Skip to comments.Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs
Posted on 02/29/2008 8:05:43 PM PST by prophetic
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 video is incomplete, and its origin is unknown, although some have speculated it may have come from someone within the Hillary Clinton campaign.
The full text from the video, as released, reads as follows:
...I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end 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.
George McGovern would be proud. It’s so scary knowing this guy is so close to the presidency. What the hell is the Democratic Party thinking?
You don’t understand. He’s a rock star!
What a pathetic limousine liberal.
|1996||William J. Clinton
Robert J. Dole
H. Ross Perot
|Albert A. Gore, Jr.D
Jack F. KempR
|2000||George W. Bush
Albert A. Gore
|Richard B. CheneyR
Joseph I. LiebermanD
|2004||George W. Bush
John F. Kerry
|Richard B. CheneyR
If the "all the people who are anti-McCain are going to still write-in their candidate knowing we will lose" ... wonder if they have thought that (using the 2004 vote count as a hypothetical) what the outcome could be and its implications:
if 62M people vote for Obama in 2008 and 59M for McCain - would those loyal lib/dems change their vote from Obama in 2012 ... or will he start with 62M loyal followers in that election. What about his VP? If the VP is popular (with the same platform and stance on the issues) and Obama is still poular after 8 years (like Bubba was until what looks like now) would his VP win over any challenger?
I know mighty bif 'ifs', still Obama seems to be a Svengali with the voters.
If the GOP loses, the Conservatives lose. Conservatives not being a majority in their own right (sufficent numbers) they must always build a coalition and a consensus with other voters to reach a majority position. Not voting for the GOP/McCain may be a death keel to both the GOP and any Conservative Party in the future. Unless conservatives know that the GOP will do what ever they say in 2012 because they left in 2008. I think not.
We see the last 3rd Party was in 2000 with Raplh Nader with 8M votes and in 1996 with Ross Perot with 8M votes. Insufficient numbers to win a national election for President. 3rd Parties are not majority parties and several have been around for years and years and still not attained that status ... to overtake the GOP or the Dem Party.
What happens if the Dems do get the Electoral College abolish through what ever means. Another problem the Dems present in order to get their way. Several States now have such legislation before them. If the Dem carried CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI and NC - they win in popular votes and therefore get all the Electoral votes ... game over. Will there be someone as popular as a Ronald Reagan to step up soon? Or will the Dems be popular for ending the war, amnesty and entitlements?
It would be interesting to see the actual number of registered voters by State, the offical numbers from the Secretary of State or whatever office maintains those records on a State-by-State basis.
Personally, I believe it's best to build the Party, rebuild the GOP, from within from the lowest level. Local and State and both Houses of Congress. Also, it's is better to have a Republican in office during a time of war.
George McGovern was a decorated veteran; he just didn’t want to pull the trigger in Vietnam.
Obama wants the military gutted because he doesn’t want it used full stop.
I mean, it has been just one week after the Navy nailed that out-of-control satellite with a system designed for missile defense...and this moron wants to gut missile defense.
We are winning in Iraq...and this moron wants to cut and run. But hey, so does Dingy Harry!!!
I must decline to comment more about space systems for security reasons.
Obama is a bright, articulate, charismatic liberal nitwit.
What a putz.
Stupid, stupid, stupid... yet he’s incredibly popular.
And people wonder why I’m a monarchist. The whole “consent of the governed” thing is going to get us all killed (or enslaved) one day.
Thanks for that table.
Russians, Chinese, Koreans, Iranians all respect strength, how mush respect, “face” would we lose by hobbling ourselves ?
The Iron Curtain didn’t come down because the West unilaterally disarmed, did it ? Well, we didn’t tho’ much of EU did.
Just like the ponytailed punk protester at UC Berkeley in the 60’s yelling “Bring it all down, maaaaaaaaaaaan! Bring it all down!”
This will be this evil man’s downfall, because people want to be safe, even stupid voters.
That’s what I was thinking. We seem to have morphed back into the 60s for some reason. There is no draft to protest now,but some of them are too dumb to know that. I’m not kidding.
That's the way we should all be looking at all this nonsense IMO!!!
Well yes, the draft was just an example to show how detached from reality they are.
"Let me assure you, Senator Obama is completely competent regarding all matters of national security."
If one is against it, then end it. Why slow it? If you wish for a program to one day become successful, why not pour more funding to see a fruition?