacking the Islamic radicals on their homeland.

First, I don't have to go out of my way to diminish W to make my point that Reagan and Cap Weinberger was far, far far more national security heroes than W ever was or will be. Frankly, you are ignorant. As is proven by your next point:

Reagan ran scared from Beirut. He did little strikes and ran.

First. This proves you are not a conservative, nor a patriot. Second, it again proves your historical ignorance. The Soviet Union had 19,000 nuclear warheads aimed at us, and was threatening to launch a sneak first strike. That was quite a bit larger threat than anything else we faced at the time. And we didn't know who did it. The entire Mideast? Soviet proxies trying to get us to go off half-cocked? We needed to determine who had hit us. We didn't know of the Iranian connections for about 16 months...and it was determined to hold our fire. Not out of "running scared". And we had far bigger fish to fry at the time. We were at war, cold or otherwise, with the Soviets. We needed to keep our Global focus on that.

A mideast war at that moment would have been catastrophic to that overarching mission. We had no comparable national interest in Lebanon at that time. We could not alienate the Saudi's at that time, when they were helping us bankrupt the Soviets.

And we had no shortage of other enemies in the region to focus on...the ones out in the open. And for those, There was no shortage of Reagan's resolve to strike at them.

If Reagan "ran scared"...Tell that to Khaddafy. The man was seriously targetted...and stayed quiet and obsequious until Klinton. Whose gross weakness Encouraged him to do the nuclear proliferation with the Pakistanis.

And, if you could, tell that to the late Yasser Arafat. Reagan hounded him out of the PLA into hiding in "neutral" Morrocco. Only Clinton allowed him to get back on his feet and into the Mideast. And then W protected him when the Israeli's were on the verge of bombing him to smithereens in his HQ.

Let's be clear, W only finally responded when the terrorist hit was beyond evasion. 9-11. I.e., just like Clinton, he also failed to respond to the USS Cole. He and Rice were totally oblivious to Operation Bojinka by Al Queda, although perhaps concealed by the Clinton security establishment, they should have been sounding out for real security warnings...from non-Clintonites.

But Thery weren't. W kept Clintons' FBI and CIA directors. And his Counter-Terrorism guru.

It was ONLY After 9-11 they took some actions. Afghanistan. Iraq. With the mixed results of a tepid challenge on jihadist theology (the "religion of peace") , which was allowed to grow and fester all during these campaigns...not just in Saudia Arabia, but Pakistan and Iran...and even Lebanon. And W has been coercing Israel to abandon the West Bank and give up Jerusalem for all practical purposes. His "two state solution" is laughable, and Khaddafy (in the same speech where he said they were backing Obamal...and with more than words, but $) has called it so.

W is no hawk. He only used a military bequeathed him by Ronald Reagan's defense build-up and R&D. W himself has been horribly lame on any of that. He is a Methodist Liberal. He shows it all the time. He believes more in our unilateral disarmament than Peace Through Strength.

W's war spending has not been rebuilding our armamaents to keep pace, as he depletes them.

W has continued Clinton's dismantlement of the U.S. Navy. Once 600 ships. 348 ships when he took office. Today the U.S. fleet numbers: 283 ships. He retired without any replacement the F-14s. Planes needed for air superiority, against bombers and for cruise missile fleet defense. The F-18 is totally inadequate for these roles. He as well as Clinton, refused to deploy a navalized F-22. He stopped deployment for the USAF of only 185 F-22s. The USAF own Strategic Plans indicated a need for over 580.

Meanwhile China continues to rob us blind of defense tech right under W's nose. From Magnequench to Stealth, and 3Com and its firewalls, etc.