Ah yes, we now have another back-N-forth issued from within our own borders. This NIE Report, which no one has even read yet, makes more trouble than it is worth. In fact, I believe that this latest NIE Report gives more ammo to scary world leaders like Putin and Ahmadinejad. And now, with “insightful?” commentary from StratFor’s writer George Friedman, proof is now up front that we’ve got a bigger problem listening to the likes of the NIE Report which has little HUMINT data.

Here, these two paragraphs just got me to sit up and read this article carefully:

With this announcement, the dynamics of the Middle Eastern region, Iraq and U.S.-Iranian relations shift dramatically. For one thing, the probability of a unilateral strike against Iranian nuclear targets is gone. Since there is no Iranian nuclear weapons program, there is no rationale for a strike. Moreover, if Iran is not engaged in weapons production, then a broader air campaign designed to destabilize the Iranian regime has no foundation either.

The NIE release represents a transformation of U.S. policy toward Iran. The Bush administration made Iran’s nuclear weapons program the main reason for its attempt to create an international coalition against Iran, on the premise that a nuclear-armed Iran was unacceptable. If there is no Iranian nuclear program, then what is the rationale for the coalition? Moreover, what is the logic of resisting Iran’s efforts in Iraq, rather than cooperating?

The second sentence in the second paragraph is where you should all begin to sit up and take note. If you believe that that sentence leads you to believe that we are wrong for being watchful when it comes to Iran’s nuclear weapons development program, I weep for you …

Be very careful, people - this isn’t just Israel we are talking about. In today’s world, Pearl Harbor is now your own backyard. Weapons can be delivered farther than a series of aircraft that can only reach the Hawaiian Islands. And we are only 2 days away from that ill fated day … take heed.

I was watching Special Report with Brit Hume Friday night. Jim Angle was sitting in for Brit, and things went smoothly along through various stories of the day and week. Then, we get to the Round Table, and Jim begins one of the segments discussing North Korea and their threats (which yesterday no longer was a threat). Did you happen to see this segment? If you did, were you aware that Bill Sammon lead Mort Kondracke right into Alice’s Rabbit Hole?

Oh yes, it was fun to watch!

The discussion was swirling around North Korea threatening to blow up a nuke. Bill Sammon and Bill Kristol were doing a great job laying down the path to how we got here, and why Democrats trying to blame this on Bush is just lame - well and flat out wrong. Mort decided it was time to get his views in and suggested that the United States needs to do something proactive and forceful. He was leaning, but not overtly saying, we need to go in with force.

Bill Sammon’s ears perked up on this one.

Bill started choosing his words wisely and leaving Mort time to answer. Bill was reeling Mort in, and I truly think Mort had no idea what was happening. I’ll paraphrase the conversation because I cannot, for the life of me, find transcripts or text on any other blog via Google search. I’ll continue to search the blogosphere, and if you see anything or you’ve posted on this, let me know! Anyway, here is a very loose account of how this went down:

Mort: We really need to get in there and show North Korea we mean business.
Bill: Mort, are you suggesting military action?
Mort: Well, we could provide a strong example of force.
Bill: Are you suggesting, Mort, that we use the US Military and enter, or bomb North Korea?
Mort: We could put military pressure on them …
Bill: Mort, are you suggesting that we enter a sovereign nation, one that has been torturing, murdering, and unafraid to use weapons of mass destruction, and fight there on their soil?
Mort: Well, I mean …
Bill: Mort, are you saying to invade …
Mort: Yes!
Bill: Mort, you’re saying we should invade a nation with a dictator who has no qualms killing his own people, taking over that nation, and return it to the people, like we are in Iraq and in Afghanistan?
Mort: Yes.

It was so striking, I still cannot believe I saw Bill Sammon suck Mort Kondracke in to such an admission. I believe that, as this conversation continued, even Bill Kristol went on to point out that even if we did what Mort was suggesting, we’d just have the same situation we have now with Liberal Democrats - Bush lied, people die.

Bill Sammon was great by slamming the door on the whole thing by closing it all up with the, “Democrats will be OK with action against North Korea for a couple of months, and then they’ll be demanding special investigations and impeachment proceedings for a failed policy with North Korea …”

Blah-Blah-Blah. Mort and the Liberal Democrats just don’t get it.

As Homer Simpson says, “Stupid Flanders!”

Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter … and yes William Jefferson Clinton. These men are the true impetus to the difficulties we now wrestle with in today’s Global War on Terror (GWOT). The progression to today’s current state of affairs is clear if one steps back to see where this country began to fall apart, and who pulled the strings - or failed to, actually.

Inaction is just as bad, if not worse, than any miscalculated action. Mistakes are commonplace when one leads. But mistakes do not have to end in disaster. Disaster is the result of a leader that compounds a mistake with inaction, and another mistake, or more inaction, as the leader thrashes to regain control - by not doing anything at all. Any leader worth his or her salt knows that the “governing law of inaction” is the fulcrum from which peace is quickly uprooted and propels the leader on a course of devolving into an irreparable state of chaos.

The following is not an exact record of history, but a look at the broader picture of influences that now plague the GWOT, and the current administration’s leadership. It is not, I submit, the leadership that is at fault, but the forces at work to construct a fulcrum from which chaos can take root. It is sad that those working to put this into action are focused on a political gain (political gains of all shapes and sizes) ignoring the fact that chaos hurts us all, no matter your party and no matter your religion.

We are all infidels, and the wave does not discriminate. It had used the “governing law of inaction” to benefit it’s cause. Today it faces not inaction but conviction, commitment, and a force that takes this battle seriously - that force is leadership.

After World War II, the United States was in a period of understanding and alignment with the USSR. We were, as a nation, focused on repelling any encroachment on our freedoms and especially those countries and political systems that threatened our survival. Even though we had great differences with the USSR we both fought the terrorism of that day, Adolph Hitler’s fascism. We both knew that Hitler envisioned a fascism that was not going to allow the US and USSR to be sovereign, ever. That great fulcrum would have plunged us all into a form of chaos that no one wanted, and we all fought to the death to prevent.

Reparations, political restructuring, and repatriation were the specials of the day which fostered a complacency that was slight, but still very much present. While the world wrestled with these huge responsibilities, taking their eye off the ball by building the United Nations, and cleaving two worlds with the use of “The Wall”, a greater power was beginning to emerge. “The Red Menace” began to spread across the great land masses and wastelands due to the vacuum of a missing war machine and the ravages of WWII.

Shift the stage and we move forward to 1950, and Harry S. Truman. Truman has been President for about 5 years and has been overseeing the signing of the armistice with Japan, he made the Berlin Airlift happen to bring comfort to the West Berliners, and he thrust free nations into the development of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). However, what was looming in the background was “The Red Menace” on the move and manipulating actions in North Korea. When North Korea attacked South Korea, Truman wrote that there was:

“complete, almost unspoken acceptance on the part of everyone that whatever had to be done to meet this aggression had to be done. There was no suggestion from anyone that either the United Nations or the United States could back away from it.”

While that level of conviction and action resulted in the signing of an armistice between North and South Korea, Truman was plagued with a softer side, though not complete inaction. Even the White House Past Presidents biography of Truman shows:

“A long, discouraging struggle ensued as U.N. forces held a line above the old boundary of South Korea. Truman kept the war a limited one, rather than risk a major conflict with China and perhaps Russia.”

Enter Dwight D. Eisenhower, a true man of conviction and action. A show of force was the rule of the day, and that “governing law of inaction” not in Eisenhower’s lexicon. After Stalin died, tensions were high but lightened as Eisenhower pushed hard with power and acted as a leader. No second guessing. However, “The Red Menace” was at it again, building another fulcrum, and by the time Eisenhower left office there were 900 advisers in South Vietnam. It was beginning …

John F. Kennedy was dead set on fighting “The Red Menace”. This new “Red Menace” was a newer form derived from a burgeoning USSR that was being spread thin on an ever dwindling war chest. In the first 9 months of JFK’s presidency, the advisers in South Vietnam had grown to 2,000. Our presence was felt, but we were not committed - a slight inaction allowing for a larger fulcrum. The USSR was sensing a new, shift, in the United States - one that she could exploit to her ultimate gain. Cuba, then Vietnam, were to bring this to a head until a sniper’s bullet ended John F. Kennedy’s life on that ill fated day of 22 November, 1963. On the same day, Lyndon B. Johnson is sworn in as the Thirty-Sixth President of the United States of America.

By the end of 1963, there are 15,000 advisers in South Vietnam. Do you see a pattern? As these past Presidents are quick to demonstrate, except Eisenhower, inaction or the fear of risking a major conflict is beginning to rear itself and provide purchase for a new fulcrum - one no one sees just yet.

Lyndon B. Johnson assumed command of the fight against “The Red Menace” in the Southeast Asian Theater. LBJ’s administration was bent on continuing the situation in Vietnam, but finishing the job was an illusive achievement due to conflicting orders and overall theater mismanagement. Leadership is not left to the officer corps alone, it begins and ends in the White House, with the CinC (Commander in Chief). The failure of inaction in Vietnam took time.

The failure was aided by a grassroots groundswell of anti-military, anti-US sentiments fomented on US soil in our university campuses. To buttress that groundswell was another campaign being waged by daily reports served up from a media schooled in those very universities. This is where the soft underbelly of inaction began to show. It was being lifted up for all to see by the fulcrum constructed by academia and elitists afraid of doing their duty and serving their country (last sentence is my strong opinion, obviously). LBJ continued to be jerked back and forth by external forces, thereby succumbing to the “governing law of inaction”. The USSR lies in wait - but she shall soon be eclipsed by a far worse harbinger of chaos.

The USSR had dipped her toe into waters that were taxing her to great lengths and she was beginning to waiver. It was not overt, but her power was beginning to fracture. There were glimpses afforded to the entire world, even though the USSR was successful in North Korea and ultimately becoming so in North Vietnam.

Richard M. Nixon, again not a man of inaction, took control of a world theater in near chaos. By taking charge and going to China, President Nixon began a new front of operations that signaled a change in US strength. However, his conviction and take charge attitude in a sea of internal US strife being waged by an anti-US elite forced to the surface a strong desire to control the flow of information. The final blow, Richard M. Nixon’s impeachment and his resignation, further grounded a huge fulcrum that gave way to a new chaos - the fall of “The Red Menace” and the rise of Islamofascism.

Carter, and is failure to handle Iran, showed the world the inability of the United States to fight this up and coming new threat, Islamofascism. In those days, the late 70’s, only a select few saw the rise of this great tyranny. We were still focused on the great evil, “The Red Menace”. The “governing law of inaction” was in full swing, and the degradation of our US Military and our standing in the world as a super power was threatened - from within. Inaction was strangling leadership and we needed to remove the fulcrum and recognize there was a new one just beneath the surface waiting to pry open a new form of chaos.

Until Ronald W. Reagan broke the will of the USSR, “The Red Menace”, the world knew nothing of islamofascists. Reagan was the ultimate leader, one I am very proud to have served under. There was a man that truly understood leadership, and fostered it throughout his command (which we know is top to bottom, bottom to top). Throughout his Presidency the world saw the new United States of America - and so did the islamofascists.

It wasn’t until the US pulled out of the first Gulf War, too soon, that islamofascists began to see the underbelly truly emerge. George H.W. Bush made mistakes, I’ll grant that, but his was not one of inaction. Miscalculation was due to our focus being squarely on “The Red Menace” and an honest miscue in responding to the greater threat being promulgated by terrorists building their forces in the Middle East. The new battle was beginning, and the US was still looking in the wrong direction.

Enter William Jefferson Clinton on the heels of huge reforms in taxation and a growing economy compliments of the previous 12 years under Reagan and Bush 41. The focus of the new administration was to bring the Democratic Party back into power. The problem is that over the previous 50 years, Democrat Presidents succumbed to the “governing law of inaction”, never providing true leadership. At the same time, Clinton was busy breaking down the US Military and relinquishing control of US Forces overseas to the United Nations. Once the Monica Lewinsky scandal took hold, and the lies began, islamofascist leaders of terrorism began to take stabs at the soft underbelly of the United States of America. All the while, that lull of US supremacy in the world provided a vacuum into which islamofascism could rush in, unabated, securing the new fulcrum and introducing a chaos none but a few knew would come - September 11th, 2001.

And now, we have a full-on battle on our hands, a battle against those seeking to destroy us. Our new “old” enemy, in no way resembles a true force of any one nation or government. This enemy is one that does not follow the Geneva Convention, nor does it wear a distinct uniform carrying a standard from which all can determine a true combatant on the field of battle. And, there is an insurgency threatening the leadership in this battle which has roots within the United States. This insurgency is one lead by those that have grown up believing and succumbing to the “governing law of inaction”. They are in places of power and influence and are even members of the Republican Party (RHINOs)! Those of us that recognize true leadership and abhor chaos must stand firm and fight this new enemy to our last breath.

Because, in the end, making concessions, appeasement, lack of force, weak leadership, and ultimately succumbing to the “governing law of inaction” will be our demise. To promote and support such soft positions on tough subjects like interrogation of terrorists, full prosecution of actions in battle, securing our borders, surveillance of foreign persons, amnesty for illegal aliens, and ultimately the subjugation by the likes of “The Gang of 14″, well, we’ll be exposing our soft underbelly to those that have erected the newest fulcrum with the goal of wresting peace from within our grasp.

Make no mistake, if we let “The Gang of 14″ and their supporters, the Mainstream Media, and Liberal college professors and actors expose our flank, islamofascism will strike with such a force as to propel the whole world into a state of chaos no one can envision or even fantasize.

Do you want that to happen? Not I. Let us first start with the “Gang of 14″ and work our way outward. We, the Milblogging community, have a duty to take back this country.

It is time.

UPDATE: Wow, hadn’t read Investor’s Business Daily in some time. Found this article with the same thread as this post - different take is the Editor utilizes Democrat Presidents at the outset whereas I posit all Democrat Presidents were “governed by the law of inaction”.

Have ya ever tasted yellow cake? You know, that nondescript cake mix in your supermarket … not exactly the favorite of all but some like it. I, however, speak of a different variety. The one I like most is the one Saddam likes as well.

That wonderful cake mix that WMDs are made from.

As I was reading the Senate Intelligence Committee Phase II Report, I came upon this teensy-weensy little paragraph offered up by our august body:

PHASE II REPORT — PDF pg 16, printed pg 13
“(U) On October 6, 2002, the CIA sent a fax to the White House providing information on why the DCI had advised that a reference to Iraq seeking uranium from Africa be removed from a speech the President intended to deliver in Cincinnati. CIA offered three points: “(1) The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine cited by the source is under the control of the French authorities. (2) The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq’s nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And (3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this is one of the two issues where we differed with the British.”

OK, one mine is flooded, fine, maybe that’s true, maybe it’s not. And, glaringly obvious above is the fact that Saddam and the Iraqi’s “already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory”. Hello!!!

But am I to believe that the FRENCH are pure as the wind driven snow?! C’mon people, how can we listen to the likes of the “Gang of 14″ (you’d see in my previous post that Snowe and Hagle are more RINOs than Republicans - or just intelligence IDIOTS!) and these wanna-be intelligence officers? Sheesh! Even in Senator Snowe’s release regarding this Phase II Report, she says the committee unanimously voted to release this report.

ARRRGH! And she released this on the fifth anniversary of September 11th!

But, alas, she is wrong - there was one that refused to release the report - the Honorable Senator Trent Lott, (R) Mississippi, was the lone wolf against this travesty of grandstanding and nihilism! (i love that last word - i’m gonna keep using it anywhere i can!) The proof is in the vote tally; she should pay attention next time before she uses a word, like, unanimously.

I’ve posted before, and this is only one look into the fistula that is the GWOT (Global War on Terror), how Iraq was pushing very hard to work closely with France. In this FMSO doc, it is blatant and clear just what was a-foot (take a step with me, here - pun intended):

Tariq Aziz to Saddam on France
TARIQ ‘AZIZ: After the General Assembly, when meeting with the French Prime Minister in private, I asked him, “how is your relation with Guinea Bissau?” He replied, “very good”. Thereafter, I told him, “I would like you to take care of that … that is to say, for them to take our side. Therefore, he promises to do just that. We are expecting the atmosphere in the Security Council to change relatively from last year, to our advantage, especially if we achieve greater progress with Ekeus’s file. The French, was reserved [firm] in regards to Ekeus or to the issue of Resolution 986, that is to say, he has a firm attitude. He told me, “when you go to Paris you can discuss the issues”. Thereafter, when I arrived in Paris, two days before the official meeting, I observed through my discussion with their Ambassador and [UNINTELLIGIBLE] which they are our close friends from the French Foreign Ministry, that the atmosphere in France is firm, that is to say, it is firm with us … I told my friend, which is the person who we communicate through, to setup a secret meeting with Jacques Chirac, so we finish … [INTERRUPTED] … They said that it could be difficult. I told them to talk to him and see, at any rate, if he could not see me, let us talk on the phone … By God, the next day he contacted me and said, I am coming to see you right now, ahhh … meaning, I am on my way right now. He brought a phone with him when he came. However, Sir, this happened because of the stipulations on us to …
SADDAM: [Yes]
TARIQ ‘AZIZ: … [INTERRUPTED] Your Excellency, I must tell you this to complete the picture, he brought the phone with him and I talked with the President [Jacques Chirac] At the beginning, he started by saying, I want to help you. You are … [INTERRUPTED] Truthfully, I told him in so many words ahhh … what these issues require and what we are now asking. I also told him that we have not met for eleven months; we need to meet so we can provide you with information about Ekeus. He [Ekeus] will not present his report unless you apply pressure against the American pressure, which is the past Italian pressure. I explained other points to him and honestly, without hesitation, he said, “I will give instructions to the Foreign Ministry now to be completely open with you and to exchange and analyze the information, we will help you. We will call to give instructions to our Ambassador in New York to work in complete coordination with you in regards to this specific issue”. When I met with the Prime Minister on the evening of the next day, after my meeting with the Foreign Minister, during the private interview, he said, … I said, I ahhh … I mean, this issue was … I mean, when I met with the Foreign Minister, he was excited, I mean, not bad … [Laughing] … Foreign Minister? This is what we need from you, to pressure Ekeus, scrutinize him, and ask him when he will be finished and to tell him that this is what Iraq has provided, also for your Ambassador in New York to do whatever he is able to do. He told me yes, especially at the time when the Foreign Relations are warm, and the leadership is cold. Now it is the opposite, the situation has been reversed, the leadership is warm, and the Foreign Relations are cold, however, he told me that this has been solved. Chirac met with me today and told me to take the procedures and tell the Minister and the Ambassador and assure them that this issue has been solved. Therefore, the man was sure of his promise over the phone and put the Prime Minister in charge of giving the instructions. The Foreign Minister was friendly and serious at the meeting. We know the Minister, we met him before, however, we reached a level of understanding and he followed the instructions. I mean, at the end, when I was leaving, he assured me of his support, encouraged me, and said, if you are able, even by phone, call me and inform me if anything should happen. I mean, he encourages quick communications. Therefore, if they did not have the will for teamwork and cooperation, I believe, after my visit to Paris, the French position has been restored.

Again, are we all to believe that France is not a part in all this? Did you also take the time to follow the Oil for Food mess?

C’mon, we didn’t create that stupid “Freedom Fries” term for nothing!

These RINOs are killing this country, and the Liberals are shoving them in the back, right off the cliff! Are you gonna wake up and tell them they are on the wrong planet? ‘Cause, we’re all pretty much alone out here, folks - Senate Republicans left a loooooong time ago.

If you think that this country is awash with the likes of Neville Chamberlain, there’s an interesting discussion going on about the NSA, Al Jazeera, and al Quaida over at Amy Proctor’s blog. A couple of us are getting some good comments up there and providing good arguments. The more the merrier, so join in!

Here’s a comment I left over there regarding Amy’s that defines clearly the 4th Amendment. Added is I had asked if anyone knew who was in power when Echelon was in full technical swing:

On the 4th Amendment, Amy …

YOU GO GIRL!!!

Nailed it again, M’Lady.

And, Amy, I know _you_ know the answer to the Who’s Who of 1998 question. It’s the Captain of Crocodile Tears, y’all … that man could curl a lip on command like no one I know.

Disingenuous? I’ll leave that to all of you to decide.

For me, I’ll take the war-mongering Reagan and Bush over the aspirin-plant bombing, no answer for the USS Cole yellow-bellied, blue-hat order taking, bible-toten yet never reading or living it at all, lack of conviction for this country sell out of a man.

This country deserves to be protected not sold out to the highest bidder or tin horn dictator. And God save us from the likes of those that want to be accepted by the boneheads in the EU! One more Chamberlain-like politician or actor/singer in this country and we’re gonna go down like every other country in the EU, when they were at their peak. Sheesh.

It’s a shame that so many have forgotten the past. The disgrace of today is a simple rehash or repeat of the Chamberlains of yesterday.

God Bless the United States of America, and those who truly protect her from assault and destruction.

If you aren’t reading Irish Pennant’s for great leads, and you forget to wander over to RealClearPolitics and Jack Kelly’s articles, you’ve been bumping around in the night without a flashlight (torch to my friends in the UK). The primary thrust of Jack’s article for today is awesome about how the media is busy giving iteself a toilet-bowl-swirlee. Those dopes are never going to go back and reexamine the complete falsehoods they’ve published. I mean, why clarify or retract what you’ve written - the truth? Naw, too plebeian …

BUT, buried in all this, is a little snippet I think you all will find, astonishing:

We’re more reluctant to reexamine old news even when there are new developments, if the new developments run counter to journalistic memes. Here’s a story you didn’t read on the front page: Among the captured Iraqi documents recently released to the public is a March 17, 2001 memo from an Iraqi air force brigadier general soliciting volunteers from his command for a suicide mission to “strike American interests.” Gee, in what sort of suicide mission would pilots have been useful?

Another document, released Friday, has not yet been translated from Arabic, but notations on it indicate it describes the movement of chemical and biological weapons.

But Saddam had no ties to terror groups, and he had no WMD. We told you so.

Uh, did I read that right? A March 17, 2001 memo from Iraqi Air Force Brigadier General asking for pilots to volunteer for a suicide mission to strike US interests?!

Uh-huh, there’s no link between Sad-damn and al Qaida … you keep thinking that out there.

Sheesh, what an unbelievable day. We go from Reuters reporting on Calypso Louis’ words of treason in Cuba to the Blowhards in Washington crossing the line and pitting themselves against the people they represent.

Check out the choice words from Farrakhan in the Reuters story:

Farrakhan called for “regime change” in the United States on Monday and denounced “wicked” U.S. policies for turning the world against America.

“We need a new government, we need regime change in America,” he said at the end of a visit to Communist Cuba.

Farrakhan, who led the Million Man March on the Washington Mall in 1995 to promote black self-reliance, said the Bush administration’s domestic policies were “sucking the blood of the poor and the weak.”

The controversial African American leader defended Iran’s right to develop a nuclear energy program to reduce dependence on oil and said Washington’s opposition was a pretext for a war.

“The Muslim world should unite against America’s desire for a preemptive strike against Iran and Syria,” he said at a news conference.

Farrakhan said a similar pretext was used by Washington to invade Iraq “to rape the treasuries of the United States of hundreds of billions of dollars to be doled out to the friends of President Bush, Halliburton and Bechtel and associates.”

Farrakhan visited Cuba for a week to learn about disaster management in the wake of the U.S. government’s failure to cope with Hurricane Katrina last year in New Orleans, he said.

He thanked President Fidel Castro and blasted the U.S. economic embargo against Cuba as a “wicked blockade.” The U.S. government has no moral grounds to criticize Cuba, where education and health care are free, he added.

And now, for the point where the planets align and body snatchers have come and placed Republicans next to Ted Kennedy just to get a vote:

“A path to earned citizenship is what this bill is about,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who joined Massachusetts Democrat Sen. Edward Kennedy in offering the measure. He said it was “an eleven-year journey” to earn citizenship and candidates would have to pay a fine, undergo criminal background checks, learn English and pay their taxes.”

And, more stupidity from Spectroid:

“Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, called it a “a measured bill.”

Is there ever going to be an end to this insanity? Is there ever going to be a time where people know what it means to respect their country? When are the primary border states going to stop being the sheep and enact their own laws and enforce the borders to keep their citizens safe and free from carrying the burden?

When are you going to stand up to your lily-livered, spineless, vote-gettin’ politician? The “Guard the Borders Blogburst” needs to turn into the “mail your dopey senator/congressman burst”. They need to listen, we’re getting slaughtered out here!

You hate the US Military and you demand that defense spending halt - no more funding. You think that we spend too much to protect this country. You’d love to fix the world, starting at home, and fund other programs. Or, just send all the bucks to New Orleans and watch them party it away - ’cause, Bush caused the hurricane - you say New Orleans deserves it.

Funny. But to truly understand just how much is spent on salaries for our brave fighting men and women, materiel (weapons, vehicles, etc), and the operations, you need the right measuring stick. I mean, do you really know how long six inches really is?

I thought not.

In the March 2006 issue of Air Force Magazine (you need to be a member of the Air Force Assoc to subscribe), the Associate Editor Tamar A. Mehuron has the answer: measure against GDP (gross domestic product - stay with me here). To take this one step in providing you with the ammo to eliminate moonbat rhetoric, the following chart shows the US Defense Budget Spending to GDP percentage up against the top 50 countries in the world. Take a look for yourself:

We’re near the bottom, 22 up from the bottom. We spend 3.8% of GDP on Defense. These are in 2004 dollars, and does not take into consideration that which other countries hide from us. For this to be accurate, all parties should be reporting accurately. I suspect no one does, ’cause Iran, Lebanon, and China are all 1.1% to 0.1% (respectively) less than the US. That’s really not that much folks.

The UAE spends far less on defense. Wonder why? We help them and they don’t get attacked. Israel spends far greater, we help them, but they are surrounded - I’d rather have Israel spending more and be alive than the alternative.

Want your eyes to pop out of your sockets? Check out NORTH KOREA! They spend 25%!!! Whoa, Nellie!

Check out the Saudis, Syria, Yemen, Russia, and Cuba. They’re not exactly spending at Wal Mart prices either!

This whole post started in response to these comments I read about the UAE Ports Deal debacle on Sister Toldjah’s blog. One of her readers tossed out the tired and worn out drivel … oh, here’s the exchange:

“The next fuss will be over the greatest Socialist organization in America, the Defense Department. $600 billion dollars a year is far too much money to give to this entitlement program. 1/2 of that amount should be more then enough. Peace”
[Comment 88819]

“At the rate of $2 billion each and every week, time is the one thing we don’t have. New Orleans needs money, we need a universal health care system, we need a ton more money to get our seaports safe. We are still there only so bush and the boy’s can save face at this point. Peace”
[Comment 89196]

Now, after the first to lame attempts from the commenter without a blog of his own, CavalierX steps in with a good one:

“>At the rate of $2 billion each and every week

Aww, it’s kind of cute when Liberals pretend to be fiscal Conservatives…

>New Orleans needs money

…especially when the mask slips seconds later and they start screeching for money for their social programs. Personally, I don’t want my tax dollars rebuilding a city in a flood zone, below sea level, that was destroying the environment by its very presence. You do realise that the city was causing the mass destruction of the wetlands? Or don’t you care about the environment?”
[Comment 89362]
CavalierX

So, the unknown comic tries to pitch a slider:

“Tax dollars are money. Money is budgeted. Too much money is budgeted for the Defense Department. It should be cut by at least $225 billion in 2007. Peace”
[Comment 89555]

And, CavalierX hits it outta the park:

“>Too much money is budgeted for the Defense Department.

It’s the only Constitutionally-mandated expense, and one of the few legitimate expenses, of the Federal government. It’s all the useless feel-good programs that don’t actually have any effect on the problems they’re supposed to solve that waste my money. If it weren’t for the Defense Department, you’d be speaking German or Japanese. On the other hand, there would probably be forced euthanasia for the useless.”
[Comment 89557]
CavalierX

Really, we don’t spend very much. In fact, we should be spending more. Let’s just whack the pay scales in Washington DC and give that money to all these pet programs the moonbats want. Next, divert the other expenses to the Defense Budget and give all the fighting men and women more pay, more benefits, and full on retirement ’til we meet our maker.

Sounds fair to me!

Thanks and References
Bloggers I Read
Sister Toldjah’s UAE Port Deal Post

Reference
Air Force Magazine, March 2006 (Air Force Assoc)