Posted on 06/09/2011 4:37:11 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner
As Governor I fought the Obama Administration’s plans to cut funds for missile defense in Alaska. So imagine how appalled and surprised I was to read this article by former Clinton CIA Director James Woolsey, appropriately titled “Giving Away the Farm,” concerning President Obama’s latest bizarre actions relating to missile defense.
President Obama wants to give Russia our missile defense secrets because he believes that we can buy their friendship and cooperation with this taxpayer-funded gift. But giving military secrets and technologies to a rival or competitor like Russia is just plain dumb. You can’t buy off Russia. And giving them advanced military technology will not create stability. What happens if Russia gives this technology (or sells it!) to other countries like Iran or China? After all, as Woolsey points out, Russia helped Iran with its missile and nuclear programs. Or what happens if an even more hardline leader comes to power in the Kremlin?
We tried buying off the Kremlin with technologies in the 1970s. That policy was a component of “detente,” and the hope was that if we would share our technologies with them, they would become more peaceful. Things, of course, didn’t work out that way. The Kremlin took western technologies and embarked on a massive military building program. History teaches that peace comes from American military strength. And a central component of that has always been technological superiority. Why would President Obama even dream of giving this away?
Members of Congress saw how foolish President Obama’s gambit was, so they put a section in the defense appropriation bill that specifically forbids the federal government from spending money to share these technologies with the Kremlin. President Obama actually threatened to veto the defense appropriation bill over this section of the law! Fortunately, the House passed the bill with a veto-proof majority, a whopping 322 to 96. Attention now turns to the Senate.
Why is it that President Obama seems to work so hard to give things to our enemies, while at the same time asking friends and allies like Israel to make sacrifices?
During these tough economic times when we are facing massive deficits and a competitive global economy, does President Obama really want to give away technologies that the American taxpayer paid lots of money to develop? Giving away our missile defense secrets won’t make us safer. What it will do is create a situation where we are facing an arms race with ourselves. Russia gets access to our technologies, and we are forced to spend even more money because of the need to stay ahead. Does this make sense to you? Me neither. File this under “WTF”.
- Sarah Palin
Now who is it that’s dumb again?
I think she has answered her own question here. It's pretty obvious who he considers “friends” and who he considers “allies”.
When Klinton enabled China access to our missile technology (remember Loral???), it was linked to selling seats for trade junkets for campaign contributions. Is there a similar linkage to money here, or is the Soetoro Regime just giving away the farm based on ill-conceived principles based on his wacky world-view?
” It’s pretty obvious who he considers “friends” and who he considers “allies”.”
Ooops! That should be “considers ‘enemies’ and who he considers ‘allies’.”
Why is it that there is anyone left in this country who thinks obama didn’t run for president to do EXACTLY this? It is beyond obvious now.
“WTF”
Classy. She’s now back in the mix with the people I’ll probably never vote for.
No more treasonous than clinton allowing china to receive our satellite technology. And we all saw the harsh penalty HE suffered. /s
I remember that at the time this was really starting to hit the news, the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke out. I believed that Clinton made a calculated gamble there--better to have everyone talking about his marital infidelity than the fact that he was giving a potential enemy a means with which to harm us.
Please! “WTF” means “winning the future” - Obama’s new slogan he unveiled a few months ago, Sarah just took it and made it a mockery of it. Get a life!
It is so obvious that anyone who might use WTF (Win The Future)is unqualified to be President. Now, that said, it is also obvious that squishy RINOs, LIBs, DIMs, and other asshats are qualified.
If that is your take, you weren’t gonna vote for her anyway. WTF was oblamma’s winning the future. Get your mind out of the gutter.
Why? It’s a reference to Obama’s “win the future” speech, after which she commented to the effect that “at least the acronym is correct.”
Obama has a campaign motto: “Win The Future”
It is not unclassy, perhaps, to mock the poor choice of that when reduced to an acronym.
exactly.
So - workers with security clearance would automatically be fired and prosecuted while their “boss” can just give it all away and make their work obsolete.
But hey - what REALLY matters is what Bill Maher has to say on the matter. At least - that’s the impression you get while viewing various facebook posts.
trea·son: Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. 2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.
Given that Russia is no longer officially "the enemy", I don't beleive this act by the stain could be considered treason....tho my heart and head tells me it is.
48.5% of the entire US populace still shows "total approval" of the stain and his regime. If this rating drops - AND REMAINS - below 37%, then it just might be possible to eradicate the stain prior to 2012.
The downside is this: if the stain's "total approval" rating does not drop and remain below 37%, the stain and his entire regime will remain in power until 2016.
One can only shudder at the damage that will be caused by the stain and his loyalists over that timespan.
If I recall there was some mild rumbling about him giving away British nuclear defense secrets in the START treaty; I suppose this will engender the same amount of pushback.
Uuuuhhh, how about: “He hates the United States of America?”
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.