MITT ROMNEY - FRIGGIN' HALFWIT!
THE MAN'S OWN WORDS VIA A WASHINGTON POST OP-ED...
* * *
* * *
Russia invades, China bullies, Iran spins centrifuges,
the Islamic State (a terrorist threat “beyond anything that we’ve seen,”
according to the defense secretary ) threatens — and Washington slashes the
military. Reason stares.
* RUSSIA INVADES... WHAT...? CALIFORNIA? NEW MEXICO?
ARIZONA? TEXAS? NO, FOLKS... THAT'S MEXICO HE'S THINKING OF! MEXICO IS INVADING AMERICA - ALONG WITH A FAIR PORTION OF CENTRAL AND EVEN SOUTH AMERICA!
* AS FOR RUSSIA... WE SHOULD BE FRIENDS - NOT ENEMIES -
WITH RUSSIA. WE SHOULD BE UNITED AGAINST CHINA!
* CHINA? ROMNEY LIKES CHINA! HE'S A HUGE SUPPORTER OF
"FREE" TRADE - NO MATTER HOW FIXED THE GAME IS AND NO MATTER HOW MANY
AMERICANS LOSE THEIR JOBS.
* FOLKS... YOU KNOW WHAT'S A NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? A DEINDUSTRIALIZED AMERICA!
* IRAN? FRANKLY I'M MORE WORRIED ABOUT NORTH KOREA.
(HMM... NOTE... ROMNEY DOESN'T MENTION NORTH KOREA...)
* ISIS...? (AREN'T AMERICANS STILL DYING IN AFGHANISTAN?
HEY... FOLKS... DOES ANYONE CALL AFGHANISTAN A "WIN" FOR US? HOW'BOUT
IRAQ?)
* SERIOUSLY... ISIS IS A THREAT, BUT ONE EASILY DEALT
WITH. (BY COMPETENT LEADERSHIP AT LEAST!) ROMNEY COULDN'T WIN A WAR AGAIN THE
OBAMA CAMPAIGN MACHINE - AFTER FOUR YEARS OF OBAMA DISASTER AFTER OBAMA
DISASTER; SOMEHOW I DON'T SEE HIM AS OUR NEXT GENERAL EISENHOWER... OR RATHER
PRESIDENT EISENHOWER.
Several arguments are advanced to justify the decimation
of our defense. All of them are wrong.
* DECIMATION...? REALLY...? SPENDING A "BASE"
AMOUNT OF $496 BILLION FOR 2015 IS "DECIMATING" NATIONAL OFFENSE?
(AND FOLKS... THAT DOESN'T COUNT BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS IN SO-CALLED
"BLACK PROGRAMS" NOT TO MENTION ALL THE DEFENSE SPENDING TO BE FOUND
WITHIN SUPPOSEDLY NON-DEFENSE FEDERAL EXPENDITURES.)
* OH... AND FOLKS... TO REMIND YOU... WE'RE A NATION THAT
CAN'T MEET IT'S EXISTING SPENDING. THIS YEAR'S DEFICIT IS EXPECTED TO BE $492
BILLION. THE 2015 BUDGET DEFICIT IS EXPECTED TO BE $469 BILLION. THEN...
STARTING IN 2015... DEFICITS ARE SET TO SURGE AGAIN - AT LEAST ACCORDING TO THE
LATEST CBO REPORTS.
The president asserts that we must move to “a new order
that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of
common humanity.” The old order, he is saying, where America’s disproportionate
strength holds tyrants in check and preserves the sovereignty of nations, is to
be replaced.
* "DISPROPORTIONATE STRENGTH," HUH? WHEN'S THE
LAST TIME WE WON A MAJOR WAR - 1945? THE EXISTENCE OF A NUCLEAR ARMED NORTH
KOREA POINTS TO US HAVING LOST THAT WAR IN 1953. VIETNAM...? (*HEADACHE*)
HOW'BOUT IRAQ... AFGHANISTAN... HOW'RE THINGS GOING POST-"VICTORY?"
(WELL... WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY OF OUR GENERALS MURDERED IN THE LAST...er... THREE WEEKS AT LEAST.)
It is said that the first rule of wing-walking is to not
let go with one hand until the other hand has a firm grip.
* THIS... MAN... IS... A... MORON...!
So, too, before we jettison our reliance on U.S.
strength, there must be something effective in its place — if such a thing is
even possible. Further, the appeal to “common humanity” as the foundation of
this new world order ignores the reality that humanity is far from common in
values and views. Humanity may commonly agree that there is evil, but what one
people calls evil another calls good.
* GO BACK TO MISSIONARY WORK! LEAVE THE REST OF US OUT OF
YOUR CRUSADES!
-
There are those who claim that a multi-polar world is
preferable to one led by a strong United States. Were these other poles nations
such as Australia, Canada, France and Britain, I might concur. But with
emerging poles being China, Russia and Iran, the world would not see peace; it
would see bullying, invasion and regional wars. And ultimately, one would seek
to conquer the others, unleashing world war.
* IF ONLY I COULD BELIEVE YOU VIEWED CHINA AS THE ENEMY
SHE IS... AND IF ONLY I COULD BELIEVE YOU WEREN'T SO THICK-HEADED AS TO BE UNABLE TO
GRASP THAT IN THE GREATER SCHEME OF THINGS WE WOULD BE MUCH BETTER OFF WITH
PUTIN'S RUSSIA AS OUR ALLY AS OPPOSED TO OUR ADVERSARY.
Some argue that the United States should simply withdraw
its military strength from the world — get out of the Middle East, accept
nuclear weapons in Iran and elsewhere, let China and Russia have their way with
their neighbors and watch from the sidelines as jihadists storm on two or three
continents. Do this, they contend, and the United States would be left alone.
* NO. NO ONE IS SAYING WE SIMPLY WITHDRAW OUR MILITARY
STRENGTH FROM THE WORLD. (YOU JERK!) BUT HAS IT EVER OCCURRED TO YOU THAT WE'RE
OVER-STRETCHED? HAS IT EVER OCCURRED TO YOU THAT SOME OF OUR "COMMITMENTS"
(ESPECIALLY LONG-STANDING ONES FORGED IN A DIFFERENT ERA) SIMPLY DON'T MAKE
SENSE ANY MORE? (FOLKS... ARE YOU STILL FRIENDS WITH ALL YOUR 3RD GRADE
CLASSMATES? AS WITH INDIVIDUAL RELATIONSHIPS, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS
SHOULD AND DO CHANGE OVER TIME!)
* HOW MANY AMERICANS ARE YOU WILLING TO SACRIFICE FOR
UKRAINE OR GEORGIA? DO YOU REALLY SEE RUSSIA ATTACKING WESTERN EUROPE? JUST
BECAUSE WE SHOULD KEEP OUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH JAPAN AND THE PHILIPPINES AND IF
NECESSARY RISK ACTUAL MILITARY CONFLICT WITH CHINA TO PROTECT THEIR TERRITORIAL
INTEGRITY, DOES THIS APPLY TO EACH AND EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH?
* FOLKS... WHAT ROMNEY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND IS THAT IT'S
TIME TO RETHINK AND RE-PRIORITIZE. YOU'D TAKE A BULLET FOR YOUR SPOUSE OR
CHILD... HOW'BOUT FOR THE GUY STANDING NEXT TO YOU WHOM YOU'VE NEVER MET?
SHOULDN'T AMERICA'S MILITARY COMMITMENTS MAKE SENSE? SHOULDN'T THEY ALIGN WITH
OUR CAPABILITIES... OUR MANPOWER RESOURCES... OUR FINANCIAL RESOURCES... OUR
ABILITY TO PUT UP BEFORE WE'RE SHUT UP?
* REAGAN GOADED THE SOVIET UNION INTO ENGAGING US IN AN
ARMS RACE THEY COULD NEVER WIN. IN THE END THEIR TRYING ACTUAL BROKE THEM. ARE
THE CHINESE... AND THE RUSSIANS... USING A SIMILAR STRATEGY - ONLY THEY ALSO
PLAY ON OUR FEAR OF TERRORISM? AGAIN, FOLKS... ISIS ISN'T THE THREAT... CHINA
IS... AND TO WIN AGAINST CHINA WE'VE GOTTA FIGHT SMARTER - NOT JUST THROW MORE
MONEY AT A PENTAGON UNABLE TO CRUSH AL-QIADA!
The history of the 20th century teaches that power-hungry
tyrants ultimately feast on the appeasers — to use former Mississippi governor
Haley Barbour’s phrase, we would be paying the cannibals to eat us last.
* FIRST OF ALL, IT'S NOW THE 21st CENTURY. SECOND OF
ALL... IF YOU'RE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT "THE CANNIBALS"... ABOUT
ISIS... WITH ALL THE MONEY AND RESOURCES NOW AT THE GOVERNMENT'S DISPOSAL...
(*GUFFAW*)... THEN YOU'LL NEVER FEEL SAFE.
* FOLKS... EISENHOWER... A FIVE STAR GENERAL TWICE
ELECTED PRESIDENT... WARNED US AGAINST THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. (HEY...
MITT... WHERE EXACTLY IS YOUR FORTUNE INVESTED NOWADAYS...???)
And in the meantime, our economy would be devastated by
the disruption of trade routes, the turmoil in global markets and the tumult of
conflict across the world. Global peace and stability are very much in our
immediate national interest.
* AGAIN... MOST PEOPLE CAN WALK AND CHEW GUM AT THE SAME
TIME. I'M SURE A SMART GUY LIKE YOU, MR. ROMNEY, COULD PRIORITIZE OUR HUNDREDS
OF BILLIONS IN DEFENSE SPENDING SO AS TO CONTINUE PROTECTING OUR VITAL TRADE
ROUTES.
(*SMIRK*)
Some insist that our military is already so much stronger
than that of any other nation that we can safely cut it back, again and again.
Their evidence: the relative size of our defense budget. But these comparisons
are nearly meaningless: Russia and China don’t report their actual defense
spending, they pay their servicemen a tiny fraction of what we pay ours and
their cost to build military armament is also a fraction of ours. More relevant
is the fact that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is significantly greater than our own...
* SO...? WHAT'S YOUR POINT...? ARE YOU SAYING WE NEED
MONEY TO BUILD MORE NUCLEAR WEAPONS? (IF SO... THEN TAKE THE MONEY FROM LESSER
SPENDING PRIORITIES!)
...and that, within six years, China will have more ships
in its navy than we do.
* AGAIN... QUANTITY vs. QUALITY DOESN'T ALWAYS TELL THE
TALE. BUT IN ANY CASE, HOW MANY SHIPS IS ENOUGH? WHAT TYPES? WOULDN'T IT BE WISE TO
RE-THINK OUR COMMITMENTS AND PRIORITIZE OUR ALLIANCES SO THAT WE'RE NOT ALWAYS
THE ONE DOING THE HEAVY LIFTING?
China already has more service members. Further, our
military is tasked with many more missions than those of other nations:
preserving the freedom of the seas, the air and space; combating radical
jihadists; and preserving order and stability around the world as well as
defending the United States.
* MY POINT EXACTLY! HOW'BOUT WE JETTISON A FEW OF THOSE
"MISSIONS." PERHAPS LET OUR ALLIES SHOULDER THE FINANCIAL BURDEN A
BIT MORE AS WELL AS SHOULDER THE RISKS MORE? THE WORLD IS A BIG PLACE, MR.
ROMNEY. YOU SEEM CONVINCED THAT WE CAN - AND SHOULD - BE EVERYWHERE... ALL THE
TIME... NO LIMITS... DAMN THE DEFICITS AND FULL SPEED AHEAD!
The most ludicrous excuse for shrinking our military
derives from the president’s thinking: “Things are much less dangerous now than
they were 20 years ago, 25 years ago or 30 years ago.” The “safer world” trial
balloon has been punctured by recent events in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Libya,
Egypt, Gaza, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria and Iraq. “Failures of imagination” led to
tragedy 13 years ago; today, no imagination is required to picture what would
descend on the United States if we let down our guard.
* YES...! AGAIN...! THANK YOU FOR BRINGING UP
AFGHANISTAN...! HOW MUCH BLOOD AND HOW MUCH TREASURE DID WE SQUANDER ON
AFGHANISTAN AND WHAT HAS BEEN THE RESULT? HOW MUCH BLOOD AND TREASURE ON
IRAQ... AND LOOK AT THE SITUATION TODAY! SIMPLY THROWING MONEY AT THE PENTAGON
AND FOGGY BOTTOM DOESN'T SEEM TO ME TO BE A SOUND STRATEGY!
The arguments for shrinking our military fall aside to
reveal the real reason for the cuts: Politicians, and many of the people who
elect them, want to keep up spending here at home. Entitlements and programs
are putting pressure on the federal budget: We either cut defense, or we cut
spending on ourselves. That, or raise our taxes.
* I WANT TO CUT ALL THE SPENDING! I WANT TO SHRINK THE
WELFARE STATE! I WANT TO SHRINK THE SURVEILLANCE STATE! I WANT A MILITARY
CAPABLE OF WINNING ANY WAR, BUT, NOT A BLOATED "INTERNATIONAL NATION
BUILDING FORCE" WHILE WE'VE STILL GOT TONS OF PROBLEMS ON OUR OWN SOIL!
* BY THE WAY... HAS THIS CLOWN ROMNEY EVEN ONCE MENTIONED
THE MEXICAN BORDER...???
(*SMIRK*)
To date, the politicians have predictably voted to slash
defense. As Bret Stephens noted in Commentary magazine this month, the Army is
on track to be the size it was in 1940...
* AND WHAT, WHERE, AND WHEN DO YOU PROPOSE WE
INVADE...???
* AND BY THE WAY YOU DAMNED FOOL... COMPARING THE MODERN COMBAT
CAPACITY OF OUR PRESENT DAY SOLDIERS, SAILORS, AIRMEN, AND MARINES (EQUIPPED
WITH MODERN ARMS) TO THOSE OF 1940... RIDICULOUS! (AND YOU KNOW IT, ROMNEY!)
...the Navy to be the size it was in 1917...
* COMBAT POWER - NOT SIZE - IS WHAT MATTERS. (AND ROMNEY
KNOWS IT.)
...the Air Force to be smaller than in 1947 and our
nuclear arsenal to be no larger than it was under President Harry S. Truman.
* AND YET OL' HARRY MANAGED TO PREVENT AMERICA FROM BEING
OVER-RUN BY INVADING FOREIGNERS IN 1947 - IMAGINE THAT!
Washington politicians are poised to make a historic
decision, for us, for our descendants and for the world. Freedom and peace are
in the balance. They will choose whether to succumb to the easy path of
continued military hollowing or to honor their constitutional pledge to protect
the United States.
* FOLKS... USE COMMON SENSE. DON'T LET ROMNEY AND PEOPLE
LIKE HIM PUSH YOUR BUTTONS AND LEAD YOU BY THE NOSE. THERE'S ALWAYS GONNA BE
THE PULL OF THE CALL FOR "BIGGER AND BETTER," BUT IN THE REAL WORLD
COMPETING PRIORITIES AND LIMITED RESOURCES HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT!
* THINK OF IT THIS WAY: SCHOOL SECURITY. HAVING ADULTS AS
TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS, AND SUPPORT PERSONNEL USED TO BE ALL THE
"SECURITY" A SCHOOL NEEDED. THEN IT WAS UNARMED SECURITY. THEN IT WAS
A COP. WHAT'S NEXT... SPECIAL FORCES PERSONNEL DEPLOYED TO EVERY SCHOOL IN THE
COUNTRY "COVERING" ALL HOURS THE SCHOOL IS OPEN?
No comments:
Post a Comment