Skip to comments.Rumsfeld: Attack Imminent If Congress Cuts Defense
Posted on 09/10/2011 12:00:30 PM PDT by Clairity
click here to read article
I know that's you are saying and I agree with you...but we don't live in a utopian world. Let me ask you a single question: would you spurn ANY cuts unless you get your across-the-board ideal even if that meant that the status quo would continue? With a Democratic Senate, there will not be a third choice.
It's an even bigger "facade argument" to stoke fear by claiming that an attack is imminent if Congress cuts defense.
We have some out there who are rapidly gaining in military strength and capabilities (technology, i.e. China).
Well maybe if we made deep across-the-board cuts in most domestic programs and some sensible cuts in Defense we wouldn't be funding China's military build-up by borrowing so much from them.
Maybe he would like to offer his solutions on where to get the money, since the country is, you know, BROKE.
When there is no money, there is NO MONEY.
Wake up Rumsfeld... our weakness is Obama’s objective, and a new attack upon this nation his ultimate wet dream.
In the absence of such an attack, any disaster or catastrophe would do, as we saw with Irene.
It’s a miracle that our enemies thus far have been unable to repeat an attack such as 9/11... because we certainly seem to be promoting a pre-9/11 mentality.
In it’s intended form, I’m not actually against it. In this extended year after year format, I’m not a big fan of the Dole, and I’m not signing on to this at all.
His request to extend coverage for another year, is bogus. It should be DOA in Congress.
Knowing our crew, I doubt it will be.
You’re going by a fairly decent rule of thumb, but when it comes to cutting our military, they do serious damage every time they do it. Then it costs us double when we have to rebuild.
There are literally thousands of programs they could cut, that would seriously set back Leftist causes in our nation.
I think you’re kidding yourself if you think they’re going to go after them with anything close to the same vigor they will our military.
We have a one theater level preparedness at this time. We should have two. Are we now going to a zero theater level of preparedness? That’s a question worth pondering, because I don’t see any way around it if cutting takes place.
What happens then? Well, then we fight on our own shores.
Not one single cut from ANY defense program or benefit, not even a smidgen, nothing, until the bastards cut funding for NPR, NEA and get ALL the money back, every cent, from Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, GM, Solyndra, etc.
Then we can begin to look at wasteful defense spending.
2001 was predictable: WTC 1993, Kohbar towers, US African embassy attacks, USS Cole... But back then we chose to collectively ignore and minimize the threat because we want to live in a world of a "Peace Dividend" and where “all is fine.”
If we choose to shrink, as our surprise in 1812, our surprise in 1918, our surprise in 1941, our surprise in 1962, our surprise in 2001... the enemy will come knocking on our door soon enough, but that apparently is absurd in your mind and we have absolutely no historical perspective or rational argument for believing such. lol
Our defense spending is well below even what it was during the Cold War outside of war time. We today spend about 4% GDP on defense and while some will want to dazzle you with big numbers, this is actually a sustainable amount. The entire fraud waste and abuse argument is nothing more than an interlude to justifying cuts.
Defense, federal law enforcement and intelligence are a core function of the federal government. It is those area's that justify their purpose and are spelled out as their domain Constitutionally. It is not the federal governments job to buy votes by bringing home bacon or special programs for minorities, people with HIV/AIDS, run a department of education... When the federal government feels their actual purpose is something they should avoid (i.e. protect our Southern border) but feels compelled to discuss extending unemployment past 99 weeks, things are a bit backwards. Defense in all aspects makes up roughly 22% of the federal budget and that's their “purpose.” Want fraud waste and abuse? What does the other 78% go too? I know, the all important infrastructure Obama talks about.
Hint- Defense spending goes nearly 90% back into the US economy (without looking at the multiply effect), from aircraft, trucks, missiles to rifles or even the bullets they fire... They are mandated to prefer US made products and security as well as other requirements pretty much make US made goods the choice from computers to boots. Reagan pushed defense, Obama will push infrastructure, social programs whatever... maybe 50% of that money you give people will flow out of this country because they buy "made in China" products- since you mention this argument.
Well said, Red6. Well said.
Or put another way: “Nothing is so inviting to aggression as weakness.”
"...Well maybe if we made deep across-the-board cuts in most domestic programs and some sensible cuts in Defense we wouldn't be funding China's military build-up by borrowing so much from them.
But that is a sentiment I can agree with.
I’m on your side 100%. This Captain Kirk fellow sounds like he’s spaced out.
No, I do not. Defense is vitally important and it is constitutionally mandated. I would cut other programs before Defense.
However, all large programs have waste. I know enough about DoD to say that they could cut a fair amount without weakening our defense. I would be willing to support cuts of that nature in return for large cuts in other areas (Education, Energy, etc. etc. etc.).
As a simple political matter, I don't think anyone can expect success if they say "Let's cut your stuff, and leave my stuff alone". That's why I say that Defense cuts are unavoidable -- but I insist that the Left recognize that their stuff -- even their favorite stuff -- must be seen as ripe for chopping.
As another poster said, his idea of national security is not what yours or mine might be.
That said, sure. We can find ways to spend our military budget better. We have to. But I will be DAMNED if I support it in the absence of MIND BOGGLING WASTE AND CORRUPTION IN OTHER PARTS OF THIS GOVERNMENT.
At least if my tax dollars are being wasted on defense, I have a better chance of getting something out of that than I do if $600,000,000 is handed to corrupt liberal weenies like Solyndra, and far more to Fannie Mae and the like.
they didn’t listen to him when he was secstate. Why would they listen now
they didn’t listen to him when he was secdef. Why would they listen now
The world wide serfdom the progressives desire so strongly can only be attained if this nation and its Constitution no longer exist.
Having him serve as SECEF for 911 and thereafter was a blessing for this nation. I hope history is objective in its interpretation of events.
For him, this was his last hura. There were no political ambitions post SECDEF and that was known. He did what he knew was right regardless of political interests and peoples feelings. Highly competent, he was demanding of people and this too was known albeit resented by some that found themselves getting grilled. His goal was to reform the government bureaucracy and push the transformation of the DoD (talked about for years but never done) ahead. Along this path he ended up stepping on the turf of some when he personally got involved in killing the Crusader and Comanche programs, decisions that in hindsight make complete sense. He pushed for the Brigade Unit of Action and large-scale restructuring of the Army which had become top heavy. To this end he brought in a retired general to become the Chief of Staff (Shoomaker) bumping those in the cue waiting. He made many decisions that were frowned upon by various politicians or senior military leaders (Some like Shinseki with political ambitions and also falling into the administrations back), but it cannot be said that he lacked vision, that those visions were in-congruent with the needs of where the DoD needs to head, or that he lacked resolve and organizational competence to push things through. He was a mover and shaker and if you were hoping for an easy ride, life would be hell under him.
(About Shinseki) Heralded by the liberals he simply offered unrealistic solutions of 300,000 troops in Iraq (where were they to come from?) in Congressional testimony intended to make the administration look bad. These troop levels are only maintainable for a short time of about one year, after which trying to maintain these levels is impossible if troops aren't to stay deployed on a continual basis for over 18 months with a one year reconstitution time. His letter of resignation is a class act, juvenile one expects better from a Lieutenant that gets canned and asks for a release from active duty (If you can find his resignation letter it's worth reading). Of course after Obama gets elected in 2008 he finds himself immediately heading the Department of Veterans Affairs. This of course isn't news worthy material. So goes the politics of those in the most senior ranks and it must be noted that Shinseki’s actions in hindsight unlike those of Rumsfeld were obviously self serving, shortsighted and did not consider what the best course of action for this nation.
Given Democratic control of the Senate, your ideal is a non-starter. Whether you like it it or not, you will be presented with two choices. (1) higher taxes (which will of course also mean higher deficits in the long-term) or (2) the automatic triggers which will mean deeper Pentagon cuts than the first choice. Which will you choose when the time comes?
Rums is right.