Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren't even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan
Well, chalk up another victory for the Obama administration. Obama through threat of Veto was able to scratch the purchase of seven new F-22 planes that would have cost the taxpayers approximately 1.75 billion. The f-22 is considered our most advanced fighter, but it has never been used in an actual war. Many, like Obama consider this an outdated weapon. The thought is by cutting these unused planes we can pour more money into fighting insurgencies.
Strangely, People like John Kerry, Christopher Dodd, and Joe Lieberman were all for purchasing more planes, while Obama’s arch-nemesis McCain actually supported Obama in this regard.
The only argument I have found against getting rid of the F-22 is that it will put more people out of work. This attitude is crazy! We should buy and build planes that will probably go unused and that the Pentagon says they don’t need just to keep jobs?
But just in case you really believe that the government should buy outdated planes just to keep people working, let me point out one thing; Lockheed, the main builder of the F-22 is not going to starve. Even while scraping 7 planes, the Pentagon plans on purchasing 2,400 F-35 warplanes.
Then again, somehow I feel that the wool is being pulled over my eyes. We are cutting out 7 planes and purchasing 2,400 more costly ones? Obama states he is getting rid “inexcusable waste” and yet we are buying 2,400 more planes???
It’s a wobbler, but I guess I’ll give it to him. Thanks for not purchasing needless planes.
Better body armor is now being provided to our troops
In 2003-2004 there was an outcry from our military community against Bush and everyone else who sent our troops off to war without the proper gear. Mom’s had to go out and purchase Body armor for their sons / daughters at a whopping $600-700 a pop. It is probable that hundreds, maybe thousands of our brave might still be alive if they were supplied with proper body armor. Oh, and how the finger pointing went around. But for the death of so many soldiers, I give you President Bush, John Kerry, and everyone else in Senate and Congress who voted against the money to purchase the needed body armor, the high flying middle finger. This of course, included the scrawny, big-eared senator from Illinois. Obama was one of the 14 members who voted against the bill attempting to fund the Iraq war (part of the money went towards body armor).
But were not putting Obama the senator under the microscope, but Obama the president. As far as him being President, well most of the complaints have gone away and it looks like our troops are now issued body armor. Obama proposed a 534 billion dollar budget, a 4% hike of Bush’s budget. Thus having 21 billion more dollars to spend on things like body armor.
Of course, on a personal basis while I am happy that the President is making sure our troops are being taken care of , I am still astounded that he throws money around we don’t have. But I whole-heartedly admit that’s my personal catch-22 for the President.
The missile defense program is being cut by $1.4 billion in 2010
After the last point, let’s just be honest with ourselves this is less about saving money and more about catering to Russia.
CNN reports,” Poles and Czechs worry that his decision signals a softening U.S. commitment to their security. Both countries saw the system as a way to tie themselves more closely to the United States and thereby deter an increasingly belligerent Russia," he said.
"Critics will also insist that the Poles and Czechs are right: He axed the Bush program in a foolish and doomed bid to 'reset' relations with Russia," he said. "Here Moscow isn't likely to be of much help to the White House. The Kremlin will claim a diplomatic victory and it won't offer any concessions in return."
Reaction from Poland and the Czech Republic was cautious, with leaders saying they were assured that the United States remained committed to a strong relationship and their security.”
Well, I suppose that’s only one side of the story. The critic’s side. The positive spin on this is that President Obama is overhauling the system based on information about Iran’s growing capability to build short and medium range missiles that could target Europe and Israel, rather than focusing on long range missiles that have not materialized and we have yet to come up with the technology to defend.
President Obama has shifted the focus of the program and yet resisted the pressure from Liberals within his own party. NY times quotes him saying, “President Bush was right that Iran’s ballistic missile program poses a significant threat,” Mr. Obama said. But he said the new assessment of the Iranian threat required a different system using existing technology. “This new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems and offer greater defenses against the threat of missile attack than the 2007 European missile defense program,” he said.”
This leads me to ponder the question, “Why did the author of the 90 emphasize his cutting back the program by 1.4 billion, but did not emphasize the seemingly right call by President Obama to restructure the program? Do Liberals see Obama’s not shutting down the program as a failure and all they could do was squeak out this measly little point? Why not divulge the full story as a Victory for Obama?
Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts
Yeah… maybe not so much.
It’s all over the internet (mainly Critical conservatives who love smearing Obama) that the President awarded a no-bid contract to one of his democratic donors. A deal worth 25 million, read the story here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/25/obama-administration-steers-lucrative-bid-contract-afghan-work-dem-donor/
Politifact.com has an article update from Jan 10th 2010 title “No Sign of Action” that covers, I think pretty fairly why the President might have over reached on this issue.
Military Action
Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq
This really isn’t a change in direction. The NY Times writes,
The plan will withdraw most of the 142,000 troops now in Iraq by the summer of next year, leaving 35,000 to 50,000 to train and advise Iraqi security forces, hunt terrorist cells and protect American civilian and military personnel. Those “transitional forces” will leave by 2011 in accordance with a strategic agreement negotiated by President George W. Bush before he left office.
“Let me say this as plainly as I can,” Mr. Obama said. “By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.”
He added: “I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned.”
I’m just curious how Obama can take credit for sticking to the Bush plan. I mean I think we could say his accomplishment is better or worse if he left earlier or remained, but to continue on the very same course as Bush 43…well, doesn’t that mean liberals should chalk one up for Baby Bush?
Honestly, I will be very surprised if we don’t keep a base in Iraq. America loves to put military bases around the world. I just don’t see us completely pulling out.
Successful release of US captain held by Somali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job
Not much to say on this one I suppose… good job. I guess I’m just curious as to why this made the list. It seems like the author is grasping at items to place on the list, but that’s just a personal opinion.
US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast
Hmmm… it seems they are not having a lot of success in trying to stop the piracy. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/world/africa/30piracy.html
I’m not sure if we should applaud Obama for trying to do something about the problem or we should place some of the blame on him for the failure.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment