Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrats use hate crimes measure to counter F-22 veto threat [McCain interrupted]
McClatchy ^ | 2009-07-15 | Halimah Abdullah

Posted on 07/15/2009 2:56:30 PM PDT by rabscuttle385

WASHINGTON -- A day after Arizona Sen. John McCain forged an unusual bipartisan alliance with the White House on cutting $1.75 billion in increased spending for the F-22 jet fighter, congressional Democratic leaders pressured lawmakers to drop the matter to clear the way for a hate crimes provision in the defense spending measure.

The move, backed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., sparked heated debate on the Senate floor as McCain unsuccessfully sought to remove the hate crimes amendment, known as the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, from the broader defense spending measure on the grounds that the two matters are unrelated.

. . . . .

"I've watched the defense authorization bill move its way through Congress and occasionally, including at other times, I've seen amendments put on the bills which are non-germane," McCain said on the Senate floor. "But I haven't seen the majority leader of the Senate, whose responsibility is to move legislation through the Senate, take a totally non-relevant, all-encompassing controversial piece of legislation and put it on a bill that is as important to the nation's security as this legislation is.

"We're breaking new ground here," McCain said. " ... I'm deeply, deeply disappointed, and I would question anyone's priorities, anyone's priorities, who puts this kind of legislation ahead of the needs of the men and women who are serving our military with bravery, courage and distinction."

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections; US: Arizona; US: Nevada
KEYWORDS: 111th; bho2009; bho44; dirtyharryreid; f22; hatecrimes; homosexualagenda; matthewshepard; mccain; politicalcorrectness; rino

1 posted on 07/15/2009 2:56:31 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

” ... I’m deeply, deeply disappointed, and I would question anyone’s priorities, anyone’s priorities, who puts this kind of legislation ahead of the needs of the men and women who are serving our military with bravery, courage and distinction.”

Me too too.

2 posted on 07/15/2009 3:00:02 PM PDT by villagerjoel (1. Implement socialist policies 2. ??? 3. Heaven on earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

It’s only a matter of the 60 votes now. How ironic that the libs want to put so-called hate crimes leg in the def auth bill, when last month their witness testified that it would not cover military members who are crime victims because of their affiliation in the military. Sad.

3 posted on 07/15/2009 3:01:44 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The filthy Dims do not care about the military. They think that national defense is something that grows on trees, that 9/11 never really happened, and that this country somehow is free from attack of any kind. Votes are clearly more important than national defense. Any vote from anywhere and anyone.

They are idiots and fools.

4 posted on 07/15/2009 3:01:59 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The Republicans are back in the position they’re comfortable with: the Democrats’ bee eye itches. Heck, even when they have power, they still insist on being the Democrats’ bee eye itches.

5 posted on 07/15/2009 3:17:11 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (The University of Notre Dame's motto: "Kill our unborn children? YES WE CAN!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Shut up, McCain.

6 posted on 07/15/2009 3:35:01 PM PDT by Jrabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
We won't know if the F-22 is a great plane until it's well into its life cycle.

When I was at the NCO academy I did a speech on the B-2 bomber, and I was a big-time advocate of the plane.

In hindsight, I'm glad they only built 20 or so of them. One reason is that one B-2 can do a tremendous amount of damage. Another reason is that supposedly it is a maintenance headache keeping the skin stealthy. As a former maintenance puke, I don't like maintenance headaches. With modern technology, we should (in my mind, anyway) be able to produce something like that that isn't a maintenance headache. Not to mention, since it's so damned expensive, losing even one is a disaster.

We ought to be able to produce more bang for the buck, but maybe you engineers out there will tell me it's not quite that simple.

7 posted on 07/15/2009 3:43:25 PM PDT by FlyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
Whatever I think about the F-22 cut (I'm rather ambivalent about it, personally), I have to agree with McCain here. These are the sorts of games Congressmen have been playing with their pet defense projects for decades, and they've been a serious drain on the efficiency of our armed forces.

What's even more bizarre is the fact that the rider they're adding in order to prevent the President from vetoing the bill is an absurd piece of "hate-crimes" legislation which flies in the face of the traditions of Anglo-American criminal law. Of course, such are the times we live in.
8 posted on 07/15/2009 3:58:46 PM PDT by The Pack Knight (Duty, Honor, Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlyVet

The B-2 was a hell of a piece of technology, and it certainly did its job in development by scaring the bejesus out of the Soviets. That said, I’d say it was already on its way to being obsolete before it flew its first combat mission. It’s quickly getting to the point where there’s not much a B-2 can do that advanced cruise missiles can’t do much less expensively.

The F-22 is a different story, I’d say, since I don’t know of anything on the horizon that will adequately replace manned aircraft in the air superiority role. That said, no one’s even close to what we already have in the air, and there’s a strong case to be made that the F-22 money would be better spent on training and equipment for that part of the armed forces we use the most - the poor bloody infantry.

It’s a tough call. We don’t want to fall behind in air superiority technology, but at the same time, there might be some higher priorities we need to address.

9 posted on 07/15/2009 4:29:02 PM PDT by The Pack Knight (Duty, Honor, Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Hey Johnny boy. Are you beginning to catch on to the agenda? Think you might grow a pair and pull off the gloves and expose the crimes against the nation that are going on.

If one of you seinor statesmen get the guts to stand up the press migh accidentially pay attention to you and the people out here might wake up. You are up against unprincipled criminals. You don’t carry a knife to a gunfight. What you’re in is at lest a gunfight and a whole lot worse.

10 posted on 07/15/2009 5:59:05 PM PDT by Sequoyah101 (Half of the population is below average)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA
They are idiots and fools.

I think you're being too kind to them.

Look, Lockheed did not pay enough to the "Friends of Angelo". They must be made an example of for that. Any bill including F-22 procurement is stillborn.

Any gay-friendly measure that is actually taken rather than promised, is going to alienate much of Obama's base - the evengelical black churches, whose members rarely vote, but when they do, they do as a block. He can't afford to do anything concrete, just make promises that won't be kept.And what better way to get rid of a problem like that, measures that many Dems oppose because they hate gays too (they just can't say that openly), than to attach all these "controversial" measures to a bill that they know is not going to be signed? That way they can say how wonderful and gay-friendly they are without actually doing anything.

Just look at what Obama has actually done - he has signed a memorandum (NOT a binding executive order), directing that various government instrumentalities investigate what benefits they can legally offer to unmarried couples, be they straight or gay. Basically, they can help with some movement expenses, though of course that benefit would be taxed, unlike for married couples.

That's it. But by making a great hoo-haw about it, one that many here at FR have fallen for, he appears to be doing a lot, while actually doing almost nothing.

The Dems are slimy, corrupt, and see National Security as just another source of pork. But they're not stupid when it comes to politics, they want to keep those donations coming in - from both gays, and those who are anti-gay.

This is all just a trick to make sure that they don't alienate the black evangelicals, and yet keep the gays happy too. As for the bill? Regardless of whether the F-22 is needed or not, that has no bearing on the decision. Lockeed haven't paid up, so they must be frozen out. That's the Chicago way.

11 posted on 07/15/2009 9:32:25 PM PDT by Zoe Brain (Rocket Scientist, Naval Combat System Architect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385


12 posted on 07/15/2009 9:35:56 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight

The F-22 has nobody to fight. Judging the current geopolitical situation, it is very unlikely that the US will face a peer in a war over the next 20 years. By then we will have moved on to the 6th generation fighter and the F22 will be retired!

Unfortunately I think the F22 will end up a lot like the F117 and the B2 - they will advance the technology but won’t have much actual use. Pushing the state of the art is always a good thing, but there’s no reason to purchase a bunch of additional copies we don’t need.

13 posted on 07/17/2009 1:44:17 AM PDT by too_cool_for_skool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The following programs were terminated/delayed:

F-22 production – terminated

Follow-on Bomber – terminated (”until we have a better understanding of the need, requirement, and the technology”)

C-17 production – terminated

Combat Search and Rescue Helicopter –X – terminated

Transformational Satellite (TSAT) – terminated – and instead purchase of two more AEHF satellites

Missile Defense – radically cut
No increase of ground-based interceptors
Airborne Laser (ABL) terminated
Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) – terminated
Missile Defense Agency budget reduced by $1.4B/year
One cut – which has but one line in the release – retires 250 aircraft. This means:

We will have a defacto Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) – since 250 aircraft is the equivalent of 3.5 wings (and over 5 CVBGs) of fighter aircraft

F-15s, F-16s, and A-10s will all leave the force … with no replacements …
Let me make a few observations about this budget.

This budget guarantees that the oldest Air Force in the history of our nation will get even older. MORE Note from AFA President – Budget
Tuesday, April 7, 2009

“With the aging Air Force fleet now on average a quarter-century old, the oldest it has ever been, and some key aircraft twice that age and dating back to the Eisenhower administration, AFA strongly believes the U.S. must recapitalize older air and space systems.”

“The F-22 is much too important to allow this line to close prematurely,” said Mike Dunn, President/CEO of AFA. “We need more of these important aircraft. Production is now at its most affordable point” GEN (RET) Barry McCaffrey has stated: “The F-22 is the most important acquisition program in the Department of Defense. We should buy 750 of them.”

“We know others are producing highly capable systems to challenge our current F-15s and the F-22. And they will not stop at 187. As recently as last year, reducing the F-22 buy from 381 to around 250 was described as a ‘medium risk’ maneuver. What does capping it at 187 mean?”
“The F-35 will be a wonderful addition and complement, but it is not optimized for air superiority nor does it have the stealthy characteristics of the F-22.”

14 posted on 07/17/2009 2:08:46 AM PDT by anglian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anglian

C-17 production terminated?

Are they out of their cotton-picking minds?

Look, one can argue about air superiority aircraft, manned vs unmanned, but no matter what’s at the sharp end, it needs a logistical tail.

Even for peacetime disaster relief, nothing beats a C-17 in getting ROWPUs (Reverse Osmosis Water Purifying Units) and bulldozers in to poor airfields.

It’s not as if there are any alternative cargo planes being produced either. This is lunacy.

15 posted on 07/18/2009 7:18:30 AM PDT by Zoe Brain (Rocket Scientist, Naval Combat System Architect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson