PDA

View Full Version : Inhofe to fight the gutting of our military...



OklahomaTuba
4/8/2009, 01:26 PM
Thank GOD we have one person left in our Government that will stand up against the libs trying to gut our military.....


President Obama’s budget, the largest in the history of America, triples the public debt in 10 years, funding every welfare program imaginable, but cuts funding for our troops in the field during an ongoing war.

Here in Afghanistan, while the war is intensifying and the number of US forces increases at the direction of President Obama, he undercuts those he sends into harm’s way. It is not just unbelievable…it is unconscionable.

Only Congress can stop him from these draconian defense cuts. His budget is expanding the welfare state, gutting the defense modernization, and jeopardizing our national security - all while our troops are here fighting for us.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/04/inhofe_2012.asp

StoopTroup
4/8/2009, 01:32 PM
If we're at War...

Then our football team is still playing Florida in Miami.

soonerscuba
4/8/2009, 01:33 PM
Heh, Robert Gates is a dirty lib.

OklahomaTuba
4/8/2009, 01:35 PM
If we're at War...

Then our football team is still playing Florida in Miami.

Afghanistan ring a bell??? Guess not.

tommieharris91
4/8/2009, 01:49 PM
Another great place to "porkulate" is in military & defense. If we the people are gonna spend like crazy to keep people employed, why not this sector?

OklahomaTuba
4/8/2009, 03:10 PM
Since TOTUS is overseas apologizing for us all, he needs to show he means it I guess, and what better way to appease our enemies than to strip away our national defense.

Besides, we all know ACORN needed the cash.

OklahomaTuba
4/8/2009, 03:12 PM
now I see, we needed money to seed the clouds.

To fight global warming.

This just gets better and better every damn day..

NYC Poke
4/8/2009, 03:17 PM
The defense budget is increasing by 4% this year.

ieta: More precisely, Obama has proposed a 4% increase.

Scott D
4/8/2009, 03:22 PM
I don't think inhofe has time to do that, considering he's standing towards the front of the handout portion of the "porkulus" line.

soonerscuba
4/8/2009, 03:23 PM
Excessive displays of Christianity, complaints about military spending, global warming, teleprompters, ACORN, appeasement, and "apology tour". Tuba has become a cliche of himself.

JohnnyMack
4/8/2009, 03:25 PM
Excessive displays of Christianity, complaints about military spending, global warming, teleprompters, ACORN, appeasement, and "apology tour". Tuba has become a cliche of himself.

Jesus wants you to bomb the **** out of that brown dude.

KC//CRIMSON
4/8/2009, 03:41 PM
UK6s0XtiQfs

From The Washington Monthly:
April 7, 2009

INHOFE'S PAINFUL INANITY.... It's hardly surprising that members of Congress would be reluctant to accept Defense Secretary Robert Gates' efforts to restructure military spending. Gates' proposal is a rather dramatic effort at reform, and for lawmakers who've grown attached to Pentagon-related pork, the administration's proposal shakes up the status quo.

But while some resistance was inevitable, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a constant embarrassment to himself and the Senate, is once again breaking new grounds of indecency. Tuba loves you! Praise Jesus!

In a YouTube video that is getting linked around the conservative blogosphere, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) attacked Defense Secretary Robert Gates' 2010 defense budget recommendations, though he aimed his criticism at President Obama instead of Gates. Speaking from Afghanistan, Inhofe declared that "President Obama is disarming America. Never before has a president so ravaged the military at a time of war."

Specifically, Inhofe charges Obama with cutting funding for "our troops in the field during an ongoing war."

In the video, Inhofe adds, "Here in Afghanistan, while the war is intensifying and the number of U.S. forces increases at the direction of President Obama, he undercuts those he sends into harm's way. It is not just unbelievable ... it is unconscionable."

Of course, Inhofe is either lying or he's a fool. (It's so hard to tell.) Following the recommendations of its Republican defense secretary, the Obama administration is increasing military spending from $513 billion under Bush to $534 billion in 2010. Inhofe, who's never been accused of being the sharpest crayon in the box, is making a series of ridiculous war-related accusations that don't make any sense at all. "Disarming America"? "Ravaging the military at a time of war"? "Undercutting" the troops? Even by Inhofe standards, this is blisteringly stupid.

The point of Gates' review is to make the defense budget more effective for the 21st century, divesting in projects and weapons systems that aren't needed, and directing those funds to better use. That's not "ravaging" the military; it's improving it. That's not cutting funding for "our troops in the field during an ongoing war"; it's actually more money for "troops and new technology to fight the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan."

If Inhofe wants to defend unnecessary spending projects, fine, he can make his case. But this kind of rhetoric is absurd. He either believes this nonsense, in which case he should learn what he's talking about and apologize, or he's deliberately deceiving people, in which case he should set the record straight and apologize.

JohnnyMack
4/8/2009, 04:10 PM
Inhofe is such a dolt. Unbelievable.

Tuba, I think we'd allow you a mulligan on this thread if you wanna just say, "my bad" we could have it locked and pretend you aren't this stupid.

JohnnyMack
4/8/2009, 04:59 PM
I also read that that son of a commie lovin' bitch Gates is not going to be building those $3,000,000,000 a piece navy destroyers. God knows we need more of those to fight that war in Afghanistan......which......is still land locked.

bri
4/8/2009, 05:21 PM
Tuba, I think we'd allow you a mulligan on this thread if you wanna just say, "my bad" we could have it locked and pretend you aren't this stupid.

Yeah, good luck with that. Lemme know how it turns out. :D

Curly Bill
4/8/2009, 05:26 PM
I also read that that son of a commie lovin' bitch Gates is not going to be building those $3,000,000,000 a piece navy destroyers. God knows we need more of those to fight that war in Afghanistan......which......is still land locked.

Because we all know we'll never be in another war where those destroyers might come in handy. ;)

I guess Brack has promised to end all war.

Vaevictis
4/8/2009, 05:50 PM
Because we all know we'll never be in another war where those destroters might come in handy. ;)

Pfft, the Navy doesn't even want em. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/07/AR2009030702216.html?hpid=topnews)


And last July, when the Navy's top brass decided to end production of their newest class of destroyers -- in response to 15 classified intelligence reports highlighting their vulnerability to a range of foreign missiles -- seven Democratic senators quickly joined four Republicans to demand a reversal. They threatened to cut all funding for surface combat ships in 2009.

Within a month, Gates and the Navy reversed course and endorsed production of a third DDG-1000 destroyer, at a cost of $2.7 billion.

Curly Bill
4/8/2009, 05:57 PM
Pfft, the Navy doesn't even want em. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/07/AR2009030702216.html?hpid=topnews)

Fair enough, but having read that the Navy doesn't say they don't want more ships, they just want to spend that money on a different ship.

Vaevictis
4/8/2009, 05:59 PM
And it's no surprise Inhofe and Boren are objecting to this.

The proposed defense budget -- proposed by Gates, by the way -- cuts budget from the FCS program.

This is an artillery program.

Based on this, would you care to take a guess as to which state -- and which Congressional districts within that state -- contain major military installations which benefit from the FCS?

Yeah. Uh huh. Porkulus indeed.

KC//CRIMSON
4/8/2009, 06:00 PM
Fair enough, but having read that the Navy doesn't say they don't want more ships, they just want to spend that money on a different ship.

Hey, why not blow $3,000,000,000 on a might?

Sounds good!

Curly Bill
4/8/2009, 06:02 PM
There's no doubt that defense spending is big and coveted business. I remember the howling when this or that military base was going to be closed as no longer necessary in someone's congressional district.

Curly Bill
4/8/2009, 06:06 PM
Hey, why not blow $3,000,000,000 on a might?

Sounds good!

It's called being prepared. I have little doubt that you possess any understanding of military matters, and in fact I bet you have disdain for anyone or anything military related, but that being said: history tells us that nations will fight wars. Would you rather be prepared for that war, or would you rather start from scratch when the **** hits the fan?

Never mind, I doubt you understand.

Vaevictis
4/8/2009, 06:07 PM
Basically, FCS is a pet project for Inhofe because Oklahoma does a lot of business in the artillery area, what with Fort Sill and McAlester Ammunitions Depot being in the state.

It impacts Dan Boren because FCS is set to spend/already spending big bucks at McAlester, and McAlester is in his district.

So yeah, of course you're going to hear Okie reps complain about a budget that cuts funding for FCS.

Vaevictis
4/8/2009, 06:12 PM
Would you rather be prepared for that war, or would you rather start from scratch when the **** hits the fan?

Personally, I'd rather have weapons systems so superior that nobody is willing to **** with you.

Apparently, the DDG-1000 is not that (reports indicate that it's vulnerable to weapons our potential enemies already have), so I'll go with the Navy's suggestion to not buy any more.

Curly Bill
4/8/2009, 06:16 PM
Personally, I'd rather have weapons systems so superior that nobody is willing to **** with you.

Apparently, the DG-1000 is not that (reports indicate that it's vulnerable to weapons our potential enemies already have), so I'll go with the Navy's suggestion to not buy any more.

Agreed, and if the Navy thinks something else would be more suitable for their mission, and a better use of our tax $ then this particular ship then I'm with'em. Like I said though -- they don't want to lose that spending, they just want to redirect it to another ship.

KC//CRIMSON
4/8/2009, 06:17 PM
It's called being prepared. I have little doubt that you possess any understanding of military matters, and in fact I bet you have disdain for anyone or anything military related, but that being said: history tells us that nations will fight wars. Would you rather be prepared for that war, or would you rather start from scratch when the **** hits the fan?

Never mind, I doubt you understand.

Sometimes when you're on a sinking ship of an argument it's better just to go down with it, Pro anything Obama related man.

Vaevictis
4/8/2009, 06:17 PM
Like I said though -- they don't want to lose that spending, they just want to redirect it to another ship.

I haven't checked, but are they actually losing any spending? I do know Gates' budget increases overall spending by a few percent (despite some folks' claims to the contrary.)

Curly Bill
4/8/2009, 06:19 PM
Sometimes when you're on a sinking ship of an argument it's better just to go down with it, Pro anything Obama related man.

I get that your "pro Obama." He could put **** on a stick on tell you it was chocolate and you'd eat it up.

Curly Bill
4/8/2009, 06:21 PM
I haven't checked, but are they actually losing any spending? I do know Gate's budget increases overall spending by a few percent (despite some folks' claims to the contrary.)

I don't know if their actual budget is going up or down. I'm just saying they're not saying we don't want this ship, don't build it and give the Army or Air Force the money, they're saying they don't want this particular ship but want to spend the money for it on another type ship...

...or at least that's what I make of it.

KC//CRIMSON
4/8/2009, 06:22 PM
I get that your "pro Obama." He could put **** on a stick on tell you it was chocalate and you'd eat it up.

And it could actually be chocolate and you'd swear up and down it wasn't.

Curly Bill
4/8/2009, 06:25 PM
And it could actually be chocolate and you'd swear up and down it wasn't.

So you're saying Brack poops chocolate? ;)

I know he walks on water, but pooping chocolate, now that's big! :D

LosAngelesSooner
4/8/2009, 06:32 PM
I don't know if their actual budget is going up or down. I'm just saying they're not saying we don't want this ship, don't build it and give the Army or Air Force the money, they're saying they don't want this particular ship but want to spend the money for it on another type ship...

...or at least that's what I make of it.That's not the point.

The point is that if you want to use that money for ANYTHING else, you first have to cancel that PARTICULAR program.

Then the money is freed up. Then you can use it on ANOTHER ship, or a new type of jet, or a 3 billion dollar hammer. Whatevs.

But either way, we'd STILL have Inhofe jumping up and down screaming that "Defense budgets are being cut! Programs are being cut!" Which, while true, is still misleading at best and dishonest at worst.

See the diff?

Oh, and as a side note, my father went to school with Inhofe. And he said that Inhofe was a MORON in school, renowned for cheating and that he screwed over his own brother, cheated off him and stole from him both in school and afterwards in business. He knew the dude personally, before he was anything, and thought he was a ****** back then. Oh, and my Dad was a lifelong Republican, Korean war vet, former member of both the Air Force and the Army and he ALWAYS voted against Inhofe. (just FYI)

Curly Bill
4/8/2009, 06:37 PM
That's not the point.

The point is that if you want to use that money for ANYTHING else, you first have to cancel that PARTICULAR program.

Then the money is freed up. Then you can use it on ANOTHER ship, or a new type of jet, or a 3 billion dollar hammer. Whatevs.

But either way, we'd STILL have Inhofe jumping up and down screaming that "Defense budgets are being cut! Programs are being cut!" Which, while true, is still misleading at best and dishonest at worst.

See the diff?

Oh, and as a side note, my father went to school with Inhofe. And he said that Inhofe was a MORON in school, renowned for cheating and that he screwed over his own brother, cheated off him and stole from him both in school and afterwards in business. He knew the dude personally, before he was anything, and thought he was a ****** back then. Oh, and my Dad was a lifelong Republican, Korean war vet, former member of both the Air Force and the Army and he ALWAYS voted against Inhofe. (just FYI)

...and you're really a Republican...blah...blah...blah...:D

LosAngelesSooner
4/8/2009, 07:18 PM
...and you're really a Republican...blah...blah...blah...:DQuestion me all you want. At this point it's a running joke.

But don't question my father. He earned his respect.

Okla-homey
4/8/2009, 07:32 PM
Look, I spent a lot of time in uniform. Four years of it in the Air Force acquisition corps in AF Materiel Command at WPAFB. I'm telling ya, there's fat that can be cut in Defense as in in any enormous bureacratic entity. I'll only resent the haircut if DoD is the only gubmint department that has to get one.

The thing that bugs me is the administration is purportedly about stimulating the faltering economy. If that's really true, and there is no ulterior motive merely to grow government and increase entitlements by "taking advantage of a convenient crisis,"* then WTF not push the throttles to the firewall on military acquisitions since every dime of that money creates decent paying jobs in the private sector? Hmmm?

Every bite of food, every stitch of military clothing, every military building, every foot of pavement, every light bulb, every roll of TP, every Tylenol, every jet, tank, ship, truck, bullet, bomb, and yep, even GM, Chrysler and Ford cars and trucks are paid for with cash money and purchased from local businesses across the fruited plain who employ real people.

You cancel military programs and cut back on Defense budgets and you cancel jobs on Main Street. Seems like the wrong thing to do while we're ostensibly sposed to be about "putting America back to work."

*White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel's words, not mine.

Frozen Sooner
4/8/2009, 07:38 PM
Homey, his proposed budget increases year-over-year military expenditures. At the recommendation of known Aggie Robert Gates, he's cut funding for some projects that aren't worth the money.

Okla-homey
4/8/2009, 07:47 PM
Homey, his proposed budget increases year-over-year military expenditures. At the recommendation of known Aggie Robert Gates, he's cut funding for some projects that aren't worth the money.

WTF is Gates to decide a new fighter for the AF, a new SP howitzer for the Army or new cruisers for the Navy aren't worth the money when the ones we're using are over thirty years old? srsly?

I mean, sure, BHO's the CinC, but to slice all that away as "not worth the money" is damn sure myopic. I was in uniform when RR had to spend his first term reviving the programs one-termer JEC killed and we got it done just in time to win the Cold War by out-spending the Sov's to bolivia.

Not to mention the jobs lost when programs are shelved.

And as far as Gates goes, c'mon Froze, we both know the Donks have no military chops so they had to keep Gates on to give cred to their plans to deep-six programs. And in typical Aggie fashion, he's staying on to be their shill.

Frozen Sooner
4/8/2009, 08:08 PM
WTF is Gates to decide a new fighter for the AF, a new SP howitzer for the Army or new cruisers for the Navy aren't worth the money when the ones we're using are over thirty years old? srsly?



Secretary of Defense, last I checked.

As for your contention that there was no Democrat with military chops, I would submit that there's any number of Democrats who have served with honor at the top level of the military. Obama just happened to think that keeping Gates on was a good move. I was under the impression you guys liked Gates and thought he did a good job.

Your implication that there should be no cost/benefit analysis applied to spending on new weapons systems simply because the ones we currently use are outdated defies comprehension. By that token, if I had somehow won a contract to build papier-mache battle armor and that contract was suddenly pulled due to cost-benefit concerns, it would be a bad thing? Hey, I employ a few people dipping newspaper in gunk. Plus, it keeps the newspapers in business. Win-win!

Again, defense spending is increased in the latest budget. They're just taking money away from programs they don't think are effective and giving it to programs they think are. You know, merit-based pay. ;)

Harry Beanbag
4/8/2009, 09:25 PM
Question me all you want. At this point it's a running joke.

Yes. Yes you are.

Harry Beanbag
4/8/2009, 09:27 PM
There sure are a lot of Google military experts in this thread.

bri
4/8/2009, 09:33 PM
Wow, even Harry's taking a shot at Inhofe!

;)

Harry Beanbag
4/8/2009, 09:38 PM
Wow, even Harry's taking a shot at Inhofe!

;)


Actually, I'm taking a shot at everyone. Nobody in this thread knows what the military needs and I don't trust the government (either side) to find out how many times my dog will take a crap tomorrow. Nobody can predict the future military needs of the United States, if they could we wouldn't have gutted it after WWI, WWII, and Desert Storm.

Vaevictis
4/8/2009, 10:01 PM
Oh hey, it looks like McCain has something to say (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5355HQ20090406) on the matter.


"I strongly support (Defense) Secretary (Robert) Gates' decision to restructure a number of major defense programs," McCain said in a statement.

"It has long been necessary to shift spending away from weapon systems plagued by scheduling and cost overruns to ones that strike the correct balance between the needs of our deployed forces and the requirements for meeting the emerging threats of tomorrow," he said.

Curly Bill
4/8/2009, 10:03 PM
McCain couldn't even beat Obama, who cares what he thinks anymore? :P

bri
4/8/2009, 10:03 PM
Sissy lib. :D

LosAngelesSooner
4/8/2009, 10:14 PM
Yes. Yes you are.
Awww...how cute. Fuzzy Ballsack decided to get in a little petty dig instead of trying to be intelligent.

It's so cute when the kids try to play along with the adults. ;)

theresonly1OU
4/8/2009, 10:25 PM
Hey, why not blow $3,000,000,000 on a might when we could blow trillions on socialism, an unproven system if there ever was one??



fixed.



you're welcome.

JohnnyMack
4/8/2009, 10:26 PM
Actually, I'm taking a shot at everyone. Nobody in this thread knows what the military needs and I don't trust the government (either side) to find out how many times my dog will take a crap tomorrow. Nobody can predict the future military needs of the United States, if they could we wouldn't have gutted it after WWI, WWII, and Desert Storm.

No, no one can predict what they need down the road, but when the navy says it doesn't want 3 billion dollar warships and that money gets redirected towards our efforts in Afghanistan, I'm of the opinion that that means someone is at least paying a little bit of attention. This whole video bull**** thing Inhofe did is nothing more than your run of the mill pandering and you know it. He'll use this YouTube video in his reelection campaign and run it to show how dedicated his to Americuh and wave a flag and kiss a baby and his constituency will all fall predictably in line.

KC//CRIMSON
4/8/2009, 10:28 PM
fixed.



you're welcome.


FEAR!

Curly Bill
4/8/2009, 10:30 PM
CHANGE!










pffffft, not as fun as I thought it would be....

LosAngelesSooner
4/8/2009, 10:30 PM
This is the same guy who asserted that Global Climate Change was all a hoax drawn up by the WEATHER CHANNEL to garner ratings.

Seriously.

He said that.

On record.

As an "expert."

Much like this.

theresonly1OU
4/8/2009, 10:35 PM
No, no one can predict what they need down the road, but when the navy says it doesn't want 3 billion dollar warships and that money gets redirected towards our efforts in Afghanistan, I'm of the opinion that that means someone is at least paying a little bit of attention. This whole video bull**** thing Inhofe did is nothing more than your run of the mill pandering and you know it. He'll use this YouTube video in his reelection campaign and run it to show how dedicated his to Americuh and wave a flag and kiss a baby and his constituency will all fall predictably in line.

C'mon guys; it's obvious Obama is doing his part to keep military costs down:

http://images.smh.com.au/2009/04/03/448297/obamabow420-420x0.jpg

theresonly1OU
4/8/2009, 10:37 PM
FEAR!

Fear?

I'm just here for the Hope and Change.

tommieharris91
4/8/2009, 10:37 PM
This is the same guy who asserted that Global Climate Change was all a hoax drawn up by the WEATHER CHANNEL to garner ratings.

Seriously.

He said that.

On record.

As an "expert."

Much like this.

Did Jenni write that?

Did she?

Write that?

KC//CRIMSON
4/8/2009, 10:40 PM
Fear?

I'm just here for the Hope and Change.


Something tells me you're not here for hope and change.....

LosAngelesSooner
4/8/2009, 10:42 PM
Fear?

I'm just here for the Hope and Change.
There has been change, indeed.

FEAR no longer works around here.

And I HOPE it'll never make a comeback.

Signed:
~Jenni

Carlson

Curly Bill
4/8/2009, 10:42 PM
I ain't gonna lie, I'm just here for the free buffet.

theresonly1OU
4/8/2009, 10:47 PM
This is the same guy who asserted that Global Climate Change was all a hoax drawn up by the WEATHER CHANNEL to garner ratings.

Seriously.

He said that.

On record.

As an "expert."

Much like this.

And Al Gore, while pimping his movie "an inconvenient truth," told an audience that Global Warming was so bad, that "the North Polar ice caps would be completely melted in 5 years."

Seriously.

He said that.

On record.

As an "expert."

JohnnyMack
4/8/2009, 10:48 PM
I ain't gonna lie, I'm just here for the free buffet.

They got shrimp?

tommieharris91
4/8/2009, 10:50 PM
They got shrimp?

Yep. Shrimp gumbo, shrimp on a stick...

theresonly1OU
4/8/2009, 10:50 PM
They got shrimp?

Not sure, but I hear Michelle Obama wants us all to eat cake.

So we've got that going for us, I guess.

Curly Bill
4/8/2009, 10:50 PM
I'm eatin at the Chinese buffet, and I'm also learning to speak Chinese. I think it might come in handy.

Curly Bill
4/8/2009, 10:54 PM
I'm eatin at the Chinese buffet, and I'm also learing to speak Chinese. I think it might come in handy.

Sorry, didn't mean to scare anyone, ya know since we're getting away from FEAR and all that...


...well except when the POTUS tells us in his early days that if we don't take drastic action on the economy it will be dangerously and irrevocably damaged...but I guess it doesn't count when THE ONE does it? ;)

bri
4/8/2009, 10:56 PM
C'mon guys; it's obvious Obama is doing his part to keep military costs down:

http://images.smh.com.au/2009/04/03/448297/obamabow420-420x0.jpg

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/bush-saudi-2.jpg

I hope Barry remembered to cup the balls. (http://wonkette.com/407662/wingnuts-angry-that-obama-didnt-suck-off-saudi-prince-like-bush-always-did)

KC//CRIMSON
4/8/2009, 10:58 PM
I'm eatin at the Chinese buffet, and I'm also learing to speak Chinese. I think it might come in handy.


Learing is hard work.

theresonly1OU
4/8/2009, 10:58 PM
Sorry, didn't mean to scare anyone, ya know since we're getting away from FEAR and all that...


...well except when the POTUS tells us in his early days that if we don't take drastic action on the economy it will be dangerously and irrevocably damaged...but I guess it doesn't count when THE ONE does it? ;)

shhhhh....(he'll hear you!)


Ahem. What was that, O wise and wonderful one? Of course we don't mind you mortgaging our children's future away on marxism! What a visionary you are!

KC//CRIMSON
4/8/2009, 10:59 PM
http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/bush-saudi-2.jpg

I hope Barry remembered to cup the balls. (http://wonkette.com/407662/wingnuts-angry-that-obama-didnt-suck-off-saudi-prince-like-bush-always-did)


Open mouth for the win!

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/bushsaudiking.jpg

KC//CRIMSON
4/8/2009, 11:02 PM
I hear Michelle Obama wants us all to eat cake.


Somewhere, Glenn Beck just grew a boner then immediately started crying and called it a socialist.

Curly Bill
4/8/2009, 11:02 PM
Learing is hard work.



:P

I hope our new Chinese overlords don't hold my poor typing skills against me, but I'm gonna take a page outta you guys book and not be afraid. Hear me Chinese overlords I have no FEAR.



No Fear...that would make a good add campaign.

Lott's Bandana
4/8/2009, 11:03 PM
Open mouth for the win!

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/bushsaudiking.jpg

More impressive is the way d00d is looking at Condi.

Curly Bill
4/8/2009, 11:04 PM
So by posting the BUSHY threads you guys are saying the new POTUS is just doing what BUSHY did? In other words he's no different than BUSHY? hmmmm.

theresonly1OU
4/8/2009, 11:06 PM
So by posting the BUSHY threads you guys are saying the new POTUS is just doing what BUSHY did? In other words he's no different than BUSHY? hmmmm.

No, he's saying that because Bush held the man's hand and kissed him, that makes Obama bowing OK.

two wrongs and all that.

KC//CRIMSON
4/8/2009, 11:07 PM
More impressive is the way d00d is looking at Condi.


The dude is a stone cold pimp.

KC//CRIMSON
4/8/2009, 11:08 PM
Maybe if she looked like this:

<table border="0" width="300" style="border: none; font-family: Myriad, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif;"><tr><td colspan="2" style="border: none;"><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowNetworking="all" src="http://w18.photobucket.com/flash/tagWidget.swf?mediaURL=aHR0cDovL2kxOC5waG90b2J1Y2t ldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL2IxNDgvUGhyZWRHL1N0YXIlMjBUcmVrL 2tsaW5nb24xcW4yLmpwZw%3D%3D" width="300" height="287"/></td></tr></table>


He could keep his eyes to himself next time.

textowned.

bri
4/8/2009, 11:09 PM
So by posting the BUSHY threads you guys are saying the new POTUS is just doing what BUSHY did? In other words he's no different than BUSHY? hmmmm.

No, Obama DIDN'T do what Bush did. Bush snowballed; Obama didn't. :D

KC//CRIMSON
4/8/2009, 11:10 PM
So by posting the BUSHY threads you guys are saying the new POTUS is just doing what BUSHY did? In other words he's no different than BUSHY? hmmmm.


Would you rather have a man cup your balls and open mouth kiss you or bow to you?

Yeah, that's what I thought......see? It is different.

Curly Bill
4/8/2009, 11:10 PM
No, Obama DIDN'T do what Bush did. Bush snowballed; Obama didn't. :D

There's a joke in there somewhere, but I ain't touching it. :O

Curly Bill
4/8/2009, 11:11 PM
Would you rather have a man cup your balls and open mouth kiss you or bow to you?



Which will our Chinese overlords be requiring?

theresonly1OU
4/8/2009, 11:11 PM
textowned.


you're 12, aren't you?

bri
4/8/2009, 11:13 PM
Which will our Chinese overlords be requiring?

For ten dollars? Any-ting dey want!

Curly Bill
4/8/2009, 11:18 PM
For ten dollars? Any-ting dey want!


The Chinese already own us. They owe us some freebies if you ask me. :D

jdsooner
4/8/2009, 11:18 PM
Gates is trying to give the military what it wants so it can fight in the Middle East. Inhofe is simply trying to justify pork barrel spending in his own state.
From the Chicago Trib:


The steps reflect the a widely held view among military leaders that the Pentagon must devote more of its resources to small, irregular fights as opposed to large-scale wars.

"We must rebalance this department's programs in order to institutionalize and finance our capabilities to fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years ahead," Gates said, while also remaining on guard for larger confrontations.

bri
4/8/2009, 11:19 PM
Be careful what you wish for, dude. What if they considered putting lead in everything a freebie?

Curly Bill
4/8/2009, 11:20 PM
Be careful what you wish for, dude. What if they considered putting lead in everything a freebie?

Would I be able to fashion this lead into bullets?

bri
4/8/2009, 11:22 PM
No, just crippling stomach pain and internal bleeding. Oh, and gleaming white teeth. :D

tommieharris91
4/8/2009, 11:22 PM
Would I be able to fashion this lead into bullets?

Probably not. Unless you can somehow melt the lead out of dog food and stuff.

theresonly1OU
4/8/2009, 11:24 PM
Somewhere, Glenn Beck just grew a boner then immediately started crying and called it a socialist.

Glad to know someone is dreaming about Glenn Beck's erections, KC.

Next time though, keep those kind of fantasies to yourself, KPLZTHKS.

Curly Bill
4/8/2009, 11:25 PM
Probably not. Unless you can somehow melt the lead out of dog food and stuff.

When the revolution breaks out we'll hafta make our bullets from whatever we can get ahold of.

JLEW1818
4/8/2009, 11:25 PM
drunk **** is here!!! Obama has a little penis

bri
4/8/2009, 11:30 PM
Well, he is half-white.

JLEW1818
4/8/2009, 11:32 PM
Honest Question here:

Will Microsoft fix "Obama" so a red line does not come under it when you type it??? Honesty question, no BS at all?

go!

LosAngelesSooner
4/8/2009, 11:33 PM
And Al Gore, while pimping his movie "an inconvenient truth," told an audience that Global Warming was so bad, that "the North Polar ice caps would be completely melted in 5 years."

Seriously.

He said that.

On record.

As an "expert."
And as soon as I post a thread about cutting defense spending citing Al Gore as my expert witness, you can go ahead and bring that up to show what a loony toon, partisan hack I am...clinging to any straw, no matter how fragile, in the vain attempt to tarnish a world view that differs from mine.

Until then, I'll continue to mock people like you and Tuba. ;)

Curly Bill
4/8/2009, 11:35 PM
Well, he is half-white.

Yeah I've seen him play basketball...please. :O

I tell ya this: I won't make anymore jokes about him being able to hit the 3.

KC//CRIMSON
4/8/2009, 11:38 PM
Glad to know someone is dreaming about Glenn Beck's erections, KC.

Next time though, keep those kind of fantasies to yourself, KPLZTHKS.


Comedy gold! Good gawd, when does your book go on sale?

theresonly1OU
4/8/2009, 11:41 PM
And as soon as I post a thread about cutting defense spending citing Al Gore as my expert witness, you can go ahead and bring that up to show what a loony toon, partisan hack I am...clinging to any straw, no matter how fragile, in the vain attempt to tarnish a world view that differs from mine.

Until then, I'll continue to mock people like you and Tuba. ;)

First off, if Inhofe is recognized as an expert on "global warming", then I'm the king of Siam.

Second, I'm pretty sure he didn't accuse the WEATHER CHANNEL of perpetuating the myth about global warming, given this guy's view of it (http://www.startribune.com/local/11826671.html)

Other than that, you're argument was sound.

theresonly1OU
4/8/2009, 11:41 PM
Comedy gold! Good gawd, when does your book go on sale?

The day after you pass the 9th grade.

JLEW1818
4/8/2009, 11:46 PM
BEER

theresonly1OU
4/8/2009, 11:48 PM
BEER

Couldn't have said it better.

KC//CRIMSON
4/8/2009, 11:51 PM
The day after you pass the 9th grade.


Tell me the truth. Your grandmother is writing your material, isn't she?

LosAngelesSooner
4/8/2009, 11:57 PM
No, he's saying that because Bush held the man's hand and kissed him, that makes Obama bowing OK.

two wrongs and all that.
Or he could be saying, "My. What a simplistic and childish, not to mention irrelevant, photograph you've decided to post in a vain attempt to somehow attack our President and suggest that he's a wuss. Here, let me show you and even MORE egregious example of what you're trying to do using "YOUR GUY," who you tout as having a massive set of cajones, as a means of demonstrating just how silly you're behaving."

But that's just my guess. :rolleyes:

JLEW1818
4/9/2009, 12:03 AM
BEER

LosAngelesSooner
4/9/2009, 12:04 AM
First off, if Inhofe is recognized as an expert on "global warming", then I'm the king of Siam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe

Ahem

Inhofe, former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Environment_and_ Public_Works), is a strong critic of the scientific consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus) that climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change) is occurring as a result of human activities. In a July 28, 2003, Senate speech, Inhofe claimed to offer "compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming) is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation's top climate scientists."[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe#cite_note-12) He cited as support for this the 1992 Heidelberg Appeal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidelberg_Appeal) and the Oregon Petition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition) (1999), as well the opinions of individual scientists that he named (although most climate scientists, as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change) (IPCC), now believe that climate change is an existing phenomenon). In his speech, Inhofe also claimed that, "satellite data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements), confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century."[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe#cite_note-climate-13) However the satellite temperature record corroborates the well-documented warming trend noted in surface temperature measurements.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe#cite_note-14) Additionally, the satellite record begins in 1979 and the balloon record effectively in 1958, so it is unclear what Inhofe means by "last century". Inhofe's views have been opposed by climate scientists.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe#cite_note-15)

In a 2006 interview with the Tulsa World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_World) newspaper, Inhofe said regarding the environmentalist movement, "It kind of reminds... I could use the Third Reich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Reich), the Big Lie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie)... You say something over and over and over and over again, and people will believe it, and that's their [the environmentalists'] strategy... A hot summer has nothing to do with global warming. Let's keep in mind it was just three weeks ago that people were saying, 'Wait a minute; it is unusually cool...." He then said, "Everything on which they [the environmentalists] based their story, in terms of the facts, has been refuted scientifically."[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe#cite_note-16) Inhofe had previously compared the United States Environmental Protection Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency) to the Gestapo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe#cite_note-17) and he compared EPA Administrator Carol Browner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Browner) to Tokyo Rose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Rose).[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe#cite_note-18) He had also made allegations that the Weather Channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weather_Channel_%28United_States%29) is behind the alleged global warming hoax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory), so as to attract viewers.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe#cite_note-19)[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe#cite_note-20) Inhofe had previously claimed that Global Warming is "the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_Church_and_State_in_the_United_State s)."[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe#cite_note-21)THIS



Second, I'm pretty sure he didn't accuse the WEATHER CHANNEL of perpetuating the myth about global warming, given this guy's view of it (http://www.startribune.com/local/11826671.html)

Other than that, you're argument was sound.Ahem x 2
Wm_J8SG5E9c

And this.

Funny...even INCLUDING that...my argument is sound.

soonerscuba
4/9/2009, 12:09 AM
Am I the only one who will not be surprised when Inhofe is busted at some sort of meth/BDSM party?

stoops the eternal pimp
4/9/2009, 12:10 AM
all hail the king of siam!

soonerscuba
4/9/2009, 12:15 AM
Also, for what's worth, I can appreciate the fact that Inhofe very clearly doesn't give a **** about decorum or what people think about him. I mean it takes balls to call The Red Cross a "bleeding heart organization" or be against cutting student loan interest rates, so I do salute his commitment to say what he thinks. That said, I look forward to the day when his career in politics is over.

StoopTroup
4/9/2009, 12:21 AM
I live in the School District he raised his Kids in.

I haven't seen this whack job in ten years.

I'm pretty sure he'll end up like Frank Keating and leaving the State when he gets his *** kicked back to the Private Sector. Jim had his good days and I used to support him...but IMO he hasn't done **** for Oklahoma.

JLEW1818
4/9/2009, 12:27 AM
BEER.....

Crucifax Autumn
4/9/2009, 02:02 AM
Lots of beer!!!!!!

Crucifax Autumn
4/9/2009, 02:02 AM
FART!

Lott's Bandana
4/9/2009, 07:11 AM
I think this all goes back to Blake and the boys busting up someone's tourney bracket.

Harry Beanbag
4/9/2009, 07:22 AM
No, no one can predict what they need down the road, but when the navy says it doesn't want 3 billion dollar warships and that money gets redirected towards our efforts in Afghanistan, I'm of the opinion that that means someone is at least paying a little bit of attention.

Oh, I don't disagree at all, just saying there are far too many internet jockeys on this board claiming the high road and smart guy pedestal on every****ing topic that in reality they have no idea what they're talking about. Ridicule! It's the new way to communicate.



This whole video bull**** thing Inhofe did is nothing more than your run of the mill pandering and you know it. He'll use this YouTube video in his reelection campaign and run it to show how dedicated his to Americuh and wave a flag and kiss a baby and his constituency will all fall predictably in line.

I'll take your guy's word that Inhofe is a dooshbag, he fits perfectly in Washington.

Harry Beanbag
4/9/2009, 07:24 AM
Awww...how cute. Fuzzy Ballsack decided to get in a little petty dig instead of trying to be intelligent.

It's so cute when the kids try to play along with the adults. ;)


Wtf? I was agreeing with you. Man, I can't win with you. :rolleyes: ;) :) :cool: :P

Ardmore_Sooner
4/9/2009, 07:26 AM
Jesus wants you to bomb the **** out of that brown dude.

Wasn't Jesus brown himself? ;)

stoops the eternal pimp
4/9/2009, 08:15 AM
No...don't you watch movies?


He was a tall, white, handsome European man

Ardmore_Sooner
4/9/2009, 08:17 AM
Awww, of course. What was I thinking?

bri
4/9/2009, 08:24 AM
Wasn't Jesus brown himself? ;)

If Mel Gibson were here right now, he'd punch you in the ear.

Ardmore_Sooner
4/9/2009, 08:31 AM
Would he also call me a dirty Jew?

bri
4/9/2009, 08:49 AM
It's hard to predict what the crazy will do, but I'd say your odds are good. Either that or he'll call you "sugar tits", which is the single greatest thing Mel Gibson has given the world ever.

Ardmore_Sooner
4/9/2009, 08:57 AM
I can't lie, I have used "sugar tits" in one form or another before. In regards, thank you Mel Gibson, thank you...

Condescending Sooner
4/9/2009, 09:01 AM
I love how the libs suddenly turn fiscally conservative when it concerns military spending.

Ardmore_Sooner
4/9/2009, 09:08 AM
Why must you make this thread serious again, sugar tits?

JohnnyMack
4/9/2009, 09:23 AM
I love how the libs suddenly turn fiscally conservative when it concerns military spending.

From my perspective this isn't about being fiscally conservative it's about Jim Inhofe being either a liar or ignorant. I don't think a United States Senator of his stature, who serves on the committee that he does should have made that video.

NormanPride
4/9/2009, 09:37 AM
I'm impressed that this thread survived the derailing of a blatant troll and came full circle back to the main argument that Inhofe is a senile old fool.

bri
4/9/2009, 10:24 AM
I can't lie, I have used "sugar tits" in one form or another before. In regards, thank you Mel Gibson, thank you...

A day that doesn't include me calling someone "sugar tits" is a wasted one.

stoops the eternal pimp
4/9/2009, 10:31 AM
When I get pulled over for speeding or am late to work, I blame it on the Jews

KC//CRIMSON
4/9/2009, 10:44 AM
all hail the king of siam!


For the love of Dunkin Donuts, don't cup his balls, people.

bri
4/9/2009, 10:46 AM
Are you mental? Do you WANT $3 a gallon gas again? CUP! CUP AWAY!!

Ardmore_Sooner
4/9/2009, 10:50 AM
I'd cup for $1 a gallon gas again. Yeah I went there...

bri
4/9/2009, 10:54 AM
Hell, for $1 a gallon I'd put on a French maid outfit, wash and anoint his balls with scented oils before cupping them.

Or as he probably calls it, "Tuesday".

captain_surly
4/9/2009, 01:10 PM
Hell, for $1 a gallon I'd put on a French maid outfit, wash and anoint his balls with scented oils before cupping them.

Or as he probably calls it, "Tuesday".

Damn you to hell! I may need to seek counseling to get that image out of my head. I'll never be able to enjoy porn involving French maid outfits again.

LosAngelesSooner
4/9/2009, 08:30 PM
Damn you to hell! I may need to seek counseling to get that image out of my head. I'll never be able to enjoy porn involving French maid outfits again.
:rolleyes: I will.

:D

theresonly1OU
4/9/2009, 11:23 PM
Hell, for $1 a gallon I'd put on a French maid outfit, wash and anoint his balls with scented oils before cupping them.

Or as he probably calls it, "Tuesday".

I dip my balls in this comment.

SCOUT
4/10/2009, 01:23 AM
From my perspective this isn't about being fiscally conservative it's about Jim Inhofe being either a liar or ignorant. I don't think a United States Senator of his stature, who serves on the committee that he does should have made that video.

You're right, he should have appeared on the Tonight Show instead.

olevetonahill
4/10/2009, 01:50 AM
Sick ****s :confused:

theresonly1OU
4/10/2009, 11:51 AM
The defense budget is increasing by 4% this year.

ieta: More precisely, Obama has proposed a 4% increase.

Not exactly. While Obama is increasing the general defense budget by 4%, he is cutting all the ad hoc supplimental defense budgets; sort of a line-item expenditure for defense related items that aren't included in the general defense budget. So, in reality, the total defense budget is going down.

This would be like a businessman who is reimbursed for travel expenses and given a per diem to suddenly have those amenities taken away from him, in exchange for a slight boost in overall salary that won't cover those expenses going foward.

The net result is a decrease in funding, by some estimates as much as 8 billion dollars.

But hey, he's got more important things to worry about, like solving global warming.

Pricetag
4/10/2009, 12:39 PM
But hey, he's got more important things to worry about, like solving global warming.
No doubt. Hey, and if it actually goes down, we'll need those destroyers to float in, anyway. Win-win situation.

StoopTroup
4/10/2009, 12:58 PM
The net result is a decrease in funding, by some estimates as much as 8 billion dollars.

And this is exactly what everyone should be worried about.

If the budget is cut from $584 Billion to $576 Billion...our way of life in America will be in jeopardy.

Jim...here's your award.

http://www.teamsandtastic.com/IMAGES/1-Gold.jpg

NYC Poke
4/10/2009, 02:03 PM
My socks don't match.

Curly Bill
4/10/2009, 02:04 PM
My socks don't match.

Of course not, you're a poke. :D

Ardmore_Sooner
4/10/2009, 02:06 PM
My socks don't match.

Socks are for FEET ONLY. This should help the problem.

theresonly1OU
4/10/2009, 03:33 PM
And this is exactly what everyone should be worried about.

If the budget is cut from $584 Billion to $576 Billion...our way of life in America will be in jeopardy.

So saving money is only considered good if its intended use is for defense of this country?

Got it.

JohnnyMack
4/10/2009, 03:47 PM
That's about a .014% difference.

theresonly1OU
4/10/2009, 04:00 PM
That's about a .014% difference.

I realize that. My point is that the Obama administration is trying to spin this as a budget increase, when in fact it isn't.

But it is interesting that money seems to suddenly have value to Obama when it comes to national defense. I bet we could save a few million more if someone would tell Pelosi that the air force G5's aren't her private taxi service (http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/mar/judicial-watch-uncovers-documents-detailing-pelosis-repeated-requests-military-travel?page=6).

JohnnyMack
4/10/2009, 05:17 PM
1. Pelosi is an idiot.

2. What did you think a Democrat president was gonna do?

Frozen Sooner
4/10/2009, 05:22 PM
I realize that. My point is that the Obama administration is trying to spin this as a budget increase, when in fact it isn't.

But it is interesting that money seems to suddenly have value to Obama when it comes to national defense. I bet we could save a few million more if someone would tell Pelosi that the air force G5's aren't her private taxi service (http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/mar/judicial-watch-uncovers-documents-detailing-pelosis-repeated-requests-military-travel?page=6).

http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp

theresonly1OU
4/10/2009, 05:22 PM
1. Pelosi is an idiot.

2. What did you think a Democrat president was gonna do?

touche'

olevetonahill
4/10/2009, 05:26 PM
Honest Question here:

Will Microsoft fix "Obama so a red line does not come under it when you type it??? Honesty question, no BS at all?

go!

obama = Obadiah,Obadias,Bamako and Alabama :D

KC//CRIMSON
4/10/2009, 05:28 PM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp


There's only one OU and he's batting below .500 this season.....

theresonly1OU
4/10/2009, 06:47 PM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/mar/judicial-watch-uncovers-documents-detailing-pelosis-repeated-requests-military-travel?page=3

part of the link contains emails from pelosi's staff demanding a G-5 for her travel arrangements. That was what I was referencing.

Frozen Sooner
4/10/2009, 06:57 PM
A cursory reading of the e-mails (I haven't read all 167 of them) reveals no such "demands." Her staff has requested (commensurate with security policy) planes that will make the fewest refueling stops. This is pretty well-covered in the Snopes link.

BudSooner
4/10/2009, 08:25 PM
obama = Obadiah :D
http://blog.wired.com/underwire/images/2008/04/30/ironmanbridges660_2.jpg

Deep down, I always knew Barack was a War Monger. :D

Harry Beanbag
4/11/2009, 12:11 AM
Wow, I can't believe people are defending Nancy f'ing Pelosi now.

Frozen Sooner
4/11/2009, 12:52 AM
Yeah, you're right. Everything anyone ever says about Nancy Pelosi should just be taken at face value.

Curly Bill
4/11/2009, 12:56 AM
Yeah, you're right. Everything anyone ever says about Nancy Pelosi should just be taken at face value.


Well...only if it's bad. ;)

JohnnyMack
4/11/2009, 08:16 AM
I'm of the opinion that Nancy Pelosi's actions with the budget during the "economic collapse" are in some ways as offensive as W and the Patriot Act after 09/11.

Harry Beanbag
4/11/2009, 08:32 AM
I'm of the opinion that Nancy Pelosi's actions with the budget during the "economic collapse" are in some ways as offensive as W and the Patriot Act after 09/11.

Exactly. Pelosi is an incompetent, corrupt, party hacking fool that is a disgrace to this country. No amount of bluster or haughtiness over trivial matters is going to change that.

Scott D
4/11/2009, 08:47 AM
Exactly. (insert politician here) is an incompetent, corrupt, party hacking fool that is a disgrace to this country. No amount of bluster or haughtiness over trivial matters is going to change that.

;)

Those who can do. Those who can't become politicians.

StoopTroup
4/11/2009, 12:50 PM
So saving money is only considered good if its intended use is for defense of this country?

Got it.

Actually they aren't saving a dime.

They are spending more. All this is over who gets what money.

I think it's funny how there is an administration change in our country and people are shocked that something might be done differently than those who were in power for 8 years. It's gonna happen. Getting your panties in a wad and acting like you know what's right and wrong is one of the reasons you get to post on a message board. Not one of us...including Jim Inhofe is going to do anything about any of it. Jim had 8 years of having his man in the highest office in the World and we have a State with huge infrastructure problems, drug problems...the list is long.

The one thing you can do...

Don't vote for him again.

JohnnyMack
4/13/2009, 10:41 AM
http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10111


The Iron Triangle vs. Small Wars

by Benjamin H. Friedman

Added to cato.org on April 9, 2009

A fight is brewing in the U.S. military between manpower and technology. With the economy cratering and defense budgets flattening, we can no longer afford both large armies meant to pacify hostile populations, and legions of high-end air and naval platforms that fulfill our technological dreams. Because of the powerful political backing those high-end platforms enjoy, this budget conflict might spark a broad backlash to our recent fascination with wars of occupation.

Our fetish for counterinsurgency campaigns has now made us a land power. We reacted to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq by expanding the ground services, even as the cost of manpower skyrockets. That investment is likely to increasingly crowd out the budgets of the Navy and Air Force, which employ most of our high-technology platforms. Indeed, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' budget recommendations, announced this week, would delay the Navy's next-generation cruiser and its aircraft carrier build schedule. It also proposes the end of the Air Force's F-22 and C-17 programs and the indefinite delay of the next-generation bomber.

Manpower costs already take a growing chunk of the defense budget each year, and that's before the substantial increases in family support and medical care announced in this week's budget recommendations. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost in pay and benefits per active-duty troop rose 45 percent above inflation from 1998 to 2009, from $55,000 to $80,000. Congressionally authorized increases in salary — political gold in wartime — has amounted to around 3 percent annually. Health care coverage costs for active troops, which is paid for from the operations and maintenance account, is also experiencing massive cost-growth per service-member.

These costs have encouraged the Navy and Air Force to shed a combined 80,000 active-duty personnel over the last decade, although Gates' budget recommendations call for an end to the two branches' force reductions. Meanwhile, the ground forces have been growing and may continue to do so. The Army will comprise 547,000 troops by the end of the year — 60,000 soldiers more than in 2005. Army leaders want another 30,000 on top of that. The Marines will have grown by 28,000 over the same period, to a total of 205,000.

The idea behind this growth is that our counterterrorism objectives now require a series of counterinsurgency campaigns. We are told that terrorists threatening the U.S. flourish in failed states — what we used to call states engaged in civil wars — therefore U.S. security depends on pacifying and stabilizing those states.

According to Army doctrine, doing so requires a high ratio of counterinsurgents — whether native or foreign — to population. One to 50 is the most cited figure, a daunting requirement in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, each with around 30 million people. According to this logic, because occupying these two medium-size countries at ratios far lower than best practice has overwhelmed our forces, we need to grow the Army, probably even beyond the current expansion.

The increased size of the ground forces heightens the pressure that personnel costs put on the rest of the defense budget. War supplementals and a rapid growth in nonwar defense spending — nearly doubled since 1998 — previously limited this conflict. But decreasing tax revenues, fiscal stimulus and bailout packages, and possible health care reform mean that growth in defense spending will in all likelihood halt. The Obama administration claims it will increase military spending only by inflation for the next decade. Some Congressional leaders even want cuts.

Other defense accounts will now have to fund rising personnel costs. If Gates' budget recommendations are any indication, the main source of the needed windfall will be cuts in spending that is more elastic than operations and maintenance — namely, development and procurement of new weapons and vehicles. Should Gates' budget make it through Congress unscathed, cancellations and slowdowns will hit most big-ticket programs in the next few years.

But if budgets stay flat, even a drastic procurement trimming will not produce enough savings to sustain an enlarged Army and Marine Corps. That will probably require shrinking the budgets of the Navy and Air Force, which means cutting force structure — air wings and carrier battle groups (one is now scheduled to be eliminated by 2040), and the support apparatus behind them.

Cuts to forces structure would, in turn, outrage the services that rely on units for promotion opportunities, as well as the Congressmen who rely on Navy and Air Force spending for local jobs. Their outrage could rejuvenate old-fashioned American discomfort with nation-building. Sept. 11 drove that discomfort from Congressional hearing rooms and the campaign trail. But as is often the case in politics, where ideas lie dormant until powerful interests need them, it did not disappear from academic texts and the occasional op-ed.

Defenders of high-technology programs will now have an interest in arguing, as political scientists have been doing for some time, that occupations of Muslim nations engaged in civil wars tend to spark terrorism against the occupiers, to encourage behavior contrary to liberal values and to fail outright, usually at great expense. They might point out that failed states abound throughout history, and yet few have produced terrorists targeting the U.S.. They might note that even where such terrorists do appear, we hardly need to reinvent the local government: We can target our enemies with allies on the ground or, if that fails, by gathering allies' intelligence for airstrikes or raids.

For seven years we have been demonstrating that we cannot re-engineer foreign societies at a reasonable cost. Not surprisingly, during that time, cost was no object. Now that it is, we may finally sort out our needs from our wants, and divorce counterterrorism from state-building.

Harry Beanbag
4/13/2009, 09:50 PM
http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10111


We are at the point where entitlement spending has overgrown our capability of defending ourselves against all our enemies. In short, we are doomed long term.

Curly Bill
4/13/2009, 09:51 PM
We are at the point where entitlement spending has overgrown our capability of defending ourselves against all our enemies. In short, we are doomed long term.

Bread and circus.