advertisement

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Search Boortz.com
Enter search terms:
Browse Boortz.com
Today's Nuze

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Nobody's listening.

TIMING IS EVERYTHING

By
Neal Boortz
@ April 7, 2009 8:44 AM Permalink | Comments (49) | TrackBacks (0)

And yesterday, just after North Korea launched a missile, our Secretary of Defense stands up and announces cuts to our military weapons program.

Every action an administration takes sends a message. The unmistakable message here is that the United States is weakening. On the very day after North Korea test-fires a missile with intercontinental range, Obama announces a cutback in military spending. He is expanding spending in virtually every segment of government - except defense. The one true absolute function of the federal government is getting shorted while social welfare programs are being doubled in size. Yeah .. we really showed those North Koreans who the boss was, didn't we? Not just the Gargoyle ... but every other country out there that would like to take advantage of American weakness. We are, whether Obama cares to admit it or not, at war with radical Islam. Nations like Russia and China are vying to become the world's dominant military power. The No. 4 military power test fires a missile after we told them to stand down ... and Obama announces a $534 billion cut our defense budget.

There's your change you can believe in, folks. A weakened America in a very dangerous world.

Categories:

Tags:

Main Index | Archives | RSS feed

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: TIMING IS EVERYTHING.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/26959

Jamie Dupree's Blog

If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.

Belinda Skelton, Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!

Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • air defense
    personally i feel we need a really fast osprey defense..semper..fi
    By steve @ 04/07/09 10:05:13 PMreport abuse
  • right but not
    yes he is cutting defense of our own nation which i think is wrong since you know. but he is giving more money to our troops on foot which is good but shouldnt have cut out missle defense systems.
    By phillip @ 04/07/09 06:00:45 PMreport abuse
  • Cowboy Up
    At no point has anything been posted with any half truths or falsehoods from myself. Sorry, just the undeniable, unshakable truth.At some point you'll have to accept it. Looks like for the most part you've failed to answer what I was asking, but rather created a different set of questions and I guess are pretending that I asked those instead.

    1) So you believe the founders wanted to extract earnings from citizens in order to send it to other countries. My arguement stands the constitution does not give America the authority to keep an entire nation on welfare.Sorry.I just don't think the founders would have wanted that.

    2. Wrong. America can no longer afford the spending on military adventurism either.Which really you could include in unconstitutional spending. Which is why we see inflation happpening. The U.S is at the point of printing money out of thin air and erroding the currency.The inflation tax if you will.

    (b) you're saying that Iraq and Afghanistan can reach mainland America? With what armies? You realize 9/11 was a reaction done primarily by Saudis right? You realize Bush still considered the Saudis an ally even though there are Saudis bombing U.S soldiers to bits in Iraq as we speak? Does that add up logically for you?

    (c) You've failed to answer a basic question. Its 100% relevant actually. Why not throw a dart at ANY country in Africa and invade there then? Does the constitution specify America as world police?

    3. Wrong.You failed to answer a basic question. You've side stepped it by pretending I asked you something different.

    4(a). Somehow I don't think Jefferson would agree with giving money to military dictators so it can possibly filter down to islamic fascists. Especially with America being broke.

    (b) I don't like the socialist democrats either, but that's pretty brave of you saying that other countries should be able to give cash to a group wanting to overthrow the U.S and change Americans way of life,no matter what party.

    5(a) sounds like you are talking about Iraq, and the current mess we face with Bush opening the door for Komrad Obama.

    (b) And Japan and Germany were actually at war with the U.S. They commited clear acts of war, and the U.S declared war on them.Amazing though that you believe parts of Iran are actually America's. I couldn't think of a better way to display an empire/emperor mentality rather than the Republic with decentralized govt the founders wanted.

    6. Looks like you've skipped the question again. I wonder if you yourself realize that you a displaying a form of liberal paternalism?

    Hope my responses can help you out.You haven't really changed my outlook at all.
    By Lysander Spooner @ 04/07/09 05:09:30 PMreport abuse
  • Bend over...
    I wish someone would find a picture of Obama bent over with his buns in the air... and then add the caption "I'm just waiting for North Korea and any terrorists... No lube, though."
    By Lauri @ 04/07/09 04:12:33 PMreport abuse
  • CowboyUp
    My hero!
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 04/07/09 03:46:34 PMreport abuse
  • One American Is Glad About Obama's Response
    And that would be Jimmy Carter, if he was in his right mond. Atlast, there will be a Democratic president worse that he was.
    By Kevin H @ 04/07/09 03:29:24 PMreport abuse
  • Agreed
    Rasilio-

    Agree with everything you are mentioning. Not that the F-35 will not be capable enough to knock out SAMs, as well as other technologies, but the F-35 is not and was not intended to be the end all for Air Superiority. The point I was making with the units purchased is that I am afraid the community of the Raptor will be stretched fairly thin.

    Yes the F-35 will augment well. However, it is not in the same class. We won't dare export the F-22 due to its total package. It is more stealth (as released by Lockheed publicly) in many more spectrum's of current and future means of tracking it.

    Point being lessons learned from maintaining years of no-fly zones, and years of wars, our jets are losing 3 years of shelf life per every 9 months of flying due to their high ops tempo. The F-22 community will be stretched thin. I still pity the fool that wants to take on just one of them.. ;)

    I do agree with your points. The 35 is just not as stealth and we are willing to export that technology...not the 22's. Let's keep some sort of overwhelming edge and sustainability with more 22s. But it isn't a perfect world is it?
    By Ross @ 04/07/09 03:12:57 PMreport abuse
  • Lysander
    They would be yes or no questions if they weren’t premised on falsehoods and half truths, so deal with it.

    1) Yes US treaty is law, read your Constitution. Be careful of ratifying treaties. The US aid to Israel is mandated by carter’s camp david accords, as is the matching aid to Egypt you neglected to mention.

    2) a. Yes, it’s the over $2 trillion every year in unconstitutional spending we can’t afford.
    b. Yes, ever hear of the WTC? 9/11?
    c. Irrelevant, we don’t need Iraqi help defending our country, they do need ours. Shouldn’t the Iraqis (or the Saudis and Kuwaitis) be the ones to decide whether they will lease us bases? Is there a better location to interdict the primary threat to the region (Other than Okinawa, lol)?

    3) Irrelevant, neither could afford it even if they were capable.

    4) a. Yes, that one goes back to how the Jefferson Administration took Tripoli.
    b. Yes, as long as it’s not the Republican Party. That’s been established since clinton/gore and the chicoms in the ‘90’s, and confirmed by hussein’s 2008 campaign.

    5) a. Yes, and whoever allows the mad mullahs to get nukes will doom tens to hundreds of millions and be d*mned by history. That sure wouldn’t be me.
    b. Yes, we disarmed Germany and Japan, and we said what weapons they could and couldn’t have. It’s called unconditional surrender. When the mad mullahs invaded the US embassy in Iran they invaded US soil, and they have been committing criminal acts of war against us ever since. We are well within our rights to do everything we did to Germany and Japan to Iran.

    6) Yes, foreign officers have been training on US Posts since the 80’s, at least. We don’t need the Saudis (they asked us there, remember?) to defend US soil, but if we asked them, why would we be upset if they came? Boy assad and the mad mullahs are self professed mortal enemies waging war against us, they are free to try it, and eventually will. There are more of them here already than most realize, and they will make a big mess when they make their move.

    Hope that was illuminating.
    By CowboyUp @ 04/07/09 02:35:20 PMreport abuse
  • Ross: We won't only have 187 5th generation fighters
    We're going to have another 2100 or so F-35's to go with them. The difference being that the F-35 is more comparable to the F-16 where the F-22 is more like the F-15.

    In fact that is what Gates specifically said, stop building the F-22 that no one can compete with and no one is even trying to leaving it with no role and build the fighters we'll actually use.

    187 F-22's backed up by 600 or so F-15's will be enough to guarantee us Air Superiority in ANY theater of operations while still leaving a few hundred left behind in a defensive role for at least the next 15 years while the 2000 F-35's bomb the crap out of anything on the ground including the SAM sites you are worried about
    By Rasilio @ 04/07/09 02:34:06 PMreport abuse
  • Yes Dustin I do know what I'm talking about
    Aircraft like the F-22 are pure air superiority fighters, they have limited usefulness in Ground support operations and are so expensive you'd have to be an idiot to risk one in that role. It'd be like using a thoroughbred racehorse to plow a field.

    There is also the issue of what the F-22 is going to fight for Air Superiority.Currently there deployed accross the globe about 3 or 4 hundred aircraft that are the equal of the F-15 in the Air Superiority role comprising a few Dozen Soviet Built SU35's, a comparable number of French Rafaels, and a couple hundred Eurofighters.

    The 5th generation fighter competition for the F-22/F-35 are all a decade or more a decade off from operational use with China and India likely being the first potential enemies to field anything that can compete with either of them and NONE of them are slated to be a purpose built Air Superiority fighter, all are more inline with the F-35 multi-role concept and capabilities.

    Combine that with the fact that none of our present or likely future enemies except for Russia and China have the technological wherewithal or financial assets to consider even buying a 5th generation fighter and once Russia gets one they are unlikely to be able to afford more than a couple of hundred of them leaves only China and maybe India (if you think there is much risk of us going to war with India) as a threat to the F-22's that we do have.

    Simply put, the F-22 doesn't have an enemy to fight. It is not a particularly good ground support craft and no one has even tried to challenge us in Air Superiority in 40 years, we're much better off with 250 additional F-35's than we are with an extra 100 F-22's.

    What is more is that if we want to have a 5th generation Air Superiority fighter lets build a new one, We've already done it once so we know how. Apply the lessons learned in building the F-22 to make a 5th generation fighter than has 90% of the capacity of the F-22 but 50% of the cost and then buy a few hundred of those to replace the remaining F-15's.
    By Rasilio @ 04/07/09 02:26:50 PMreport abuse
  • So...
    we need to cut the deficit, but maintain a massive military machine? Great. Since when did any cut back in the military mean we are becoming weak? I mean, hell, the missle shield would be cheaper if we just built it to protect the US and not France, but I guess that would make us "weaker"?
    By BWM @ 04/07/09 01:43:43 PMreport abuse
  • Robbing Peter to Pay Paul
    Problem is Peter is the uncle who brings home the bacon, and Paul is the uncle with gambling problem - constantly lying, never has the cash they need, and the pay out is always around the corner.

    Whats funny is most of our innovation in Green energy actually comes in one form or another from our defense research. Maybe we will find a cool green energy application that will help us with defense - perhaps a better model on predicting global warming will help us combat global terrorism (at least it uses the same globe, there are some cost savings there).
    By wxw101 (the Burque) @ 04/07/09 01:16:20 PMreport abuse
  • F-22
    To the guy that said no other country has 5th Generation fighters that can compete with us. Maybe so. BUT...do you know about surface to air missiles already built? Do you know if other countries can track the jet? How many reserve jets are required to maintain spares for a high ops tempo against the inferior 4th Generation jets?

    Do this. Take 187 marbles. Put them in front of you. Now get out a world map and lay it out. Defend the U.S., defend our bases overseas, and conduct just one war with your marbles in a place of your choice with one of the top three potential enemies we have. How many marbles do you have? What if a few break down? Do you have enough jets to train the pilots in at Tyndall AFB, FL to keep attrition % correct?

    The F-22 will guarantee air superiority. This is a lesson our country has learned is absolutely necessary as a chess move to victory. Remove this capability and now you put our boys on the ground in jeopardy. It is a chain reaction and you are an idiot.
    By Ross @ 04/07/09 01:13:00 PMreport abuse
  • Obama: Clueless Neophyte
    Yeah, let's keep flying fighters designed in the 1960's. That's a wise plan.
    By We in trouble, Boo. @ 04/07/09 12:42:41 PMreport abuse
  • Well, the leftist
    seem unconcerned about all these developments..they better stay that way when one of the gargoyles' weapons hit the left coast. Somehow, I think their tune would change rather quickly and they may actually have an epiphany! Course, it'll all be blamed on BUSHITLERBURTON.
    By Phil Ratner @ 04/07/09 12:30:17 PMreport abuse
  • Cuts
    How quickly some of you forget that under the Bush administration, any lesser increase than the previous year was referred to as a "cut" by the state media. For example, a 10% increase in welfare followed by a 15% increase would be referred to as a cut.

    I love the hypocricy
    By None @ 04/07/09 12:29:14 PMreport abuse
  • don't listen to government
    because they would walk a mile to tell you a lie, instead of standing right there and tell you the truth.

    the north koreans are told that there missile test was a success. you can read about it here -- http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/05/north.korea.rocket/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

    the americans are told that there missile defense test was a success. you can read about it here -- http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/05/us.missile.test/index.html

    we're being played
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 04/07/09 12:24:18 PMreport abuse
  • I can't beleive that Kim Jong Il would do this to the messiah. He must not be watching MTV, BET, or Entertainment Tonite.
    Why doesn't the messiah and code pinkies just go over and talk with him? For that matter, everyone else against us? Then it would just be us all getting along.
    By ChuckD @ 04/07/09 12:10:44 PMreport abuse
  • What Don Said 2
    Rasilio please tell me how you figure the F-22 is no longer a needed weapon system for the United States?

    For you to say what you just said shows complete and total lack on education on the subject of defense systems.

    F-22's are not horses they are the future of Air Power for the entire country PERIOD! Face facts Risilio you know zilch about what you are talking about.
    By Dustin @ 04/07/09 11:43:20 AMreport abuse
  • Defense cuts
    Rather than weakening our military with more spending for F-22s that aren't even being used in our present conflicts the Sec of Defense is attempting to spend on the items for "THE WARS WE FIGHT NOW". Smarter spending is a great conservative value. Dwight Eisehower warned against allowing the rise of the mil-indus complex. He could hardly be called a liberal.
    By Bill H. @ 04/07/09 11:39:11 AMreport abuse
  • cuts?
    why is anyone suprised? this is part of the CHANGE.
    By JOHN R. @ 04/07/09 11:10:15 AMreport abuse
  • the ding dong scud. part 2
    if that missle was supposed to really do what they said it was going to I guess it was yet another failure..periodand im also sure any future prospective buyers viewed it as a massive failure as well..the only thing they proved is that they make junk and in order to get real money to build even better junk they had to launch.just wait nato will come calling and well be part of yet another tarp program to benefit korea..
    By steve @ 04/07/09 11:09:26 AMreport abuse
  • Obama is practicing *Appeasement*
    Isn't it obvious? Apologizing to Islam, Apologizing to Europe, Backing down on the very thing designed to stand up to Ballistic Missiles... he's America's modern version of Neville Chamberlain.

    The only question in my mind is whether we will end up speaking Mandarin or Farsi.
    By Richard @ 04/07/09 10:48:18 AMreport abuse
  • What Don said
    The military budget is not being cut, programs that are no longer needed are being cut. Would you argue that we should be spending a few hundred million a year on Equine Armor programs? After all horses were once integral parts of military force?

    Of course not, Horses are out dated. Same goes for the F-22. It's a wonderful piece of technology but no one else has fielded a 5th generation fighter and at best the earliest to go into active service likely won't be before 2015 and of the nations working on them most won't be able to afford more than a few dozen.

    The simple fact is that congressional pork is once again keeping weapon systems that the military does not want or need alive and preventing the money from being used where it is needed and that is all that Gates' budget proposal is saying.
    By Rasilio @ 04/07/09 10:46:54 AMreport abuse
  • $4???
    Neal has lost it. His credibility is gone. North Korea is the world's #4 military power? Neal, did you just make that up? Seems like it. In truth, they're #18, ranking just behind Egypt and ahead of Spain. Look it up yourself. Or you can keep babbling, Neal. You seem to be good at it.

    http://www.globalfirepower.com/
    By MAL @ 04/07/09 10:37:49 AMreport abuse
  • Defense Creates Jobs...
    ... Obviously our new president overlooked that. The defense industry has historically created many jobs for our economy while at the same time enhancing our ability to protect ourselves. In such dismal times, I can't say that this change is something I believe in. Please show me where we're going to use the money taken from the defense industry to create jobs elsewhere... it ain't gonna happen. On top of that, in regards to the programs he cut, I sincerely doubt the president realizes how great an accomplishment in technology and defense the programs are.
    By Ag_in_Atlanta01 @ 04/07/09 10:34:54 AMreport abuse
  • Defense Spending not Offense Spending
    Well said, Terry. Who would we rather see as the major military power in the world? Russia? China?
    By NCchik @ 04/07/09 10:28:04 AMreport abuse
  • Method or madness
    Thousands of jobs will be lost in Georgia and Connecticutt due to Gates shutting down the F22, because he would rather use the F35 which will create jobs in Fort Worth, Texas. Good for Texas. Course this whole plan was kept under wraps so the CBO is just now evaluating the numbers. I'll withhold judgement till I see their report.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 04/07/09 10:19:00 AMreport abuse
  • Still an increase
    This is not a cut. It's a lower increase. We already have a stretched-thin military, on account of that whole "oops, we invaded the wrong country" thing.

    Oh but wait. Reduced increases can only be called "cuts" when they're in defense, right? But if a Democrat called a reduced increase in, say, unemployment compensation, a "cut" you'd be all over it, I bet.
    By Katherine @ 04/07/09 10:17:17 AMreport abuse
  • no enough information here yet
    McCain is saying the changes are in the right direction, but the article doesn't explain why he thinks that.

    Right now I'm adopting a wait and see attitude on this area.

    But I do think the announcement could have been handled better. Just announcing a cut makes us appear weak. That was the wrong message right now.
    By Jeffrey @ 04/07/09 10:13:48 AMreport abuse
  • Rockets/Missiles
    In common military parlance, the word missile describes a powered, guided munition, whilst the word "rocket" describes a powered, unguided munition.

    Words mean things, people.
    By Richard @ 04/07/09 10:11:25 AMreport abuse
  • Defense
    The current theory is that we do not need such an advanced cutting edge military since we will be counting on support of the European Union, NATO, and the UN to defend ourselves. Face it folks, the way things are going in the country nowadays we are going to be at the point where the dollar is so deflated and prices are so inflated that we won’t be able to buy new military hardware. But don’t worry we can always buy our weapons from our fiscal masters in China.
    By Jake @ 04/07/09 10:07:04 AMreport abuse
  • This is what you have been asking for
    Neal this is what you want. Less government spending.
    By Stan Gable @ 04/07/09 10:03:04 AMreport abuse
  • Neal solidly wrong again on foreign policy
    Neal repeats....I repeat;

    It simply is not up to America to tell other countries when and where they can test weapons, particularly if America is testing weapons in other people's countries. Would Americans want Venezuela to start testing weapons on American soil? Nope. Neal your frame of reference is wrong on this. Let Japan,South Korea and China deal with N. Korea. Japan and N.Korea are historic enemies anyway. If America is already 11 trillion in debt where does it get the cash to police the planet? By increasing inflation and punishing the tax payer? Let's get the American border secured,illegals out and troops back home from everywhere in the world that America is playing world police to the tune of bankruptcy and 11 trillion dollar debt. It makes no sense whatsoever to keep talking about how Obama is robbing us blind(which he is) and how America is in debt when you want to go around the world spending billions on interventions that have nothing to do with America or its security. Get the American military out of other people's countries and let them start taking some personal responsibility for themselves instead of relying on welfare from the American taxpayer. Fiscal conservatism and the neo-con foreign policy are simply polar opposities. Wake up. Let's get back to some pro-America, America first, old school Calvin Coolidge conservatism.America literally can't afford the left wing govt expansion mentality of the neo-con Bush/Mccain/Cheney/Patriot Act types.
    By Red Leader @ 04/07/09 09:54:02 AMreport abuse
  • Weakened image
    Cutting back military programs is a stupid move. I know Barack believes in the world peace nonsense, but that's a pipe dream that will never be realized.

    I agree that our military special forces should be further augmented to combat terror, but scaling back on the big ticket items like the F-22 is foolish and suicidal. There are other hostile armies out there that do not fight like the cowardly terrorists (N Korea springs to mind...).

    The difference between a rocket and missile, Boortz, is that missiles use liquid fuel and rockets use solid. Also, missiles are guided, rockets are unguided. They can both have warheads despite what your caller said.
    By Armed @ 04/07/09 09:53:15 AMreport abuse
  • Defense Spending
    Finally we get a SecDef that's not re-fighting WWII!
    By Tom @ 04/07/09 09:53:14 AMreport abuse
  • Cuts
    I'll be branded a leftist for this, but most of those cuts seems reasonable. Paring back the F-22, a plane designed for the Cold War. Cancelling the new Presidential helicopters. Expanding conventional and special forces. Our military budget is hugely inflated right now.

    I do agree that it's frustrating that the *only* program Obama seems intent on cutting is national defense. But that doesn't make the cut wrong or "weak".
    By MikeS @ 04/07/09 09:53:02 AMreport abuse
  • WRONG ! Budget is actually growing!
    Read the AP story: This year's military budget is $513B, 2010 it's $534B, an INCREASE of +4.09%. Defense Secretary Gates is wanting to cancel outdated security programs and ADD newer programs. Dropping the F22, but Adding the F34 fighter. Dropping the new Marine One helicoptor. All good things. Moving from an old 'Cold War' mentatilty to a 'insurgent' based combat program.
    READ THE STORY!
    http://nwanews.com/adg/national/256729/
    By Don @ 04/07/09 09:52:37 AMreport abuse
  • North Korea
    Bill Clinton sold nuclear technology to China in the mid 80's.

    It wouldn't suprise me if Obama sells our rocket technology to North Korea as a "peace" offering.
    By John Wayne @ 04/07/09 09:50:41 AMreport abuse
  • The United States spend far, far, far more on its military than any other country in the entire world.

    http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/us_vs_world.gif

    We currently have military troops stationed in 144 countries. One hundred forty-four.
    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5853

    Why? Why do we need to spend this much money securing over 3/4 of the countries in the world? Can't they secure their own countries?

    To heck with "timing" and "sending a message." If you want to send a message to Kim Jong Il, do it with your money, not my tax dollars. Tax dollars should be used for defense, not sending messages.
    By Rob Evans @ 04/07/09 09:45:26 AMreport abuse
  • No missile shield for us... At least they are not cutting Air Superiority...
    ...Yeah, and I've got a bridge to sell you.

    So, our money can be wasted $700 billion at a time every few months but we can't seem to find enough to build more than 180-some F-22s? Perhaps we can replace our aging F-15s with Chevy Volts? Should be plenty of those not being purchased when the last F-22 rolls off the line.


    4th But First!
    By Brian Kasi @ 04/07/09 09:40:28 AMreport abuse
  • defense vs offense
    the proplem with most democrats is that they see no differance between defensive and offensive military systems. To them all of it is offensive,military wise and personally.
    By damifino @ 04/07/09 09:39:58 AMreport abuse
  • Rockets/Missiles
    Missiles maybe powered by any method of propulsion (I.E. an arrow is a missile), but a rocket is power by a self-oxidizing reaction engine.
    By Ironheadbeej @ 04/07/09 09:30:45 AMreport abuse
  • why
    are we talking about this man? oh' yeah. we've got to scare our people so we can get our increased military budgets.

    as long as our taxes don't go to our citizens, i all for that
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 04/07/09 09:29:45 AMreport abuse
  • The Message
    We're shifting our defense priorities to a mixed system that's more flexible and able to respond to mixed battlefield situations (which John McCain has specifically praised as a sensible change). Gosh, that's just awful.

    And the "defense budget cut"? Turns out it's actually a 4% INCREASE over last year. What an enormous cutback that is, to spend more!

    http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Gates-takes-scalpel-US-defense/story.aspx?guid=%7B8E42785B-0FCF-480B-8AB4-4B599B022393%7D

    Got any other hysteria you'd like to spread, based on half-truths and distortions? This IS talk radio, after all.
    By Copyleft @ 04/07/09 09:14:29 AMreport abuse
  • Defense Budget
    I don't know. I saw the changes going to more special forces type items than anything. Moving more items around. Many Republicans including McCain even said this change in focus has been needed for some time in the Military
    By Nederland74 @ 04/07/09 09:11:15 AMreport abuse
  • North Korea
    the number 4 military power, Kemosabe?

    who are you talking about?
    By Rex @ 04/07/09 09:07:12 AMreport abuse
  • My way or the highway
    But.. I won.
    By Barack Obama @ 04/07/09 09:04:39 AMreport abuse
  • Timing Is Everything
    As a retired military veteran, I have to agree with you about the message we are sending. Many of these projects are designed to keep the U.S. Military ahead of everyone else in the world. Let's keep in mind what we are talking about. Defense spending, not offense spending.
    By Terry @ 04/07/09 08:53:52 AMreport abuse
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement