Rebuttal of Joe Biden’s lies about foreign policy

Vice President Joe Biden recently delivered a foreign policy speech in NY. The Obama team is very worried (and rightly so) that Republicans will use their disastrous foreign policy record against them, so they’re desperately defending it with lies while also making up lies about Mitt Romney.

I’ll just use a few issues to illustrate the point: Russia, North Korea, Iran, and the Communists in Latin America.

Biden alleges that the Obama Admin’s reset (read: appeasement) policy towards Russia has been a success, whereas Romney’s tough policy would lead to war and would be a return to Cold War days. But that is a blatant lie.

Firstly, Romney is NOT advocating a return to the Cold War years. He’s merely assessing Russia on the basis of its actual ACTIONS, not Medvedev’s pretty words. And Russia’s actions have been extremely hostile to the US: supplying Syria, Iran, and Venezuela with arms; publicly feting Assad, Ahmadinejad, Khamenei, Chavez, Ortega, the Castro brothers, and Kim Jong Il; building a nuclear reactor in Iran and supplying Iran with tons of nuclear fuel that the IRI is using to build nuclear weapons; shielding Iran, NK, and Syria from sanctions at the UNSC; threatening America’s allies such as Poland with a preemptive nuclear strike; threatening to aim BMs at all European countries if the US provides a BMD shield to Europe; and even bombing the US Embassy in Tbilisi in 2009, a direct terrorist attack against the US for which the Kremlin STILL hasn’t been accountable. (During the Cold War, the Soviet Union never dared to do this.) Russia IS America’s #1 geopolitical foe, as evidenced by its ACTIONS, not its nice words.

Secondly, Romney knows that most of Russia’s top leaders, including Putin and Lavrov, are KGB thugs.

Thirdly, Romney is not proposing to start a war with Russia or even cut off all contacts with it. He merely proposes to act tough with Russia (short of war): hold it accountable for its disastrous human rights record and arms sales to America’s enemies, pressure it morally and economically, pursue missile defense in Europe without regard for Russia’s threats, and withdraw from any treaties unfavorable for the US, including the disastrous New START treaty.

Fourthly, a tough policy of the kind that Romney is advocating is exactly what won, and ended, the Cold War (on America’s terms), thanks to Ronald Reagan, NOT Joe Biden. And as Senator, Biden opposed it (as did Obama). He was dead wrong about Moscow then, and he’s dead wrong about Moscow now. If it had been up to Biden, the USSR would’ve still existed.

As Ronald Reagan showed, if you build up your military and pressure your enemies, you don’t have to go to war, because no one dares to challenge you.

Biden lied in that speech that:

Gov. Romney is mired in a Cold War mindset,” Mr. Biden said. “Gov. Romney was part of a very small group of Cold War holdovers who never met an arms-control treaty that he likes. He was way out of the mainstream in this issue.”

These claims are blatant lies. Romney is not mired in a Cold War mindset, he merely sees Russia for what it really is: an aggressive, anti-American, dictatorial, KGB-run state. The disastrous New START, which Biden was apparently referring to, was opposed by far more people than “a very small group of Cold War holdovers”. It was opposed by 29 Senators (and would’ve been opposed by far more if they hadn’t been bribed by the Obama Administration with mirage promises of nuclear modernization), many experienced arms-control negotiators (including Fred Ikle and John Bolton), and many other Republicans. It is a disastrous treaty that should’ve never been ratified. It was shamefully railroaded by Obama and Harry Reid in the lame duck session of the 111th Congress, the most infamous Congress in history. It was Obama and Biden who were and are out of the mainstream on this treaty.

I will not repeat all of this disastrous treaty’s flaws here. To summarize:

  • It requires America to deeply cut its arsenal of nuclear warheads and their strategic delivery systems, by 170, while not requiring Russia to eliminate a single warhead or delivery system, because Russia was well under the treaty ceiling when it was ratified. In fact, it allows Russia to add such weapons.
  • It does nothing about Russia’s huge arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, in which it has a huge lead over America.
  • It imposes sweeping restrictions on missile defense. Its preamble says that as Russia’s (and America’s) offensive strategic arsenals are drawn down, America’s missile defense systems must also be cut. The treaty bans the conversion of ICBM siloes and launchers to interceptor missile siloes and launchers, and creates a Bilateral Consultative Commission with powers to impose even more sweeping restrictions.

Russia succeeded in forcing Obama to agree to sweeping missile defense restrictions in return for a useless arms reduction treaty, something that the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II Administrations never did, even though Moscow strongly pressured them, as revealed by SORT negotiator Douglas Feith.

Indeed, as everyone knows, Gorbachev broke two summits with Reagan when the Gipper refused to give in on SDI. Yet, Reagan held firm. Not so with Obama, who thinks that huge unilateral concessions are the way to placate Moscow. The Kremlin has simply pocketed them and given nothing in return. That is the essence of Obama’s failed “reset” policy, of which Biden was the original author.

It isn’t true that Romney “never met an arms control treaty he liked” – Romney did not, AFAIK, oppose START-1, START-2, the SORT, the NPT, or the INF Treaty – but the Obama team and the leftists who run the State Department have never met an arms control treaty they didn’t like, even if it was deeply unfavorable for the US, like the New START. And that’s the one treaty Romney is on record opposing.

Come to think of it, all the arms control treaties of the world have abysmally failed to stem, let alone prevent, the proliferation of WMDs and ballistic missiles, or of any weapons whatsoever. More than 4 decades of such treaties have utterly failed to stop the proliferation of WMDs (China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Israel all possess nuclear weapons and Iran is on its way) or ballistic missiles (30 countries have them). It’s time to say this blunt truth (which the Obama Admin and the arms control community won’t like): that arms control treaties are not even worth the paper they are printed on. They are completely worthless. They only limit free countries’ armaments and militaries while completely failing to restrain rogue states.

Besides Russia and arms control, Obama has also failed on many other fronts. He has completely failed to stop Iran from accelerating its nuclear program (aided by Russia). His sanctions are so weak and contain so many loopholes that they’re laughable. Iran’s words and actions are growing ever more belligerent, the number of spinning centrifuges is growing, and so is Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium. There is only one way to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and that is to bomb Iran, which Obama, despite his pious promises, has  removed from the table. Obama’s 2009 overture to Iran was greeted with contempt and laughter by Tehran.

On North Korea, he has continued previous Administrations’ policies of appeasement and concessions, which Pyongyang always pockets and then violates its commitments and pursues aggressive actions. Obama’s appeasement policy was not altered even by the sinking of the Korean ship Cheonan, the shelling of South Korean islands by the KPA, or the latest North Korean BM test. After each attack or provocation, Washington’s response has been the same: appeasement and more concessions. (And Obama is a master practitioner of appeasement.) Romney wants to change this.

Obama has also been appeasing Communists and socialists in Latin America: listening to Daniel Ortega curse America, shaking hands with Raul Castro and Hugo Chavez, allowing Cuba to rejoin the OAS, and taking Argentina’s side on the Falklands dispute.

While appeasing America’s enemies, Obama has been knifing America’s allies in the back. Britain’s reward for deploying 10,000 soldiers to Afghanistan and for those guys dying alongside US troops was that the Obama Admin has taken Argentina’s side on the Falklands by calling for negotiations (when there is nothing to negotiate about; the Falklands and their residents are British and it’s a settled issue) and referring to them as the Malvinas. Israel has been castigated for building settlements in Jerusalem and Obama demands that it withdraw to indefensible armistice lines. And on 9/17/2009, the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, Obama threw that country and the Czech Republic under the bus by cancelling plans to deploy missile defense systems there, replacing them with mirage promises of plans based, as the Defense Science Board and the GAO have repeatedly pointed out, on nonexistent technology that will take a lot of time and money to develop.

And yet, Biden falsely claims that

“I promise you the president has a big stick. I promise you.”

No, Obama has a very tiny stick, as America’s enemies around the world already know. More worryingly, he’s deeply cutting America’s stick with his deep defense cuts: budgetary, programmatic, force-structural, and in the nuclear arsenal. He’s even threatening to veto any attempt to save defense from sequestration!

Obama’s and Biden’s promises are worthless and not credible, as most Americans already know. When Election Day comes, I’m confident they’ll reject Biden’s useless promises and elect Mitt Romney.


In defense of the Air Force’s 5th gen fighters

Few weapon systems have been maligned so much as the Air Force’s 5th generation fighters: F-22s and F-35s. The opponents of a strong defense routinely malign both of them with half-truths or outright blatant lies in order to convince the public and the Congress to cancel the F-35 program just like the DOD and the Congress cancelled the F-22.

But these aircraft are actually excellent, deserving of funding, and as good as (or, in the F-22’s case, superior to) anything that the Russians and the Chinese have deployed or are now developing.

Critics have tried to use a few crashes involving F-22s as evidence that the aircraft is crappy. But the November 2010 crash of an F-22 was actually caused by the pilot, according to the USAF’s official investigation report, although the Service says it is not blaming him:

“Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told a congressional panel Tuesday that the Air Force did not blame Capt. Jeff Haney for the fatal November 2010 F-22 crash in Alaska, despite the service’s own report that said Haney was at fault.

“We did not assign blame to the pilot,” Schwartz said during a House Appropriations Defense subcommittee hearing. “… This was a complex contingency that he did his best to manage and, in the end, we lost aircraft control.”

The Air Force’s accident investigation report on the crash, released in December, stated that Haney did not react quickly enough to activate the Raptor’s emergency oxygen system or recover from a dive as he struggled to breathe.

“I find the cause of the mishap was the MP’s [mishap pilot] failure to recognize and initiate a timely dive recovery due to channelized attention, breakdown of visual scan and unrecognized spatial disorientation,” Brig. Gen. James Browne, the president of the accident investigation board, wrote in the report.”

It is true, however, that the plane’s oxygen generation system shut down because of a bleed-air problem:

The report also stated that the F-22’s On-board Oxygen Generating System, or OBOGS, which had been under investigation, did not malfunction, but the device did shut down because of a bleed-air problem.”

Nonetheless, strident liberals continue to blame the fightertype and claim that Pentagon officials are simply trying to “protect” a program that has already been closed:

“Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., questioned Schwartz and Donley, saying that “there’s been a suggestion … saying that the service is trying to protect its fifth-generation fighter and those involved in the program.””

Yet, Raptors have flown 8,000 flight hours since they were lifted from their grounding in September 2011.

Critics have similarly been attacking the F-35 program ever since its inception. Their attacks have intensified since the USAF announced recently that it would reduce the requirement for the A variant’s combat radius by just 5 miles, to 612 miles.

Moreover, as USAF Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz says, this is more cost-effective than sticking to obsolete requirements set more than a decade ago.

But this would still mean that the F-35A will have a far longer combat radius than the B and C models as well as most of the short-range strike aircraft operated by the US military, the sole exceptions being F-111s, A-6s, and A-7s.

Extremely liberal Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) has recently decried the F-35 program and asked how can Republicans justify the program and its cost ($388 bn, which he rounds to $400 bn) while allegedly cutting food stamp spending, student loans, the Medicare program, and other social programs. He denies that it’s worth investing in.

Here’s how Republicans can justify it.

Firstly, defense is the #1 Constitutional duty (not just a legitimate Constitutional function) of the federal government. Investing in any programs needed or useful for defense is Constitutionally legitimate. OTOH, federal social programs, including food stamps, student lones, and Medicare, are unconstitutional.

Secondly, the F-35 is absolutely needed for America’s defense – not merely to replace legacy aircraft (F-15s, F-16s, A-10s, AV-8s, F/A-18s, EA-6s), but also to reduce the number of aircraft types used by the military (which will produce large annual savings) and to give the military a large increase in capability, very much needed as America’s enemies (China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, etc.) increase THEIR capability. The above-mentioned legacy aircraft are not survivable in modern combat environments and would be easy target for enemy SAMs. F-35s are stealthy, very survivable, and can therefore survive in any, except the most highly defended, environments, and eliminate air as well as ground targets easily. F-35s are currently the only true fifth-generation fighters in the world. Only they and F-22s can defeat the most modern fighters designed by America’s adversaries (J-10s, JF-17, MiG-29SMTs, Flanker variants, PAK FAs, and J-20s). F-15s (even F-15SEs), F-16s, and F/A-18s (even the E and F models) cannot. These legacy aircraft wouldn’t, in fact, stand the slightest chance against these modern Russian and Chinese aircraft.

Thirdly, the F-35’s cost could be reduced by a full 10% if the Congress would allow the DOD to produce F-35s in bulk, rather than in a piecemeal manner. It is Holt and his Congressional colleagues who are to blame for this 10% part of the program cost.

Fourthly, the Republican budget plan, while preventing sequestration of defense spending, would nonetheless retain First Tier BCA-ordered defense budget cuts and reduce total federal spending while reinvigorating the economy and balancing the budget within a decade (under dynamic scoring).

Fifthly, it is not true that, as Holt has claimed, the F-35 program’s cost is bigger than the entire defense budget “a decade ago”). “A decade ago” was FY2002, and the defense budget for that year was over $400 bn. By contrast, the F-35 program’s cost, $388 bn (not $400 bn as Holt falsely claims) is even smaller than the defense budget for FY2001 ($390 bn in today’s money).

So Congressman Holt’s claims are blatant lies.

The DOD’s fifth generation fighter programs are fully justified.

Ann-Marie Murrell shows her true face

More than two weeks ago, I had a very fierce argument with Ann-Marie Murrell of I would like to present the full facts to you, my Dear Readers, on this subject, so that you will know who Ann-Marie Murrell really is.

Two weeks ago, I saw Murrell praising Jenny-Beth Martin, the leader of the so-called “Tea Party Patriots” (a libertarian, pro-Ron Paul group masquerading as a Tea Party organization), as a “great woman conservative leader” on the Politichicks TV channel (she and her Politichicks colleagues conducted an interview with JBM in their studio) and on her FP profile.

I was outraged, because I know that JBM is a libertarian who supports deep defense cuts, that the TPP support deep defense cuts and isolationism (they demanded that Presidential candidates commit to immediately withdrawing the US from NATO, the UN, and NAFTA), and that JBM has called all Republican candidates “losers” and has said that in a race between Obama and a Republican candidate she wouldn’t know whom to vote for.

So I pointed out these facts, as well as the unavoidable reality that America, the GOP, and the conservative movement cannot have it both ways: either America will deeply cut (and thus gut) its defense (and the conservative movement and the GOP will support such policy), or it will not.

Either the GOP and the conservative movement will go libertarian and thus leftist, and embrace weak-defense and isolationist policies, or they will not.

Either America will recklessly cut its defense and become a military weakling like European countries, or it will not.

I also pointed out that Jenny Beth Martin called ALL Republican Presidential candidates (including Ron Paul) “losers” just two months ago, and that she’s on record as saying that in race between Obama and a Republican candidate she wouldn’t know whom to vote for.

(After all that Obama has done to America, how can any sane American, let alone any conservative, say that if it came down to Obama vs a Republican, she/he wouldn’t know whom to vote for?)

Yet, when I pointed these facts out on her profile, and called her out for lavishing such undeserved praise on JBM, Murrell became very angry with me. She denied that JBM had ever said such things and claimed that Martin had said she would definitely vote for any Republican against Obama. (But Martin said that a month before she said she wouldn’t know whom to choose: Obama or a Republican.)

In other words, America is at a crossroads. It must choose what it wants to have and what to do. It cannot eat a cookie and still have that cookie. It will either deeply cut (and thus gut) its defense or it will not. As Jesus said, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

And just as President Lincoln was right that America could not permanently remain half-slave and half-free, it cannot have it both ways on defense and foreign policy, and neither can the GOP or the conservative movement.

I pointed out these facts out to Murrell on her public profile and took her to task for lavishing undeserved praise on a faux conservative who is sabotaging the Republican cause, and she reacted very angrily by denying that these statements were ever made, falsely claiming that JBM intended to vote for whichever Republican would the nomination against Obama (now it’s clear that this Republican will be Romney) and based that ridiculous claim on an old, outdated statement Martin had made BEFORE she said she wouldn’t know whom to vote for in a race between Obama and a Republican candidate.

Furthermore, she called JBM her friend, and was outraged that I called Martin a disgusting, vile person for supporting deep defense cuts (about which Martin is on record and is not even trying to deny that she supports them).

Moreover, Murrell accused me of destroying the GOP from within and sewing discord and disunity in the Party, as if I were the one trying to divide the GOP, even though I am on record saying that I would support ANY Republican against Obama, while Martin could not commit herself to voting for any Republican, even Ron Paul, against Obama.

Murrell claimed that I’m trying to divide the GOP and that JBM is on our (conservatives’) side and merely disagrees with me on one issue. But Martin is definitely NOT on our (conservatives’) side (or the GOP’s side) and is definitely NOT a conservative. Firstly, if someone supports deep defense cuts, one is NOT a conservative by any definition of the word. Secondly, if someone supports the disastrous policy of deep defense cuts, that person is NOT on our (conservatives’ or the GOP’s) side anymore than someone calling for steep tax hikes or for socialized medicine. If a person is calling for deep defense cuts, he/she is either extremely stupid or a disgusting, evil person – a wolf in sheep’s clothing. If that is the case, that person is my deadly enemy.

And thus, we argued and argued all day, exchanging 4 posts each, until, when confronted with the full facts for the fourth time and proven wrong, Murrell decided to hide from the truth and unfriended me.

So here are the facts:

  • Ann-Marie Murrell lavished undeserved praise on JBM, calling her “a great woman conservative leader” and a friend of hers.
  • JBM is on record calling all Republican candidates “losers”.
  • The last recorded time she was publicly asked whom she would vote for in a contest between Obama and a Republican candidate, she said she wouldn’t know whom to vote for.
  • Her group, TPP, supports (indeed, demands) an immediate US withdrawal from NATO and NAFTA and new isolationism.
  • Martin herself supports deep defense cuts, including, but not limited to, the sequester.
  • The country and the Republican Party must decide whether to deeply cut, and thus gut, America’s defense or not. It’s an either/or choice; one cannot have it both ways.
  • The country ad the Republican Party must decide whether to support isolationism or not.
  • When faced with all of these facts and called to task for lavishing undeserved praise on JBM, Murrell got angry, displayed temper tantrum, and unfriended me in a typically childish manner.

Judge for yourselves, Dear Readers.

Polls are NOT showing Obama “winning” the race

As is the case every election season, the lamestream media are incessantly trumpetting polls that purport to show that the Democratic Presidential candidate (in this case, Obama) is “winning” the presidential race and holding a huge lead over the Republican candidate. The purpose of this propaganda is clear: to make Republicans think that their electoral effort is a vain one, that they stand no chance of defeating Obama, and that they must just as well give up.

But they are wrong, because the polls are NOT showing Obama “winning the race”. Let’s look at the 8 most recent polls as of today (April 25th, 2012), listed here. The first of these was the Rasmussen poll from April 14th-16th, and the most recent one was conducted by Gallup from April 19th-23rd.

Two of these polls (Rasmussen’s from 4/14-4/16 and Gallup’s from 4/14/-4/18) show Romney leading Obama (by 5 pp and 4 pp, respectively). One other shows Obama and Romney tied at 46% each. But there are 5 polls from this period showing Obama “leading”. So Obama must be leading, right?

Wrong. As Steven Warshawsky pointed out a little less than 4 years ago on AT, there are four problems with polls which should cause you not to take them too seriously. Firstly, polls are often worded in a biased way, which is reflected in their results. Secondly, pollsters almost always adjust polls to give Democrats and Democratic responses greater weight, or select sample groups of voters that are disproportionately Democratic in comparison to actual national party registration. Thirdly, there are many independent voters. And fourthly, the Democratic candidate’s “lead” is usually within the poll’s own margin of error.

Let’s look at these polls. The Economist/YouGov poll from April 14th-April 16th “shows” Obama at 49% and Romney at 42%, but the poll’s MOE is 4 pp. So the correct result could actually be Romney at 46% and Obama at 45%. Very close, but with Romney leading. Similarly, the NBC/WSJ poll from 4/13-4/17 shows Obama at 49% and Romney at 43%, but its MOE is 3.1 pp, so it could actually be Romney at 46.1% and Obama at 45.9% – again, very close, but with Romney leading. And the PPP/DailyKos/SEIU poll that purports to show Obama “leading” Romney 49% to 44% has a MOE of 3.1 pp, so it could actually be Romney at 47.1% and Obama at 45.9%, again, very close, but with Romney leading.

And the other two polls “won” by Obama? The Quinnipiac poll has Obama at 46% and Romney at 42%, and the Gallup poll from 4/19-4/23 purports to show Obama leading Romney by 7 pp, 49% to 42%. The polls’ MOEs are, respectively, 1.9 pp and 3 pp. Ah-ha! Obama is definitely winning the race, because his lead in those polls is beyond the MOE, right? Wrong. Look at the results. According to the Gallup poll, 9%, and according to Quinnipiac, 12% of Americans are undecided. These voters will likely vote for Romney. Certainly there is no reason they will vote for Obama.

Additionally, while this Gallup poll gives Obama a large lead, the previous poll by Gallup – conducted just days earlier, from April 14th to April 18th – showed Romney leading by 5 pp, which suggests that in a matter of 5 days the public shifted in Obama’s favor by a net 12 pp. This is a ludicrous suggestion. Again, to borrow a line from Steven Warshawsky, does anyone know any person who goes through such mental and political gymnastics?

In short, polls are not showing Obama “winning” the race any more than they are showing Romney “winning” the race. The only thing they’re proving is that the race is too close to call and that it won’t be decided until the American people actually step into the voting booths on Election Day. When that day comes, I’m confident the majority of them will pull the lever for Romney.

How Republicans’ various budget plans compare on defense

Because defense is the #1 Constitutional duty of the federal government (see here and here), we need to evaluate how the various budget plans proposed by Republican Congressmen and Senators would fund that Constitutional government function; in other words, how they compare on that score.

Chairman Ryan’s plan would fund defense at $544 bn in FY2013, which is fully adequate in my opinion (unlike the Obama Admin’s budget) and would fund all needed defense programs while preventing drastic force structure reductions. However, it does not appear to repeal sequestration fully; it only directs Committees with jurisdiction over mandatory spending programs to find sufficient savings in them to replace the sequester. Over a decade (FY2013-FY2022), the Ryan Plan would, if implemented by these committees, produce budget savings 3.36 times larger than what the sequester would produce. But that would be contingent on the committees complying with the Budget Resolution (which is not a law) and finding the savings. That is not certain. Recall that the Super Committee created by the Budget Control Act of 2011, and composed of 12 Senators and Congressmen, was also supposed to find savings – to the tune of $1.5 trilion over a decade – and yet, it couldn’t. Therefore, under the Ryan plan, the threat of sequestration would be contingent on the mandatory-spending-jurisdiction-committees complying with a nonbinding resolution. Given that mandatory spending is the third rail of American politics, the chances of them complying with that resolution when it is NONBINDING are low.

The Republican Study Committee’s plan would fund defense at the same level ($544 bn in FY2013 and more in later fiscal years), but it would also permanently remove the threat of sequestration. Forever. Furthermore, it would cut nondefense spending far deeper than the Ryan Plan would and would balance the budget by FY2017, thus undermining defense cuts supporters.

The Toomey Plan would also fully fund defense, at a level similar to that proposed by the RSC and by Chairman Ryan, and it would allow for the possibility of GWOT funding through FY2018 (the last US troops are to leave Afghanistan in FY2015). After that, any GWOT funding would have to be matched, dollar for dollar, with spending cuts elsewhere. However, while the Toomey Plan would balance the budget in FY2020, it does not contain any entitlement reforms. That is a problem because entitlement spending already consumes 63% of the entire federal budget and is growing nonstop on autopilot. It will consume 100% of the federal budget if it remains unchanged.

Sen. Rand Paul’s plan, if implemented, would remove the sequester in FY2013 and, although it retains some of the First Tier BCA cuts and limits defense spending to $542 bn in FY2013 and slows down its growth significantly, it would still fund defense sufficiently. The toplines in his budget plan are sufficient. What is worrisome is some of his specific defense spending proposals; for example, he wants many, if not most, of US bases abroad to be closed and the troops stationed there brought home, even though doing so would actually cost a lot more money than it would save. He also wants to significantly reduce the military’s size and personnel numbers, which would be unwise. Contrary to his claims, the military’s size has already been dramatically reduce since the end of the Cold War: the US military has far fewer troops, aircraft, ships, tanks, and ICBMs than it had in 1990 or 1991.

Sen. Rand Paul also proposes to end the Afghan war in FY2014 and to bring all the troops fighting in Afghanistan home, which I agree with. So, the topline figures that he proposes are sufficient in my judgment; it’s some specific defense policy proposals of his that would be unwise.

So, as far as defense issues are concerned, all four of these proposals are good, but I believe the RSC budget is best and Rand Paul’s budget plan is second-best, while the Toomey budget is not clear about whether it would stop sequestration, and the Ryan Plan bets on the mandatory-spending-jurisdiction committees finding the requisite savings.

So, ironically, for us defense conservatives, the Ryan Plan is not the best plan available. The RSC’s budget blueprint is.



Rebuttal of John Pickerill’s praise of Ron Paul

The leftist libertarian loon John Pickerill, who falsely claims to be a conservative, has endorsed Ron Paul and claims that Paul would be impossible for Obama to defeat, while nominating Romney somehow guarantees Obama a second term. He’s completely wrong, of course, but the most laughable part of his screed is the one in which he claims that Ron Paul supports a strong defense:

“Lastly, Ron Paul believes national defense is the single most important responsibility the Constitution entrusts to the federal government.”

That is a blatant lie, but then again, blatant lies are the only things one can expect from John Pickerill and other leftist libertarians.

The truth is that Ron Paul could not care less about defense. He stridently opposes a strong defense and does not believe that defense is the federal government’s (or anyone else’s) responsibility at all. He has always supported, and continues to support, deep defense cuts which would GUT the US military. In 2010, he cosponsored deep cuts to personnel numbers, the force structure (i.e. the size of the US military), modernization programs, O&M funds, and the nuclear arsenal together with his fellow strident liberals Barney Frank and Ron Wyden. Today, he supports the sequestration of defense spending (which would totally gut the military, see here: ) and cuts BEYOND sequestration. He even denies that sequestration would result in any defense spending cuts at all and claims it would produce only reductions in defense spending growth, even though this is a blatant lie, as proven, for example, here:

Ron Paul supports deep cuts even to defense programs that protect ONLY the US. As an example, he has repeatedly voted to cut the Ground Based Interceptor program by $100 mn. The GBI, also known as the Ground Based Midcourse Defense System, is a missile defense system consisting of 30 interceptors based in AK and CA. It protects ONLY the United States and no other country (except Canada, which is contigous to the US). Its sole purpose is to defend the US homeland. Yet, Paul opposes even THIS program and has repeatedly voted to cut it.

@To quote Ronald Reagan, “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.””

One woefully out-of-date quote from Ronald Reagan (uttered before Reagan really knew Paul) from 1976 proves NOTHING. Ron Paul later showed his real face and proved himself to be a strident liberal, a total nonconservative, and a traitor to the GOP who called Reagan a totally failed President and resigned from the GOP because of him. (But in 1996, this saboteur came back crawling to the GOP.)

“Ron Paul will make sure our military spending is only for actual national security.”

It is ALREADY used only for actual national security. Hint: fighting terrorists in Afghanistan is CLOSELY related to America’s national security, despite Pickerill’s pious denials. And no, weapon programs don’t exist to enrich contractors, they exist to equip the military with the most modern weapons and equipment that America can make, equipment superior to that of America’s enemies, and for that reason, they are needed. If people get thousands of jobs as a result of producing these weapons, so much the better.

“He will keep our troops out of unconstitutional wars that entangle us in failed nation-building missions, so our troops can come home to defend America’s borders instead.”

The Afghan and Iraqi wars were authorized by Congress (by overwhelming, bipartisan margins, I might add). They were Constitutional. Furthermore, while I oppose nationbuilding and peacekeeping missions, bringing all troops back home would be much more expensive than keeping them where they are, or at least keeping some troops in strategic bases overseas.

“He will not pander to defense contracting lobbyists.”

Nor is the current Congress doing so, as evidenced by the passage of the Budget Control Act, which mandates over a trillion dollar in core defense budget cuts (including the sequester). If there are defense lobbyists on Capitol Hill, they are doing a bad job.

“He will protect our taxpayer dollars from being spent on a failed foreign policy of trying to be the policeman of the world.”

The US is not (and should not be) the world’s policeman. Any claims to the contrary are false. Furthermore, while any attempts by the US to be the world’s policeman would result in failure, isolationism, as proposed by Paul and Pickerill, would result in an even bigger failure, and a catastrophic one at that. Just like it failed in the run-up to WW2. Ron Paul’s isolationist “see no evil, hear no evil, if we leave them alone they’ll leave us alone” loony foreign policy is doomed to fail.

Furthermore, Paul would actually have been the EASIEST to beat of all Republican candidates, even easier to beat than Gingrich. That swivel-eyed loon who coddles truthers, Nazis, KKK thugs, 9/11 truthers, racists, and anti-Semites, and is a bone fide 9/11 truther and anti-Semite himself, would be so easy to beat that he would not win a single state against Obama, just like he failed to win a single state when he ran in 1988, 2008, and this time around. Paul is a loser and will never be President. He will be going home to his rocking chair after this election season is over, and not a moment too soon.

A conservative foreign policy: 10 basic principles

Here’s my proposal of a conservative foreign policy, or at least of 10 basic principles for it, along with practical examples of how these principles should be applied. This is a foreign policy approach that every conservative, moderate, independent, and even some libertarians should support.

1) The US must always maintain a strong, generously funded defense. Deep cuts to defense spending must be prevented.

The Constitution makes it clear that providing for a strong, generously funded defense is the highest duty of the federal government, and one of the reasons the federal government was created and the Constitution adopted in the first place. But defense cannot be maintained on the cheap (European countries have tried to do so and have failed); deep defense spending cuts would cripple the US military. Therefore, sequestration and part of the BCA First Tier budget cuts must be cancelled and replaced with spending cuts elsewhere, as the Ryan Plan, the Toomey Balanced Budget Plan, and the RSC’s Budget Plan would all do.

2) Unless there is an imminent threat to America’s national security, the President cannot go to war without a Congressional declaration of war.

If a British naval squadron was coming close to attack USN ships stationed in Norfolk by surprise, would President Madison wait for the Congress to declare war? Of course not. If there is an imminent threat to national security, the President is authorized and even obligated to act immediately.

But the key word here is “imminent”. If there is no immediate threat, the President cannot go to war without a Congressional declaration of war, John Yoo’s fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding.

3) The US should not go to war unless there is a serious threat to its national security, its crucial interests, or its key allies. Furthermore, US troops should be committed to war only with clear goals, a clear strategy to achieve these goals, full resources to accomplish them, and an exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement, and should be deployed only if non-war means have failed.

This is a summation of the Weinberger and Powell Doctrines, which were good guidelines as to when and how use military force and should be reinstated.

4) When it’s necessary to intervene militarily abroad, the US military should come in, smash its enemies, and then leave. No nationbuilding, no peacekeeping operations Kosovo-style, and no democratizing of defeated countries.

Had the Nation followed this principle after 9/11, it would not have become entangled in Afghanistan.

5) American troops should be used only to defend America and its allies, deter aggressors, and punish them if they attack. They are not, and must never be treated as, politicians’ toys. Their mission is NOT to topple all dictators, democratize the world, nationbuild, referee civil wars, keep peace between warring ethnic factions in irrelevant countries, or right every wrong in this world.

The DOD should issue a Mission Statement for the US military along these lines.

6) The US should honor its treaty commitments to its allies.

If the US wants other countries to honor their obligations, it must honor its own obligations. At the same time, America’s allies must start contributing more to their own defense and to missions they undertake together with the US.

7) America’s global military deployments need to be periodically reviewed and adjusted as necessary.

While it would be foolish (and extremely expensive) to withdraw all US troops from all foreign countries, some deployments (in Europe) are relics of the Cold War.

8) The US should always side with its allies against its foes, rivals, and unhelpful actors.

Therefore, for example, in the dispute over the Falklands, the US should side with Britain (which is America’s #1 ally), and not with Argentina, which is a corrupt, badly-run, irrelevant country closely allied with Hugo Chavez.

9) No US troops should ever be under foreign command.

10) The US does not need the permission of the UN, NATO, any other multilateral organization, or of any foreign country to act militarily abroad. It needs the permission only of its own Congress. While allies’ opinion should be considered and given some weight, ultimately, America’s own interests and needs must prevail.

Therefore, Sec. Panetta’s garbage that the US government would seek the UN’s or NATO’s permission to act militarily, but not that of the US Congress, needs to be repudiated.